0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
No requirement for a photon to have a gravitational field. Indeed it can't as it has no mass. Please don't make unwarranted assertions - this is physics, not politics. The gravitational bending of light is evidence of gravity warping spacetime.
Also incorrect to say they are particles. Electromagnetic radiation can be modelled as particles or waves. Don't allow outdated classical models to determine your opinion of quantum phenomena if you want to understand physics.
which should put you straight on that matter. However some of the rest of the source is poorly expressed and potentially confusing.
It's a matter of definitionThere are about a million YT videos of tesla coils lighting fluorescent tubes.
Would the experiment be affected by individual photons leaving the emitter from different parts of the emitter at slightly different angles, seperated by microns perhaps. Would the photons trajectory be affected by the atmoshere it is travelling through towards the double slits. Is the photons path as straight as invisaged in the experiment. Fringing affects around the slots are not mentioned. Are there anyother things not considered in the experiment. ??
Reality doesn't agree with you. It's high school experiment
I am on holiday and answering this, I cant believe it, I must need a holiday.
Quote from: alancalverd on 19/04/2019 12:18:04No requirement for a photon to have a gravitational field. Indeed it can't as it has no mass. Please don't make unwarranted assertions - this is physics, not politics. The gravitational bending of light is evidence of gravity warping spacetime. Of course there is, photons are attracted to each other by gravity.
This is due to gravitational warping of space around all forms of energy. E=m.c.c + p.v includes photons which have energy in the form of inertia.
Quote from: alancalverd on 19/04/2019 12:18:04Also incorrect to say they are particles. Electromagnetic radiation can be modelled as particles or waves. Don't allow outdated classical models to determine your opinion of quantum phenomena if you want to understand physics.It is absolutely correct to say they are particles, and it is also absolutely correct to say they are not waves. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the wave particle duality. The wave is a probability wave, ie a mathematical probanility of finding the particle in a particular position. This might help you https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_probability.htmlThe wave is a mathematical probability wave of finding a particle along that path. It s not a real thing, the only thing real about the photon is the particle, which moves erratically so the location can only be predicted by using a probality wave.
It would be a better use of your time!
If photons are atracted to one another, why does light always diverge from its source?
energy and inertia are quite distinct quantities, with different dimensions.
On the contrary, photons move through space in absolutely straight lines (alright, geodesics if you must) at a constant speed. Nothing remotely erratic about it.
Its a question of interpretation, in high school people are taught they are observing a wave particle effect, in an idealized experiment showing a particle hit a photographic screen, without discussing the mathematical probability wave function.
I dont think radio waves can make a TV screen glow, the same way an electron beam can, or even reproduce a double slit experiment results in the same way a particle can.
Quote from: flummoxed on 17/04/2019 17:14:06I dont think radio waves can make a TV screen glow, the same way an electron beam can, or even reproduce a double slit experiment results in the same way a particle can. is just plain wrong.Why not accept that?
When part of a radio wave is absorbed by a receiver, the rest of the radio wave continues to exist.
Quote from: flummoxed on 23/04/2019 21:05:35When part of a radio wave is absorbed by a receiver, the rest of the radio wave continues to exist.Prove it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/04/2019 21:07:40Quote from: flummoxed on 23/04/2019 21:05:35When part of a radio wave is absorbed by a receiver, the rest of the radio wave continues to exist.Prove it.Do you use a mobile phone or watch tv Q.E.D
A single photon is not a radio wave.
Quote from: alancalverd on 22/04/2019 17:59:41If photons are atracted to one another, why does light always diverge from its source?Individual Photons which transmit the electro magnetic force perhaps interact, and the emf is a stronger effect than the gravity effect
Yes I do. And the bloke next door is watching the same programme, but he and I receive different photons.
