Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Photons
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RealityCheck" data-source="post: 64880891" data-attributes="member: 148287"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, you should always rely on wikipedia to accurately represent current scientific thinking.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, now there you're wrong. Neutrons do not repel each other. You've lost at this point. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>You're confusing electrical interactions with gravity. "Dark matter" is hypothesized as a gravitational, not electrical, attractor. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, we understand a great deal about the process. Like I said, the math works perfectly to predict and describe charged-particle interactions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>About the best answer anyone is going to get on charge is:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RealityCheck, post: 64880891, member: 148287"] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Photons
Top
Bottom