[lyner]

A Davis
I haven't read Stratton's / Debye's solution for a wave in a sphere but what are his boundary conditions? Are they for a wave, bound within a conducting box? I don't see how such a solution would result with no boundary (i.e. a container with 377ohms impedance). Why would the wave not just propagate / radiate away? Your mention of Bessel functions reminds me of other bounded wave solutions - drum skins etc.

[Vern]

No it's 180 degrees half of 360. This means that the soluton repeats it self every half cycle and produces a monopole, the solution has charge because the positive and negative variations of a sinusoid are lost in this type of solution. It's difficult to show this without drawings  but I can't do it on this platform.

That makes more sense. I don't know where I got the two-turn notion from, but I read a lot of kooky stuff []

Are you saying soluton or solution; I see you have it both ways; I'm thinking you mean solution.

[A Davis]

You are correct most modern books give the solution within a conducting sphere including stratton and they also neglect any variation in phi a simpler solution. Once one understands the solution physically and can see that the radiation at the center is rotating then two forces act on the radiated wave E x H and E . E they force the radiated wave into a circular path, equating these two forces gives a precession angle of 54deg the same as in quantum mechanics h/2 and h√(1(1+1)) the solution doesn't need a boundary, in higher solutions μr and εr change so there is an elecrical boundary between free space and inside the solution.

[lyner]

How can the solution for a diff  equation not involve boundary conditions? I don't understand.
And are you implying that you have, what is, effectively, a standing wave, traveling through space at c? A sort of vortex / smoke ring?
I would have a problem with that because the time involved in the wave equation describing your circular wave would be non existent, bearing in mind the photon is going at c. This is hard.

[A Davis]

I may have misled you have read Stratton again at first he gives the general solution for any boundary from an insulator to a conductor, he then gives a conducting solution, no electric field at the boundary. The first solution has no boundary it's free space inside and outside it may not even exist physically, but the fourth solution describes what is happening inside the Electron and has been solved completely. There is strong mathematical evidence that the twelth solution is the Proton, but the maths is horrendous, my calculations have a small error which I can't get rid of, still I will keep on trying.
(Note free space is an insulator)

[lyner]

This is interesting.  How does it all tie in with the photon traveling and the macroscopic wave behaviour of em waves. Then there's the issue of quantum behaviour when diffraction occurs.

[A Davis]

It's time for you to educate me Sophie I don't understand the macroscopic behaviour of EM waves unless you mean they radiate in all directions, never heard of QM in diffraction unless you mean the slit experiment, to me this is due to the rotating EM wave inside the electrons at the surface of the slit acting upon the rotating EM field of the photon, one can never predict when thier maximum or minimum values will coincide and they will produce a diffraction pattern.

[lyner]

It's time for you to educate me Sophie I don't understand the macroscopic behaviour of EM waves unless you mean they radiate in all directions, never heard of QM in diffraction unless you mean the slit experiment, to me this is due to the rotating EM wave inside the electrons at the surface of the slit acting upon the rotating EM field of the photon, one can never predict when thier maximum or minimum values will coincide and they will produce a diffraction pattern.

The  behaviour of  em waves when they go through slits or through / around any obstruction  can be described very well using diffraction theory. The simplest situation to describe is with two slits, when we call it 'interference' but it's all diffraction, really.
So, my point is that, by assuming light (and the rest) are actually waves, you can predict and describe more or less any situation. Are you suggesting that this wave interpretation is compatible with yet another 'layer' of wave theory (involving photons which are  curled up versions of em waves?
I just can't see how this works from what I have understood so far.
In my view of the business, you don't need photons at all, to describes what goes on as the energy is travelling around - just for the actual interactions. It may be that your curled up thingeys are  way of describing what happens actually during the time the transmitting and receiving systems are transferring the energy.

[A Davis]

I have problems understanding you at times Sophie but you definitely have an inquiring mind. There is no argument about interference or diffraction, you seem to be saying that a photon doesn't exist except at a source and it's destination, it sounds like Feynmans multiple path theory but I am not sure. Is this what you mean by layers. The curled up Photon produces a Particle such as Electron, Proton etc. I taught my self QM about 12 years ago, disappointed to find that it couldn't calculate the energy level of the second electron in Helium it could only be done by successive approximations, the theory wasn't correct at that point in time. I have not kept up with current theory, can it be done now.

[lyner]

As far as I am aware there just isn't a closed solution to the wave equation for anything more than Hydrogen.
I don't think there is anything to indicate that an electron has been characterised as just some EM waves. Where does it's mass come from? The QM you learned 12 years ago wouldn't have told you that, surely.

[A Davis]

The book I read was written by a Chemist, he did point out wher QM was failing and started with Schrodingers solution by saying that it was wrong to consider that the Proton was a point charge and went on to describe how Dirac had addressed the problem, I didn't understand Diracs solution, he gave the equation but no derivation, never did follow it up. He quoted three Scientists solutions to the Helium problem with varying degrees of accuracy, but no solution for the parametric solution, reverse electron spin in the second orbit. I think I am beginning to understand layers, is a layer one integer solution(n = 1,2,3,4)etc. I cannot answer the mass question at this point in time, have a theory on gravity in the new theory forum, I will have to answer the question eventually.

[swansont]

Getting back to the OP, yes, photons have momentum:  p=E/c, and Newton's third law applies.

An atom absorbing or emitting a photon will recoil, which is the concept behind laser cooling (Nobel prize 1997), and the momentum transfer during reflection is the concept behind a solar sail.

[Vern]

Getting back to the OP, yes, photons have momentum:  p=E/c, and Newton's third law applies.

An atom absorbing or emitting a photon will recoil, which is the concept behind laser cooling (Nobel prize 1997), and the momentum transfer during reflection is the concept behind a solar sail.

I think that most of us who should know will agree with you.

Something came up in another thread that you might lend some insight to since you know about the photon's momentum. It was postulated that two photons moving relative to each other in a closed system would cause the system to be massive, while two photons moving together with no relative motion between them would not.

The reason given was that with photons moving relative to each other there is always a frame in which they are moving opposite each other so that momentum cancels leaving only their energy which could be viewed as mass.

[Ethos]

Is there any reason why you would 'want' a photon to be something which travels through space? (Apart from the fact that it is a very easy concept involving some very cosy ideas - sorry for the patronising tone)

You see, the only quantisation that I can see is needed is the energy - nothing else.

I had not thought about that before I saw your previous post where you point out that there is really no need to visualize something going from a to b. But I need a visualization like that to suggest that the Fine Structure Constant is the ratio of the bend radius of the path of an electron's comprising photon and the charge of the electron.

Excellent model Vern, and this is why I personally don't see any difference between energy and matter. Someone has mentioned geometry, and that is the distinguishing difference between the photon and the electron. Matter is only "Localized orbital energy flux" and this is why I view matter as nothing more than captured energy. There is really no difference between the two except for the geometry involved.