What frequency are your different photons working on
Do they perhaps have no frequency, or wave, or electro magnetic properties other than perhaps inertia
Quote from: flummoxed on 25/04/2019 22:16:01What frequency are your different photons working onNot sure; I think it's typically something like 500MHz.Quote from: flummoxed on 25/04/2019 22:16:01Do they perhaps have no frequency, or wave, or electro magnetic properties other than perhaps inertiaNoThey have a frequency that I can look up or measure.They have wave properties that I can demonstrate by using different antenna designs and they have EM properties that I can demonstrate by things like Faraday rotation, polarisation etc.
so I assume you are talking about radio waves and virtual photons, not real photons, with localized measurable spin and momentum.
Quote from: flummoxed on 26/04/2019 20:09:50so I assume you are talking about radio waves and virtual photons, not real photons, with localized measurable spin and momentum.Virtual photons are something else entirely.How have you come to the conclusion that radio waves are different from light waves (or, equivalently, how have you come to the conclusion that radio photons are different from light photons)?Apart from the human scale- an accident of evolution- what's the difference?
I really don't see why you are trying to make this everyday, fundamental process more complicated than it is.
Can a photon be visualized? We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties
This statement is patently incorrect since a particle structure of a photon negates the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's electromagnetic wave.
I think I stumbled on the answer in wiki
Would I be correct in thinking that virtual particle pairs coming into existence momentarily around the transmitting antennae, are separated by the electro magnetic field, become real, but not stable so decay into real photons.
Does the receiving antennae, absorb the inertia of the photons, or is their some other virtual particle interaction.?
In any case when a single photon is absorbed it ceases to exist. When part of a radio wave is absorbed by a receiver, the rest of the radio wave continues to exist. There is no instantaneous wave function collapse.
You are misunderstanding the meaning of the wave particle duality.
Individual Photons which transmit the electro magnetic force perhaps interact, and the emf is a stronger effect than the gravity effect
Quote from: alancalverd on 22/04/2019 17:59:41On the contrary, photons move through space in absolutely straight lines (alright, geodesics if you must) at a constant speed. Nothing remotely erratic about it. I dont think Feynman would agree with you. But photons bashing their way through the atmosphere are deflected, by air molecules, and there is no such thing as empty space, its got dust and a very small amount of hydrogen. You also have the dark matter effect, causing allsorts of speculation.
Since you are not going to correct this i will, Photons have no charge or magnetic field and are not deflected by them in any way. Which leaves you with > they are deflected by something else, like the air they are moving through or quantum foam.
A photon is a quantum thing best explained at the quantum level, and movement is best predicted by a probaility wave,
The wave is a mathematical probability wave of finding a particle along that path. It s not a real thing,
Am I correct "the superposition of particles is not required to explain the double slit experiment" ?
Quote from: flummoxed on 07/04/2019 12:38:06Can a photon be visualized? We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle propertiesThis statement is patently incorrect since a particle structure of a photon negates the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's electromagnetic wave. Also, an expanding electromagnetic field cannot maintain the particle structure of a propagating electromagnetic photon. The wave-particle duality theory of light is mutually exclusive as Harvard is to yale.
Quote from: flummoxed on Yesterday at 10:33:29Would I be correct in thinking that virtual particle pairs coming into existence momentarily around the transmitting antennae, are separated by the electro magnetic field, become real, but not stable so decay into real photons.The best way to visualise this is to start with the standard illustration of the em wave/photon. In this the oscillating electric and magnetic field vectors have a definite amplitude/phase relationship and the 2 field vectors are clearly linked and interdependent.Around the antenna, there are high intensity (relatively) electric and magnetic fields and some of these can be thought of as feeding back both into the antenna and into the near fields - similar to back emf in a coil. So there is no clear, stable relationship between the field vectors and the field intensities are irregular, and so no stable propagation.
In QFT particles are waves and a photon is now described under QFT which uses the normal modes of the (source-free) electromagnetic field from Maxwell’s equations and views them as quantum oscillators. So the waves we are talking about are the same waves as described by Maxwell, and the photon as a quantisation of this wave.