0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Verns answer, seems to apply directly to your question.

I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all. A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.

Quote from: Vern on 13/11/2009 02:45:34I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all. A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge. I suggest that when the straight line path of the photon is influenced by a gravitational field, it not only responds with a resultant charge, it takes on the property of mass. Mass and charge go hand in hand. Like the gyroscope, the photon wave resists a change in it's trajectory and when this wave is forced to deviate, it responds by taking on the character of mass with charge.

If I may be allowed to interject a few thoughts here, I would like to consider the aspect of the wave. For a long time, I have had trouble understanding the character of charge, but after reviewing the forgoing commentary, I think the concept has taken root in my imagination. Now that the essence of charge has become somewhat understandable to me, I would like to proceed on to the obvious. (1)How can we developement a reality based understanding of the wave? We know that the wave can not be discribed as a collection of infinitely small particles moving like water on the ocean surface. So what exactly is the electromagnetic wave? (2)We know that the photon wave can, when disturbed from it's preferred path, give rise to the charged particle. (3)From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into 'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass. (4)How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?

But it's still a particle afterall

Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 13/11/2009 04:22:22 But it's still a particle afterall Yes, after all the distortions of it's primal state. In another thread, Vern talks about the rise and fall of amplitudes associated with the wave and discribes this action as referenced to points in space. This notion of points in space relative to the wave is one I'm having trouble with. How can a homogenous wave, in it's pure state, have any particular points? I visualize a wave as the kinetic action on space that the release of energy induces to it. As the wave radiates forth from it's source, each blanketing pulse of energy does distinguish itself with crests and valleys of amplitude but, these crests and valleys are infinitely graduated in power and I can't rationalize any particular and definable points within singular bursts. However, where one blanketing burst meets another, one will find an area of intersecting amplitudes but I still don't visualize any particular points. That is unless, one suggests that along a line of intersecting waves, one must limit things to Planck lengths. In that case, each Planck length would have two points at each end of it's dimension. So maybe yes, I suppose one can talk in terms of points of amplitude.

You could argue easily that they ocillate between the two values, attentively assorting their possible possitions until something collapses their wave functions. Could these oscillations be achieved when two points in spacetime are considered under the equations given?

I need to ask a question.Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξε_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (1)is balanced, because it takes into respect the electromagnetic permittivity added with that of the gravitational permittivity with a Langrangian term for M². More interestingly enough, M²ψ is similar to the Klein-Gorden relationship. Here are some interesting reationships:M²ψ=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψwhich results in plane wave solutions. By substitution, you can reconfigurate eq.(1) into:|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ]+½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ])Which is very attractive as a wave equation. We could manipulate the equation even more to have nuetral components after taking ino account, from a Klein-Gorden relationship, where for manipulative convenience we can rewrite the plane wave solutions in quantized form as:|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0((∂²-M²)ψ*-(∂²-M²)]+½[ξε_g((∂²-M²)ψ*-(∂²-M²)ψ*])This is suppose, would cancel them out, or at least, this is my interpretation of the equation.

Vernyou require also a flat spacetime yes? - This part of relativity would need to be reformulated for photon movement:...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN to Einstein and Max Planck. I've posted the link a few times.I haven't studied manifolds since my speculations don't require them.

The points I refer to are the peak amplitude places in the sine curve that governs a photon's amplitude. A photon wave does not extend flat wise like a water wave. It moves as peaks, like a clown's hat. The area around the peaks drive the peaks through space. You can replace the words peaks with the word points of which I speak. When you consider that it is the surrounding fields that drive the points through space, and consider that interaction only happens in the path of peak amplitude, the slit experiments are all satisfied.

The Dirac Delta Function is a mathematical peak form

I suggest that when the straight line path of the photon is influenced by a gravitational field, it not only responds with a resultant charge, it takes on the property of mass. Mass and charge go hand in hand. Like the gyroscope, the photon wave resists a change in it's trajectory and when this wave is forced to deviate, it responds by taking on the character of mass with charge.

QuoteThe Dirac Delta Function is a mathematical peak formThanks, I did not know that.

I can visualize that. But my simplistic view is: why use an undiscovered magnetic monopole when nature screams out that it ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

Magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles proposed by physicists that carry a single magnetic pole, either a magnetic north pole or south pole. In the material world this is quite exceptional because magnetic particles are usually observed as dipoles, north and south combined. However there are several theories that predict the existence of monopoles. Among others, in 1931 the physicist Paul Dirac was led by his calculations to the conclusion that magnetic monopoles can exist at the end of tubes – called Dirac strings – that carry magnetic field. Until now they have remained undetected.

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINBut it is not very convincing. I am not sure they reached the right conclusion from the scattering of neutrons that was their indicator. This is probably what Wagner referenced.Quote from: the linkMagnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles proposed by physicists that carry a single magnetic pole, either a magnetic north pole or south pole. In the material world this is quite exceptional because magnetic particles are usually observed as dipoles, north and south combined. However there are several theories that predict the existence of monopoles. Among others, in 1931 the physicist Paul Dirac was led by his calculations to the conclusion that magnetic monopoles can exist at the end of tubes – called Dirac strings – that carry magnetic field. Until now they have remained undetected.

Yes, it was part of a theory that Dirac proposed. But the more I look at the experiment, the more I see possibilities that the suspected monopoles could be dipole pairs with their opposing poles held together by outside forces.

Yes; I have been lurking reading the posts but not responding much.The magnetic monopoles of the experiment were artificially created and held together. The observed monopoles could actually be duel dipoles. Two electron charges worth of pressure would be required to hold their like poles together,If we try and contort a photon's path such that it presents its magnetic field toward the outside of a confining pattern we must conjure up some forces that we don't normally see.