Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: ron123456 on 27/04/2022 18:57:49
-
I suspect Magnetic Field Tunnels.......Is it just coincidental that Visible Electromagnetism displays dual particle / wave characteristics due to the photon Energy Size within the Tunnel itself ??.......thx again
.
-
I suspect Magnetic Field Tunnels.......Is it just coincidental that Visible Electromagnetism displays dual particle / wave characteristics due to the photon Energy Size within the Tunnel itself ??.......thx again
Not sure what you mean by tunnel. Photons are waves that consist of an oscillating electric and magnetic field and propagate through empty space at a speed of c. No tunneling needed.
-
I apologize for the bad quality....If I compress another file , then it wont be opened by anyone (2.5 MB too small ! !)...Yes, I,m taking the view opposite from the cross product of the EM WAVE and gone to viewing from actually riding the QUANTA PARTICLE....
-
I,m taking the view opposite from the cross product of the EM WAVE and gone to viewing from actually riding the QUANTA PARTICLE....
What is that supposed to mean?
-
I guess what it means, is that the light energy quanta is always defined by the EM wave theory and not ever with the particle viewpoint....It's just a digression with many possibile elaborations......thx again
-
I guess what it means, is that the light energy quanta is always defined by the EM wave theory and not ever with the particle viewpoint....It's just a digression with many possibile elaborations......thx again
That is incorrect, the photoelectric effect is not a wave phenomena.
-
Yes, I'm not stating what I'm trying to say correctly......Every descriptive explanation of a photon is done with EM theory (Maxwell's equations for radiative regeneration and propagation of light, Poynting vector for directional energy flux, etc ).....Is it possible that most of the magnetic field associated with a photon, if not all of the magnetic field associated with the quanta of energy, goes into forming a magnetic field tunnel that the photon travels in and through?....This would provide more of a particle description in addition to the wave description that is so abundant.....thx again for your patience
-
Every descriptive explanation of a photon is done with EM theory (Maxwell's equations for radiative regeneration
Not really.
Maxwell's equations don't involve photons and vice versa.
-
Yes, but perhaps it does?....Perhaps only a percentage of the electric field is used in regeneration of the wave and the other proportion goes into making the quanta from the electric field and the corresponding amount of magnetic field is flipped into a tunnel to propel the quanta in addition to regenerating the wave.....just perhaps an elaboration on Maxwell's equations....Thx
-
You keep talking about tunnels; what do you mean?
-
Do Energetic Photons travel within Magnetic or is it Electric Field Tunnels?
Rather than "Tunnel", I think that the term you are looking for is "Electromagnetic Field".
The electromagnetic field fills all of space, and photons propagate as disturbances on this universal field.
"Tunnel" implies a narrow path through which the photon would have to travel.
- The idea of a tunnel has problems with the double-slit experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment): Which slit does the tunnel pass through?
- However, the "electromagnetic field" allows propagation of photons in any direction through space, which is what we observe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field
Magnetic or is it Electric Field?
In ancient Greek times, magnetism (eg in compass) and electricity (eg from rubbing amber) were thought to be quite different things.
- However, later experimenters (like Michael Faraday) discovered that you could turn electricity into magnetism (and vice-versa).
- Maxwell tied it together mathematically to show that electricity and magnetism were just different aspects of the electromagnetic field.
- Even later, Einstein showed that photons on this electromagnetic field were quantized (a packet of energy)
- Even later, it was shown that these quanta obeyed the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
- A more general Quantum Field Theory is now applied to all subatomic particles
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
-
- Even later, Einstein showed that photons on this electromagnetic field were quantized (a packet of energy)
AFAIK, it was Max Planck who proposed that radiation is quantized, without giving physical mechanism/model, as the result of his study on black body radiation. Einstein proposed photon model to explain it.
-
Who says that a magnetic field within a magnetic field cannot preserve Maxwell's equations....Perhaps a photon can act like an electron and produce a magnetic field tunnel (perhaps splitting at random to preserve double slit) and used for propelling itself......
-
You need to say what you think "tunnel" means.
