• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Photons

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Chesterton, Jan 10, 2014.

  1. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +969
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others

    Then since you understand it so well, you should be able to tell me why the field lines of negative and positive particles point in opposite directions when they both emit photons? Photons are emitted from both particles, yet the field lines point in opposite directions, showing photons have nothing to do with EM fields, but are a mere byproduct of what is occurring on a molecular level beyond our ability to see or measure at this time in our technology.

    Well, come on, why does the exact same photon cause two different directional fields, since they are supposedly the mediators of this field?

    I don't think you really understand anything about light, and neither does anyone else.
     
  2. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married
    Oscillation. Pretty simple concept, really.
     
  3. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +20,588
    United States
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    Because field lines are not 'real'. They are an explanatory convenience.
     
  4. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married
    The emission of photons by charged particles has to do with a change in energy or state, not the charge. An electron dropping from high to low energy states will emit the same wavelength and energy photon that a positron does dropping from the same high to low states. It doesn't matter what the charge is.

    But that's real photons. The force carrier of EM force are virtual photons. Virtual photons have some different properties from real photons, and they are "emitted" by charged particles even if those particles are at rest.

    Photons do not cause directional electric fields. That's a property of charge, not force, and virtual photons only carry force, not charge.
     
  5. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +969
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others

    Yes, virtual photons do have different properties, it is called Fairie Dust. An ad-hoc gap filler in an attempt to explain what the reality would not explain.

    So once again you must resort to Fairie Dust to explain the universe. A virtual particle only exists for a limited time, yet the EM force is everywhere.

    And I beg to differ.

    Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, even classical forces — such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges — can be thought of as due to the exchange of many virtual photons between the charges"

    So these virtual photons, emitted by both positive and negative particles, cause attraction or repulsion, even though they are emitted in either case.


    "The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. As such the accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science."

    Like I said, Fairie Dust.

    That the math requires Fairie Dust to conform to a semblance of reality, simply shows there are underlying errors in the math and the theories which lead to their requirement.

    I expect you can start with the electron, which is not composed of quarks (supposedly) yet has both an electric and magnetic moment, just like a proton and neutron, which are composed of quarks. Then you can go to the neutron which is electrically neutral. Yet two electrically neutral neutrons immediately fly apart when placed together, just like do two protons or two electrons. Dark matter is supposed to be electrically neutral, yet is supposedly an attractor, and two of those particles would supposedly not immediately fly apart, being electrically neutral.

    You now want the same emission of virtual particles to cause both attraction or repulsion. Let's face the facts, photons are a mere byproduct of an underlying process we in reality do not understand at all, just as in reality we do not understand electric or magnetic fields. If we understood them, we would not have to continue to spend billions of dollars every year in research in an attempt to understand them. That is a non-sequitur.

    About the best answer anyone is going to get on charge is:

    Electric charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when close to other electrically charged matter. There are two types of electric charges – positive and negative."

    "Positively charged substances are repelled from other positively charged substances, but attracted to negatively charged substances; negatively charged substances are repelled from negative and attracted to positive."

    So what are neutrons, being that two neutrons placed together immediately fly apart? Why, electrically neutral of course, even though they behave exactly as do two protons or two electrons placed together. They are not electrically neutral, but electrically balanced, depending only on their interaction with other charges.

    I don't think particle physics has the grasp of reality as much as they like to believe they do.
     
  6. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married
    Yes. And while the interaction of virtual photons is not firmly understood in all aspects, one of the best explanations (that I've read so far anyway) is that virtual photons carry charge sign information (eg - or +) in one polarization axis.

    Yes, you should always rely on wikipedia to accurately represent current scientific thinking.

    No. It's not a question of philosophy. It intrinsically *is* a question of science because *ALL* things belonging to the natural realm are the province of science. If virtual photons really are excitations of the underlying quantum field then they are part of what science studies. The temporary nature of the particle does not make it something that is not in the realm of science. Temporary particles that arise and disappear again are one of the natural consequences of the Uncertainty principle. It well explains, as Stephen Hawking demonstrated years ago, how tiny black holes can eventually disappear altogether.

    No. The math predicts interactions *very well*. Experimental data - and mountains of it - demonstrates this. Even if the name of the particle is incorrect, that doesn't change the fact that electric charges interact *exactly* as the math predicts they will.

    Nope, now there you're wrong. Neutrons do not repel each other. You've lost at this point.

    Free neutrons do decay. But when bound together - say, in an atomic nucleus - they tend to remain stable. Their presence is one of the reasons larger atomic nuclei can exist without EM overpowering the strong nuclear force at larger separations between protons.

