0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I started to read the paper you linked flummoxed. Got stuck on " At any instant moment its energy, momentum and spin angular momentum keep conservation. Its wavelike property originates from the periodicity of its helically rotating motion, instead of its wave spreading all over the place "What do they mean by spin here? If you translated a electrons spin into classical spin it would spin faster than light speed in a vacuum?
Yes, that's the only way I make sense of the paper. But it's also a fact that the spin of a electron is 'FTL' if you translate it into a classical 'speed'. So either the 'spin' they discuss for a photon, which it has, is uncoupled to the spin of a electron, or it isn't? In the first case we now have two definitions of what 'spin' means. One quantum mechanical in where 'spin' has no classical counterpart as shown by the electron, the other classical. The classical demands splitting 'spin' into two categories, one classical (photon) and the other strictly quantum mechanical (electron FTL).
No, not an electric field, but a selfpropagating electromagnetic wave as described by Maxwell.
Photons are generated by electrons changing energy levels in atoms.
Quote from: flummoxed on 15/04/2019 20:53:28Photons are generated by electrons changing energy levels in atoms. Or by free electrons decelerating in a target, or accelerating in a wiggler. Same principle as radio waves, just higher energies. And of course some nuclei emit photons with no electron involvement at all. Fascinating stuff, physics.
I don't know flummoxed, it's just logic. Either you have electrons spin doing FTL, which can be checked. Or they don't?what a photon and a electron have in common is this idea of a 'spin'. In the case of a 'photon' if you want it to be classical, its 'spin' needs to be covered by relativity. Which then bring it down under 'c'. In the case of a electron it was confirmed somewhere in the thirties that if you wanted to translate it into a 'classical spin' (as in a carousel) its 'speed' would be FTL.That's where I got stuck
If you can't accept the basic fact that accelerating electrons generate photons, you won't harvest any physics or understand why we abondoned orbits and invented quantum mechanics.Good luck in your quest, and farewell.
Photons have spin 1, am I correct in thinking the spin of a photon is related to its angular momentum, and wave shape? ie polarization.
Is it possible a photon consists of 2 virtual particles with opposite charges, spinning around each other? My photon picture at the moment is a virtual particle pair inside a pilot wave from bohemian theory. Is this plausible ?
The big difference between a virtual photons and real photons is life time.
wave particle duality whereby a wave collapses to become a particle.
Photons maintain there strength regardless of distance travelled. Radio waves do not, they get weaker.
I dont think radio waves can make a TV screen glow, the same way an electron beam can, or even reproduce a double slit experiment results in the same way a particle can.
I have manged to convince myself that photons and virtual photons as used in QED are one and the same
I cant still cant find the link I am looking for
Quote from: flummoxed on Yesterday at 12:32:21I have manged to convince myself that photons and virtual photons as used in QED are one and the sameI donít see how you have done that. Strassler makes it clear that they are not - if you understand what he is saying. They are certainly excitations of the same field.
There are also a large number of statements made as if they are fact, whereas as @alan has pointed out they are incorrect. Alan has a great deal of experience of practical QM, itís a pity youíve driven him away. At the moment this thread is such a mishmash of cherrypicked ideas and false statements that its value in this section is questionable. You are in danger of flummoxing yourself.
I don't live in Yorkshire, but know there are is at least 3 airports you can fly between without having to leave Yorkshire
I think Peter pointed out where Alan was wrong in the link he posted.
In a double-slit experiment with visible light the distance between two slits can be macroscopic, e.g. 0.1 millimeter, or something like that. In order to get an interference pattern, the photon lump should be no smaller than this size.
Feynman convinced me not Strassler that virtual photons and photons have exactly the same properties. In what way are they not? Both transfer momentum and vanish etc.
The crucial point is that photons going through a single slot are diffracted and where they superpose with photons diffracted from the other slot you get interference.
where they superpose with photons diffracted from the other slot you get interference.
Let a source emit a photon at A and it arrive at B where a detector registers it. The particle model states that the photon is emitted at and absorbed at B. No need to re-emit. And this holds for distances from 1 nm to any number of light years.
Not only is light made up of photons, but all electromagnetic energy (i.e. microwaves, radio waves, X-rays) is made up of photons.
I dont think radio waves can make a TV screen glow, the same way an electron beam can,
A solitary electron decelerating as it hits a target is not the same as a radio wave,
I dont think radio waves can..., or even reproduce a double slit experiment results in the same way a particle can.