It already has a well defined meaning in quantum mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
but that doesn't seem to be what you mean.
-
Another example of confusing mathematical models with reality. Wave and particle models are used to predict the behavior and interactions of electromagnetic radiation, and we do from time to time create and observe various forms of waveguide consistent with the Maxwellian equations, but the idea of a particle or a wave creating something ahead of itself in order to move through it does not add to our understanding or consist with observation.
The principle is nevertheless applied by fish and fast naval vessels which exude protein or air bubbles respectively in order to reduce the local drag of the water they are moving though. I like the idea of a "jellied eel analysis" of photon propagation and will use it next time I'm lecturing in London.
-
Hello.....excuse me. been gone and just starting up......just require some info......Can a photon actually induce a magnetic field on it's own within an EM wave ( kind of similar to an electron in a conductor inducing a magnetic field, except this would be in a vacuum and a photon instead and would preserve Maxwell's equations fo both the wave and energtic photon particle)?.....thx.....I'm not sure how it would initiate propagation right now.....
-
An accelerating charge generates an electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic radiation self-propagates. That's all there is to it.
-
An atomic energy transition or an unstable nuclear transition is an abrupt quanta transition ( resulting in a distinct photon ( + more for the nuclear transition ) ).....A radio wave antenna produces a gradual change/release of a dipole's energy ......so, why would an EM radio wave photon energy be depicted identically ( with Planck's constant ) ? ....Wouldn't an antenna's gradual change of the dipole produce a multltude of photons ( dynamic-many overlaid photons of different sizes ) just within one cycle itself, as opposed to a distinct atomic or nuclear abrupt transition (static-one photon)?.....thx again.....
-
Wouldn't an antenna's gradual change of the dipole produce a multltude of photons
Indeed it does.
-
I think I now know what's going on here.....any EM radio wave discussion refers to the far field of an antenna ( >2 wavelengths away from the antenna ) where Maxwell's equations kick in.......The near induced field is complicated ...thx
-
The solution to the wave equation derived from Maxwell's equation gives three components with factors of 1/r, 1/rsq and 1/rcubed. The near field is the 1/rsq term and the radiated field is the 1/r term.
-
An accelerating charge generates an electromagnetic field.
Except when there's another charge cancelling it, like a pair of electrons moving as a Cooper pair in a superconductor ring, which can retain their kinetic energy for years.
Furthermore, an electric charge moving in constant velocity also generate electromagnetic field.
A stationary electric charge produce electrostatic field.
-
Furthermore, an electric charge moving in constant velocity also generate electromagnetic field.
No. A charge moving at constant speed generates a magnetic field, and the charge itself has an electric field, but there is no radiative EM field. This goes right back to Isaac Newton!
-
Maxwell's Equations...The near field is the 1/rsq term and the radiated field is the 1/r term.
A radiated field of 1/r seems to conflict with what we are taught in high school that the radiated power is 1/r2 (the inverse square law).
- I vaguely recall hearing in antenna design that there was a near-field component that fell off like 1/r3 (while the quoted section suggests 1/r2)
How should I interpret Maxwell's Equations in terms of the inverse square law?
- Is the electromagnetic source a point source or a linear source of infinite length (the inverse square law applies to a point source)?
- Does the field intensity correspond to the magnitude of the Electric (or Magnetic field), while the power is proportional to E2 (or B2)?
- Can you interpret Maxwell's equations in a semi-quantised way, and say that the probability of finding a photon in a particular location is proportional to the magnitude squared?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Key_to_the_notation
-
I agree - 1/r2 should characterise the far field. 1/r dependence is usually associated with fields within 5d where d is the principal dimension of the radiator but radio waves may behave differently in the near field as unlike light or radionuclide emissions from a practical source, the wavelength is commensurate with the radiator.
-
Furthermore, an electric charge moving in constant velocity also generate electromagnetic field.
No. A charge moving at constant speed generates a magnetic field, and the charge itself has an electric field, but there is no radiative EM field. This goes right back to Isaac Newton!
The magnetic field changes in any stationary position, which is moving wrt the moving charged particle. The changing magnetic field generates electric field.