    You're confusing electrical interactions with gravity. "Dark matter" is hypothesized as a gravitational, not electrical, attractor.

    No, we understand a great deal about the process. Like I said, the math works perfectly to predict and describe charged-particle interactions.


    You're right, what you said is a non-sequitur. The mere fact that we understand *a lot* doesn't mean we understand *everything.* We've long since discarded the notion that we can perfectly understand everything with no need to research further.

    About the best answer anyone is going to get on charge is:

    I have no clue where you're getting this idea that neutrons repel each other via electrical repulsion. Have you never heard of a neutron star?
     
  7. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +969
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    Load of ....

    That would still not explain why the same emitted particle would cause things it hits to attract, and things it hits to repel based merely on charge. There is not one single particulate theory for any type of attraction that is consistent with what we know of how actual particles behave, including gravity. There is not one sensible reason why I should believe that an emitted particle striking another particle causes it to be attracted to the particle that did the emitting.

    Not one. In no known laws of physics does this ever occur, except in theoretical physics because they could not come up with a logical answer, so throw in virtual particles, which are still emitted, still strike other particles, yet do both attraction and repulsion, merely depending on whether they need attraction or repulsion in their math.


    It is not even a real particle, just a disturbance in the field.

    Virtual Particles: What are they? | Of Particular Significance

    A field that still has no explanation of why it exists, or what it is composed of. As of this point in our technology, there exists no explanation that is not contrived for the existence of electric, magnetic or gravitational fields. The best we have is it is a force. Is it composed of particles, magic Fairie Dust? Anybody's guess is as good as anyone's right now.



    And a particle that is not a particle, but is virtual, i.e. unreal, belongs in the realms of philosophy and religion.

    At least you pretend photons are real. At least you pretend quarks are real, even if they have never been seen. At least you pretend Higgs bosuns are real. You even pretend WIMPS and MACHOS are real, even if they are Fairie Dust.



    They interact exactly as the math predicts they will without the use of virtual particles. Virtual particles do not enter into the equations except when one decides to attempt to explain the electrical field. Nowhere in the standard model are virtual particles required, only in quantum physics, and the standard model is the one upheld every single time, even when SUSY theory fails.

    https://www.simonsfoundation.org/qu...mmetry-fails-tests-physicists-seek-new-ideas/

    And the dominance of that theory for the last 30 years is why Fairie Dust is needed to make the math work.





    Can a nucleus be made up of neutrons only?

    "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The question then arises as to whether a neutron system made up of more than two neutrons could exist. On the basis of current knowledge of interactions between nucleons, the theoretical answer is probably not. In fact, for 40 years now, all attempts to show experimentally that such a system could exist have failed."[/FONT]


    Free neutrons decay in less that 18 minutes, and are only stable when bound to protons in a nucleus. So your theory of neutron stars is pure Fairie Dust. It is not a body spinning at 30,000 RPM, so Fairie Dust neutronium needed to be invented, but an electrical oscillation.



    Dark matter does not exist. If it possesses no electric charge, it possesses no mass. No mass means no attraction. E=mc^2. The electric force attracts just fine without gravities help.

    MIT Physics Demo -- Forces on a Current-Carrying Wire - YouTube

    Being 10^39 times stronger than the gravitational force, it is easy to see how a small electric force in plasma could easily explain galactic rotation curves, no Fairie Dust needed. Especially when 99% of the universe is made of plasma, the density of which in most places is far too small for the gravitational force to have any effect. But plasma is highly conductive and responds strongly to EM fields.

    Likewise the electrical force ignores gravity. One does not need to place the coffee pot below the outlet for it to work.

    Which is also why no gravitational model exists for the atom, only collections of atoms which have balanced magnetic and electric fields.



    Yes it does, and even describes planetary orbits.

    Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field




    Yes Fairie Dust neutron stars, when free neutrons not bound with a proton immediately decay in less than 18 minutes. But oh, they want entire stars to be made of neutronium, a "hypothesized" element never ever detected, because you can't even get two neutrons to be stable together.

    That is the problem, we have given up trying to explain things, and merely take them on faith. And there is no place for faith in science.


    Two Neutrons at the Same Time: Discovery of Dineutron Decay | National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL)

    The ones with an excess of neutrons, decay in trillionths of a second.

