[alright1234]

This statement is patently incorrect since a particle structure of a photon negates the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's electromagnetic wave.

Actually, it's experimentally  known to be true.

If reality does not agree with your ideas ,it isn't because reality has made a mistake.

Really, does an electromagnetic field expand?

[Bored chemist]

We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties

Who cares.
Please get back to the point.
You said that this "We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties" is false.
In fact it is clearly true- because we do, in fact, describe photons that way.

Why did you say something which is plainly wrong?

[alright1234]

An expanding electromagnetic field cannot form the structure of Planck's EM photon, Einstein's EM photon, QED photon or a string photon.

[Kryptid]

An expanding electromagnetic field cannot form the structure of Planck's EM photon, Einstein's EM photon, QED photon or a string photon.

Modern science never said that it did, so you are misinformed at best and straw-manning at worst.

[alancalverd]

You said that this "We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties" is false.
In fact it is clearly true- because we do, in fact, describe photons that way.

Oddly, he is actually correct, though I  doubt whether he understands why. Depending on the circumstances we describe electromagnetic radiation with wave or particle mathematics, but not both at once.

[alright1234]

You said that this "We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties" is false.
In fact it is clearly true- because we do, in fact, describe photons that way.

Oddly, he is actually correct, though I  doubt whether he understands why. Depending on the circumstances we describe electromagnetic radiation with wave or particle mathematics, but not both at once.

Since the electromagnetic field of Maxwell's theory based on Faraday's induction effect is expanding, how do you depict the particle STRUCTURE of a Planck's EM photon, Einstein's EM photon, QM photon, QED photon, QFT photon or a string photon.

[Bored chemist]

How do you depict the structure of an electromagnetic photon?

Usually with a purple marker pen.

Fortunately, it doesn't actually matter.

You said that this "We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties" is false.
In fact it is clearly true- because we do, in fact, describe photons that way.

Oddly, he is actually correct, though I  doubt whether he understands why. Depending on the circumstances we describe electromagnetic radiation with wave or particle mathematics, but not both at once.

No, he's still wrong.
A photon has both sets of properties (wave and particle).
Not at the same time, but it has both properties.

[alright1234]

How do you depict the structure of an electromagnetic photon?

Usually with a purple marker pen.

Fortunately, it doesn't actually matter.

If you cannot explain how an expanding electromagnetic field forms a particle structure you would have essentially discredit all of theoretical physics (quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, string theory, quantum field theory, quantum chromodynamics, plasma physics, condense matter physics, and particle physics that use the gauge) and you would be the greatest physicists that ever lived!

[Bored chemist]

How do you depict the structure of an electromagnetic photon?

Usually with a purple marker pen.

Fortunately, it doesn't actually matter.

If you cannot explain how an expanding electromagnetic field forms a particle structure you would have essentially discredit all of theoretical physics (quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, string theory, quantum field theory, quantum chromodynamics, plasma physics, condense matter physics, and particle physics that use the gauge) and you would be the greatest physicists that ever lived!

Well, it's nice of you to say so, but I doubt it's true.
"If you cannot explain how an expanding electromagnetic field...you would be the greatest physicists that ever lived!"

Well, I can't.
But I rather doubt that I am.

Of course, it still doesn't matter how I depict photons.
If I want to work out what they do I use maths, not pictures.
I leave questions of why they do it to the philosophers (and then I don't bother with listening to their answers).

[pensador (OP)]

IF (note big IF) a photon has a shape approximately like a spinning circle, can red and blue shift be explained solely in terms of special relativity. ie blue shifted its radius is shrunk and spin rate increases, red shifted it's is stretched and spin rate would be reduced.

[Bored chemist]

IF (note big IF) a photon has a shape approximately like a spinning circle, can red and blue shift be explained solely in terms of special relativity. ie blue shifted its radius is shrunk and spin rate increases, red shifted it's is stretched and spin rate would be reduced.

What if they are shaped like unicorns?

[pensador (OP)]

If you cannot explain how an expanding electromagnetic field forms a particle structure you would have essentially discredit all of theoretical physics (quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, string theory, quantum field theory, quantum chromodynamics, plasma physics, condense matter physics, and particle physics that use the gauge) and you would be the greatest physicists that ever lived!

I think Colin partly answered this on page 3 of this thread " A photon is a quantisation of the em wave and radio waves also have them, we just don’t use them in ordinary radio as they have very low energy so quantum effects don’t become apparent and classical wave theory works fine."

If you take a EM wave and model it as low energy overlapping photons, they would have the same effect as a single EM wave.

A mathematical model does not need to model exactly how something works, it just needs to give accurate predictions on the outcome.

For instance maxwells equations state an EM wave travels from A to B, and shows how it spreads out. They do not indicate the wave is made up of photons, or how those photons are created.

