« on: 15/10/2018 03:47:12 »
Hopefully we can come to an agreement. There is a matter of semantics I wish to first address. It is not true that the photon has no charge. In fact the photon is completely and entirely filled with charge. Just because the sum total quantity is equal to zero does not mean that the photon has no charge which to me implies the absence of charge. The number zero in this case means a balance. We should agree that it just means that the photon is neutral and it does possess charge.This topic & this posting are extraordinary. I havent digested all of the comments but they appear to be excellent. Well done to all. I have been googling-reading science for 5 years, but i have been shy of electromagnetic stuff.
With this in mind your second example using the implication of no charge and neutrality are both negated. The photon is a moving charge that has an associated a magnetic field. The fact that it is neutral does not mean that it has no charge.
In both your examples you mention that the particles are neutral. Therefore, I think that you maybe trying to imply that since the neutron is neutrally charged that it has no charge. I disagree as the neutron is not really a fundamental particle but is in fact composed of 3 quarks. It has 1 up and 2 down quarks. The neutron once again is filled with a balanced amount of charge. Those quarks according to my calculations are moving at about 99% the speed of light. In this case we once again have a moving charge with its associated magnetic field.
You can go through the entire standard model and there is no example that will work as all particles have charge and all particles are moving. In no case that I am aware of does a magnetic field ever manifest itself without and associated moving charge.
Physics now has a bit of a conundrum it has a asymmetry that has not been addressed or explained. Static electrostatic fields exist. They are constant fields, which do not change in intensity or direction over time. Hence, static electric fields have a frequency of 0 Hz. They are not moving and in this case the magnetic field is absent. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the magnetic field is a torsional response in space to the motion of the electrostatic field. Moving charges create the magnetic field.
I agree that the electro-field & magnetic-field are secondary, & that the charge-field is primary.
The design of a photon is one of physic's key questions.
I agree that a photon has charge, lots of it, but zero nett charge at a distance (if measured over time).
Williamson explains how a confined-photon (eg electron quark etc) shows its positive charge side, or its negative charge side (so too Ranzan). Allow me to paste here some wordage from one of my postings here the other day..........
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle? « Reply #276 on: Today at 01:16:39 » Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22 ..................Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory. Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything. For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy? ..........
mad aetherist's comment. I havent yet read all of the comments but i mostly agree & here is the way i think about fields & matter & gravity.
Electric-magnetic-charge fields are made of photaenos which are a part of every photon. Photons are made of (1) a central helix, & (2) lots of photaenos (tentacles that emanate from the helix). The helix propagates at c along the axis, & the propagation involves the annihilation of aether. Aether is some sort of sub-quantum fluid, sub-quantum because it has no mass or energy (at least no ordinary energy). Photaenos propagate at c outwards from the helix, & are formed by a vibration or vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation).
EMC fields are not made of photons, they are made of parts of photons (the photaeno parts).
Gravitational fields are due to the acceleration of aether flowing into mass to replace the aether annihilated in all mass. Gravitational fields are therefore due to the macro bulk flow of aether, whereas all other fields (EMC fields) are due to the micro vibration of aether or due to a vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation). The aether inflow into say Earth might have the same speed as Earth's escape velocity, ie 11.2 kmps. However gravity has a speed of at least 20 billion c (VanFlandern), ie changes in gravity (gravitational pulses) propagate at at least 20 billion c.
The free photon is the primary quantum particle. If a photon bites its own tail & forms a loop it becomes a confined-photon (Williamson), which gives us our elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc). All matter (confined photons) has mass, & all free photons have mass.
There are no virtual particles, there are no gravitons, no Higgs etc.
A neutrino is not a particle, Ranzan says that a neutrino is made of two helical photons sharing the same axis (the fields negate). Hencely a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon, & the destruction of a neutrino must produce a pair of photons.