    "The resulting events clearly showed two neutrons travelling closely together – a dineutron – through the MoNA detector at the same time that a beryllium-14 nucleus was detected, giving direct evidence of the dineutron decay. In addition, the neutrons were sure to have been emitted simultaneously because it requires more energy to emit one at a time, making the dineutron decay the preferred mode."

    So we will pretend two were emitted at the same time, and happened to travel in the same direction for a trillionth of a second, and from this we will deduce a new element.

    Physics - Nuclei Emit Paired-up Neutrons

    "A neutron-only nucleus is considered physically impossible, but researchers have now seen a short-lived neutron pairing as a product of nuclear decay."

    No, they observed what appears to be two neutrons traveling in the same direction simultaneously. There is not one shred of evidence that they were bound together to form an element. Anymore than two photons traveling together or two electrons in an electron beam or two protons in an proton beam makes a new element. Pure conjecture, just as your stars made up of all neutrons are pure conjecture.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  8. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married
    You're envisioning the interaction incorrectly. It's not emitting and striking. It's an exchange. See Feynman diagrams regarding this. This is of course a wikipedia entry but it depicts several such diagrams that describe the interactions.

    Feynman diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The point being?

    Then you don't understand how science works. Not at all.

    You really just have no idea how any of this works. You're quickly becoming not worth talking to. If you refuse to understand how science works and just how it is we detect these particles, then continuing to discuss their existence with you is a waste of time.


    No, neutrons are also stable when bound to each other. Neutron star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Really. You need to take a *basic* physics course.

    It is this much stronger *only* over short distances. The strength of EM forces is much weaker than gravity over longer distances.

    Citation. Seriously. Needed.

    Do you even know what plasma is?

    Back to basic physics class for you. Balanced EM forces is *not* what makes atoms stable.

    It's not an element. Back to basic physics for you. Seriously. You're not worth talking to if you can't demonstrate a basic level of understanding of physics.

    Neutron stars do exist. They have been confirmed. Numerous times.
    Read it again.

    Neutron star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  9. Chesterton

    Chesterton Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding Supporter

    +18,004
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    Say I have one type of material - cardboard, paper, wood, metal, whatever - and I break it in two. I have one can of paint - say, a certain hue of blue paint. I paint both halves of the material with the same blue paint. If I used hypothetically the world's finest spectrophotometer (a god-like one), I should be able to detect two slightly different shades of the color blue on each half, right?, because the photons will behave randomly.

    Of course according to QM taken literally, one half could appear blue and the other red or green, or one of the materials could suddenly appear as an elephant...

    Is it simply the "Law of Large Numbers" (which I realize is a misnomer) operating on the photons which will make both halves appear to be the same color?
     
  10. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    It's more like the Law of Very Large Numbers - you're more likely to win the lottery every day for your entire life, than one half spontaneously becomes green. The paint's pigment

    There's also a paradox in your question - a god-like spectrophotometer would likely violate various quantum mechanical rules about precise measurements (namely, the uncertainty principles - there are hard limits on how accurately you can measure pairs of observables, like position and momentum, or energy and time).

    Quantum mechanical 'wibble' would likely be introduced by the not-quite-perfect nature of paint - the colour it gives off depends on how its pigments and oils interact with light, which wouldn't be a uniform 'blue'; the object would emit a spectrum of light, with the paint readily absorbing some high percentage of red and green light (leaving blue light). How it interferes with each wavelength of light (of which there are an infinity) depends on what each molecule is doing at the time, so it's highly variable.

    So, with your god-like spectrophotometer, the variance would more likely be an 'average' blue colour, with a kind of 'fuzz' not unlike the white static on a TV, or the background 'wobble' you get if you've ever played with an oscilloscope. Assuming your device works, any quantum variance in hue would be drowned out by large chemical and mechanical variance.

    But if you somehow got rid of those... well, it's hard to say what you'd see, as physics would be sobbing in the corner by then :)
     
  11. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married
    No. Color doesn't work randomly. You *might* observe slightly different shades but not because the photons behave randomly. The pigments in the paint are composed of specific types of compounds that reflect light within a particular (usually narrow) visible bandwidth. Variations in the concentrations or amounts of the compound may produce slightly different color, but if the concentrations and amounts and such are (hypothetically) identical, then you should observe the same light from each.

    You may be talking about being able to observe each individual photon being reflected off. In which case you likely *would* find variation in each photon - but generally very little. The distribution of photons being reflected by the pigment would follow a bell curve - centered around a particular peak wavelength of light, and ~85 to 90% of the curve falling within one standard deviation from the center value. Overall, each of the photons falling within that one standard deviation would be classified as "blue" light, even if one particular photon is 474 nm and another photon is 476 nm.

