sci.physics.electromag

On 11 mar, 16:25, Benj wrote:
> On Mar 11, 5:09 am, "Vince Morgan"
> wrote:
>
> > > (I'm going back to the automobile repair shop now, where things seem
> > > so much more "real" to me! Thanks again!)
>
> > You think you've got a problem Ben. I don't even think the real questio=
n is
> > "why", but "how". Why seems to imply motive, and math can't ascribe tha=
t.
>
> Sure I've got a problem. I really can't see how mathematics is the
> "ultimate" reality of physical science like everyone else in the field
> (different use of the word) believes. See, even you are saying that
> math is the "ultimate" reality! And if math can't answer "why" then
> you say "why" is not a "real" question! But the truth is that if
> "why" (which was a term brought up byTimoand not by me) implies
> "motive" which "math can't ascribe" I'd counter with the statement
> that "why" therefore implies causes and causality is a large part of
> this discussion. That means that if physics can't answer "why" it
> can't answer "causality". If it can't answer causality then Jefimenko
> is a loon and all the discussions here are moot. Somehow I just can't
> accept that. I have called those beliefs "dogma".

You are right Benj. Belief that there is no causality and that
physics can't ultimately explain "why" is the dogma that has
ruled since the end of the 1920's. It is called the Copenhagen
interpretation.

Very big names vehemently opposed the trend, like Einstein,
de Broglie, and Planck among others, but they were too few
to reverse the trend.

I haven't read the whole thread, far from it, just dabbed in
here and there and saw that it went in all directions.

But you have been discussing with physicists who simply
do not believe in causality nor that it is possible for particles
(photons, electrons, what have you) can remain localized
as they move). You will never get any straight answer
from them on anything that mandates causality.

Maybe you got answers that satisfied you, maybe not.
I don't have the time nor patience to read the whole
thread.

But if you are still looking for some aswers, here is my
contribution on the few points that I saw you raise.

I noted that upi got somehow confused with QED photons
as being different from real electromagnetic photons
(that have inertia). The QED virtual photons are not
photons at all. they are only a mathematical
metaphorical expression of momentary states of the
underlying Coulomb interaction between charged
particles, and even then it does not differentiate
beween the Coulomb force and the energy induced
at the distance considered. Not saying that QED
is not useful nor precise. It simply is only math.

Real photons are discretely emitted by atoms, as
electrons move to orbitals closer to the nucleus or
as nucleons move to tighter packing inside nucleons.

These are electromagnetic in nature (real energy that
has inertia) and the can only remain localized as
they move.

And, actually, it is possible to apply fields to localized
moving photons even it Copenhagen freaks say it is
impossible, while remaining in perfect sync sinc with
Maxwell. They simply are unable to understand the
concept.

I don't know how you are with math (not much is required
really), but If you are interested here is an easy (somewhat)
equation that can describe a moving photons with fields.

You can use a pocket calculator to verify that it
is proper. You only need the wavelength of the photon
you want to calculate the energy of as a variable.

Energy =3D (hc/(2 lambda))_Z +
[((eps0 E^2)/2)_Y cos^2(wt) +(B^2/(2 mu0))_X sin^2(wt)]V

Where E and B are the the standing oscillating electric and
magnetic fields of the photon and V is the integrated spherical
volume that the energy of the photon would occupy if it was
statically compressed into the smallest sphere possible.

lambda =3D wavelength of the photon
E=3D(pi e)/(eps0 alpha^3 lambda^2)
B=3D(mu0 pi e c)/(alpha^3 lambda^2)
V=3D(alpha^5 lambda^3)/(2 pi^2)

e is the elementary charge
eps0 is the electrostatic permittivity constant of vacuum
alpha is the fine structure constant
mu0 is the magnetostatic permeability constant of vacuum
c is the speed of light

Well !! Looking at it now it seems rather complex, but
if you transpose it on a paper sheet with the right
symbols you will see that it is rather simple.

It is also possible with these localized fields to explain
"why" particles tend to move in straight line when no
outside force is interfering.

This is explained in the following paper. Fields E, B and
the Volume mentioned up there are derived and explained
in this paper if you are interested.

http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/discrete_electromagnetic_fields.pdf

Andr=E9 Michaud