0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: alright1234 on 27/04/2019 22:03:14This 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.Actually, it's experimentally known to be true.If reality does not agree with your ideas ,it isn't because reality has made a mistake.
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.
We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties
An expanding electromagnetic field cannot form the structure of Planck's EM photon, Einstein's EM photon, QED photon or a string photon.
You said that this "We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties" is false.In fact it is clearly true- because we do, in fact, describe photons that way.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/04/2019 19:31:10You said that this "We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties" is false.In fact it is clearly true- because we do, in fact, describe photons that way.Oddly, he is actually correct, though I doubt whether he understands why. Depending on the circumstances we describe electromagnetic radiation with wave or particle mathematics, but not both at once.
How do you depict the structure of an electromagnetic photon?
Quote from: alright1234 on 03/05/2019 18:18:12How do you depict the structure of an electromagnetic photon?Usually with a purple marker pen.Fortunately, it doesn't actually matter.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 18:58:48Quote from: alright1234 on 03/05/2019 18:18:12How do you depict the structure of an electromagnetic photon?Usually with a purple marker pen.Fortunately, it doesn't actually matter. If you cannot explain how an expanding electromagnetic field forms a particle structure you would have essentially discredit all of theoretical physics (quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, string theory, quantum field theory, quantum chromodynamics, plasma physics, condense matter physics, and particle physics that use the gauge) and you would be the greatest physicists that ever lived!
IF (note big IF) a photon has a shape approximately like a spinning circle, can red and blue shift be explained solely in terms of special relativity. ie blue shifted its radius is shrunk and spin rate increases, red shifted it's is stretched and spin rate would be reduced.
If you cannot explain how an expanding electromagnetic field forms a particle structure you would have essentially discredit all of theoretical physics (quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, string theory, quantum field theory, quantum chromodynamics, plasma physics, condense matter physics, and particle physics that use the gauge) and you would be the greatest physicists that ever lived!
Quote from: flummoxed on 06/05/2019 15:56:35IF (note big IF) a photon has a shape approximately like a spinning circle, can red and blue shift be explained solely in terms of special relativity. ie blue shifted its radius is shrunk and spin rate increases, red shifted it's is stretched and spin rate would be reduced. What if they are shaped like unicorns?
an special relativity explain red and blue shift of objects with no mass
Can I just clarify this, are you saying there is no clear link between virtual particle pairs around the transmitter, acquiring energy, momentum. Followed by them becoming real photons due to either instability or coming back together and annihilating each, not unlike a positron electron collision, but at much lower energy levels.
Are you viewing the photons in a quantized radio wave as individual photons, or something else?
Since the electromagnetic field of Maxwell's theory based on Faraday's induction effect is expanding, how do you depict the particle STRUCTURE of a Planck's EM photon, Einstein's EM photon, QM photon, QED photon, QFT photon or a string photon.
For instance maxwells equations state an EM wave travels from A to B, and shows how it spreads out.
Quote from: flummoxed on 06/05/2019 16:24:09an special relativity explain red and blue shift of objects with no massYes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
By the way, you might want to read this which puts what Strassler was saying in different words. https://www.livescience.com/55833-what-are-virtual-particles.htmlOne of my pet hates is the way people take physics shorthand and reinterpret it as a ‘thing’.Quote from: flummoxed on 28/04/2019 14:33:17Are you viewing the photons in a quantized radio wave as individual photons, or something else? They are individual photons. Not so obvious as the low energy means they are in the thermal noise and you need cooled detectors to find them.
Would I be correct in thinking that a blue shifted unicorn would spin faster than a red shifted unicorn?
Quote from: flummoxed on 06/05/2019 19:45:35Would I be correct in thinking that a blue shifted unicorn would spin faster than a red shifted unicorn? No. If an object appears blue-shifted in your reference frame, all that means is that the distance between you and the object is decreasing over time. If red-shifted, then it is increasing instead. Unless gravity is involved, that is. Gravity can cause blue-shifting and red-shifting as well.
how does is its energy increase.
Do they spin faster and contract when blue shifted, and spin slower and expand when red shifted.