    No. QM taken literally would not predict this. What it *might* predict is a very, very small chance that a red photon reflects off the pigment that typically reflects only blue light. No pigment is so perfect that it *never* reflects a wildly different wavelength of light, or *always* reflects light of a specific wavelength. There will be some very small amount of light in red or yellow or violet wavelengths reflected off the blue-causing pigment. But you definitely would need a very good receiver that can differentiate individual photons being reflected off the paint. The small amount is such that at no one instant would the paint ever appear red or green to the human eye. The intensity of the blue light overwhelms the other colors. Only by observing and measuring individual photons would you see that such photons are reflected.

    You could use a filter to filter out the blue light - but again, the human eye is such that it would be hard pressed to detect another color being reflected off the paint.

    The same thing actually occurs with our sun. The sun emits more than just one narrow band of visible light. It emits light across virtually the whole EM spectrum. *Most* of the radiation falls within the visible band, and most of that falls within the yellow spectrum. But it is emitting blue and orange and red and violet as well. We just don't perceive such because of the intensity of the yellow band. The reason our sky appears blue during the day is due to blue light emitted from the sun being subsequently scattered within our atmosphere and eventually making its way down to us here.

    That's pretty much it, in a sense, as explained above.
     
  12. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +969
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    The waves are all oscillating outwards, Light waves do not oscillate towards a source, but away from the source of emission. You are confusing the EM force with the behavior of electrons in a wire. The electrons oscillate back and forth, while the EM force travels outside the wires, surrounding it, at the speed of c, enter the light bulb, and is converted into light, which radiates away from the bulb at the speed of c.
     
  13. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +969
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    Agreed, which is why magnetic field lines breaking and reconnecting in magnetic reconnection theory is Fairie Dust.
     
  14. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +969
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others

    Most of it is due to viewing angle and the angle the light strikes the surface, along with depth of paint. But what they neglect to attempt to tell you is how a particle, a photon, replicates both surface texture and color and conveys that image to your eye? The color can be explained by wavelength changes, but according to biology, the eye does not see until the photon strikes the back of the eye, so how did that particle replicate the surface detail of the object it struck, down to minute detail, and convey it to your retina? That's my 64 dollar question.
     
  15. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married
    And it's only worth 64 dollars (maybe less) because no single photon produces the entire image of the object.

    Seriously. BASIC PHYSICS CLASS needed for you here.

    It didn't. A single photon does not convey such information. Billions upon billions of photons do.

    Look at the following:

    .

    Just one dot. Let's supposed that represents just one spot on a surface and you see it because photons are striking it, reflecting back to your eye, and striking the retina, causing nerves to transmit that information to your brain to form the image.

    Now this:


    . . . .


    How many dots are there? Right. Did the same photon strike each one? No. So how could your eye possibly see all four?

    You ought to be able to answer that question. And that answers part of your 64 dollar question too. MULTIPLE PHOTONS.

    But wait you scream! What about all the other stuff? Texture and depth and such? How do photons convey that information????

    They don't. At least not individually. Not even all together. The only reason the billions and billions and billions of photons "convey" that information is because they all convey different bits of light to our eyes, which take in and transmit all of those bits via nerves to our brain, and our *brain* does the work of organizing *and* interpreting that information. So when you see texture on a surface it is because varying amounts of photons, possibly of slightly varying frequencies, are being reflected from multiple different spots on the surface. That information is interpreted by our brain as texture, or depth, or whatever. And it is organized as such because our brains have learned to associate actual texture with the visual perception of texture, or actual depth with visually perceived depth.

    (This has even been borne out in experiments with crawling babies and toddlers. You can place a clear surface or plank over a gap, one that clearly to adult eyes is a drop in height, and babies will crawl over it just fine - they don't yet have a brain that has developed an association between "actual gap" and "what looks like a gap." But try to get a toddler over it and they will hesitate, because they can clearly see there's a drop - and they don't want to fall.)

    If you don't think that a great deal of what we perceive is actually separate from reality, watch this:

    VIDEO: Freaky T-Rex optical illusion that has to be seen to be believed | Latest News | Latest Breaking News | Daily Star. Simply The Best 7 Days A Week

    Watch it all the way to the end. There's no video trickery here - it is a pure optical illusion that your brain simply cannot perceive as it really is *unless* the object is viewed from the side/back.
     
  16. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married
    ..... No.

    THAT IS NOT HOW A LIGHT BULB WORKS.
     
Loading...