[pensador (OP)]

IF (note big IF) a photon has a shape approximately like a spinning circle, can red and blue shift be explained solely in terms of special relativity. ie blue shifted its radius is shrunk and spin rate increases, red shifted it's is stretched and spin rate would be reduced.

What if they are shaped like unicorns?

A spinning disc is easier to visualize than a unicorn chasing its tail. The shape is arbitrary, so using your hypothetical spinning unicorn.

Would a massless unicorn travelling at c after being emitted from a moving object, shrink or expand and spin at different rates, depending on if the object it originated from was moving towards or away from an observer,  according to special relativity. ?

Can special relativity explain red and blue shift of objects with no mass like photons or your hypothetical unicorn 

[Bored chemist]

an special relativity explain red and blue shift of objects with no mass

Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

[Colin2B]

Sorry, missed this

Can I just clarify this, are you saying there is no clear link between virtual particle pairs around the transmitter, acquiring energy, momentum. Followed by them becoming real photons due to either instability or coming back together and annihilating each, not unlike a positron electron collision, but at much lower energy levels.

If you look at the fields in the near field you see something akin to what sailors call a confused sea, many small (compared to a propagating photon) disturbances with no clear relationship. The E field is often greater than the H and then this will reverse, the phase relationship between E and H varies, and all polarisations are present. Although all these field disturbances will superpose there is not enough consistency to generate  a regular supply of photons - although some can be found in this zone - and the confused disturbances will be viewed as virtual photons. As the fields get further from the influence of the inductance and capacitance of the antenna the fields become more coherent with E and H becoming orthogonal and having a clear phase relationship, polarisation settles to that of the antenna and we begin to see what we would describe as coherent photons (as with a laser).
By the way, you might want to read this which puts what Strassler was saying in different words. https://www.livescience.com/55833-what-are-virtual-particles.html
One of my pet hates is the way people take physics shorthand and reinterpret it as a ‘thing’.

Are you viewing the photons in a quantized radio wave as individual photons, or something else?

They are individual photons. Not so obvious as the low energy means they are in the thermal noise and you need cooled detectors to find them.

Since the electromagnetic field of Maxwell's theory based on Faraday's induction effect is expanding, how do you depict the particle STRUCTURE of a Planck's EM photon, Einstein's EM photon, QM photon, QED photon, QFT photon or a string photon.

The em field is only expanding for a point source spherical wave. The photon is a plane wave group so propagates in one direction only.

For instance maxwells equations state an EM wave travels from A to B, and shows how it spreads out.

Maxwell’s equations do not show how an em wave spreads out. The inverse sq law spread is only valid for point source spherical waves. Maxwell’s equations are equally valid for plane waves, which do not spread out. Photon equations in qft use Maxwell’s equations.

[pensador (OP)]

an special relativity explain red and blue shift of objects with no mass

Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

Would I be correct in thinking that a blue shifted unicorn would spin faster than a red shifted unicorn?

[pensador (OP)]

By the way, you might want to read this which puts what Strassler was saying in different words. https://www.livescience.com/55833-what-are-virtual-particles.html
One of my pet hates is the way people take physics shorthand and reinterpret it as a ‘thing’.

Are you viewing the photons in a quantized radio wave as individual photons, or something else?

They are individual photons. Not so obvious as the low energy means they are in the thermal noise and you need cooled detectors to find them.

Thanks for the link, I think I understand the concept of fields merging with each other. Which is where the original question in the OP came from. Does a Photon interact with the virtual particles/quantum foam of space as it moves through space. ie is it absorbed and reemitted by quantum foam existing in the electromagnetic field, does it just bulldoze straight through, or does it get bounced around by occasional interactions with the quantum froth.


A further question arises is a photons speed limited by quantum foam,

[Kryptid]

Would I be correct in thinking that a blue shifted unicorn would spin faster than a red shifted unicorn?

No. If an object appears blue-shifted in your reference frame, all that means is that the distance between you and the object is decreasing over time. If red-shifted, then it is increasing instead. Unless gravity is involved, that is. Gravity can cause blue-shifting and red-shifting as well.

[pensador (OP)]

Would I be correct in thinking that a blue shifted unicorn would spin faster than a red shifted unicorn?

No. If an object appears blue-shifted in your reference frame, all that means is that the distance between you and the object is decreasing over time. If red-shifted, then it is increasing instead. Unless gravity is involved, that is. Gravity can cause blue-shifting and red-shifting as well.

What I am driving at is. A blue shifted photon has more energy than a red shifted photon. Using E=pc its speed in all none accelerated reference frames is c, how does is its energy increase. The only variable appears to be momentum.

This is where the discs or unicorns come in, the shape of the photon is irrelevant Do they spin faster and contract when blue shifted, and spin slower and expand when red shifted.   

[Kryptid]

how does is its energy increase.

Its wavelength decreases.

Do they spin faster and contract when blue shifted, and spin slower and expand when red shifted.   

No, they don't.