When particles collide with their anti-particles, they both disintegrate into electromagnetic radiation, their energy is carried away in neutral particles called photons. These particles then move out in a wave field and this field then is Electromagnetic Radiation in the form of waves or an energized field. Electric and magnetic fields obey the properties of superposition, so fields due to particular particles or time-varying electric or magnetic fields contribute to the fields due to other causes. These properties cause various phenomena including refraction and diffraction. For instance, a travelling EM wave incident on an atomic structure induces oscillation in the atoms, thereby causing them to emit their own EM waves. These emissions then alter the impinging wave through interference. Any electric charge which accelerates, or any changing magnetic field, produces electromagnetic and elcotrostatic radiation. [ this works both ways] The behavior of EM radiation depends on its wavelength. Higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths, and lower frequencies have longer wavelengths. When EM radiation interacts with single atoms and molecules, its behavior depends on the amount of energy per quantum it carries. Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into octaves — as sound waves are — winding up with eighty-one octaves. Electromagnetic waves propagation may occur in a vacuum as well as in a material medium. In the more general case any change of moment of a particle is accompanied by the emission of a photon,We also know that when an electron changes position from one orbit to the next it also emits a photon that equates to the energy change Energy related to the frequency of the wave given by Planck's relation E = hν, where E is the energy of the photon, h = 6.626 × 10-34 J·s is Planck's constant, and ν is the frequency of the wave. So, this then is the Energized Quantum Field. In the photoelectric effect, it was observed that shining a light on certain metals would lead to an electric current in a circuit. Presumably, the light was knocking electrons out of the metal, causing current to flow. Einstein explained this by postulating that the electrons can receive energy from electromagnetic field only in discrete portions an amount of energy E that was related to the frequency, f of the light by E = hf where h is Planck's constant (6.626 × 10-34 J seconds). Only photons of a high-enough frequency, (above a certain threshold value) could knock an electron free. For example, photons of blue light had sufficient energy to free an electron from the metal, but photons of red light did not. More intense light above the threshold frequency could release more electrons, but no amount of light below the threshold frequency could release an electron So if one could narrow down the frequency of the charged photon's created by photon/antiphoton interaction and the resulting energized quantum field [as did Einstein with the blue light ] then one has the key to taking energy from the vacuum.
Actually, once you get to a total energy in excess of 90GeV, you also get the energy carried away by Z bosons. Photons are just the low energy preference. 81 octaves? Evidence? I wasn't aware there was an upper bound. No, only charged particles. Neutral ones don't interact with photons (by definition). No, it's a quantum field. Every particle type has an associated quantum field where excitations in the quantum field are seen as particles. Photons are not charged. If they were, they'd interact with themselves directly. Gluons are charged under colour and thus you can get gluon-gluon interactions. You don't get direct photon-photon interactions. Also, the photon has no charge under any group and thus is it's own antiparticle. Do you're doubly incorrect. There's a fundamental difference between knocking a preexisting electron out of a metal and knocking a particle/antiparticle pair out of the vacuum. Why do I get the impression you've learnt your quantum field theory from Wikipedia and you're just making crap up as you go along?
Try debate rather then Libel, Slander or Defamation. Thanks for the 'crap' comment!:bugeye: if you read both the full posts you would have a better perspective on what I posted here. As for your comments. 1-------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Actually, once you get to a total energy in excess of 90GeV, you also get the energy carried away by Z bosons. Photons are just the low energy preference' --------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks but I was making a point with the fields created by photon propagation. 2-------------------------------------------------------------------- '81 octaves? Evidence? I wasn't aware there was an upper bound' --------------------------------------------------------------------- Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into octaves — as sound waves are. it's called an example. but one example of evidence is Isaac Asimov, Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts. Hastingshouse/Daytrips Publ., 1992. Page 389. This same example has been used in many papers. 3-------------------------------------------------------------------- 'No, only charged particles. Neutral ones don't interact with photons (by definition)' --------------------------------------------------------------------- Photons, real and virtual, are emitted and absorbed by charged particles, even though they are not charged themselves. They only interact with charged particles, and not with each other. That’s why photons don’t interact with magnetic fields. the photons which make up the magnetic field are not charged so other photons cannot interact with them. Technical p.s.: photons have entourages of electrons and other particles around them, and so photons can interact with other photons by interacting with this cloud of charged particles. The effect is so small it hasn’t been observed yet for low-energy photons. Very high-energy photons produced in particle accelerators may collide with themselves readily. The effect is also observed when photons from the cosmic microwave background move through the hot gas surrounding a galaxy cluster. The CMB photons are scattered to higher energies by the electrons in this gas, resulting in the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. Photons are ejected with other particles that DO interact with photons. as in high energy photons as described in Compton Scattering. 4-------------------------------------------------------------------- 'No, it's a quantum field. Every particle type has an associated quantum field where excitations in the quantum field are seen as particles' --------------------------------------------------------------------- Quantum field theory is a theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of field-like systems or, equivalently, of many-body systems. It is widely used in particle physics and condensed matter physics. Most theories in modern particle physics, including the Standard Model of elementary particles and their interactions, are formulated as relativistic quantum field theories. In condensed matter physics, quantum field theories are used in many circumstances, especially those where the number of particles is allowed to fluctuate I am making a case for a ''Energized Quantum Field''. 5-------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Photons are not charged. If they were, they'd interact with themselves directly. Gluons are charged under colour and thus you can get gluon-gluon interactions. You don't get direct photon-photon interactions. Also, the photon has no charge under any group and thus is it's own antiparticle' Do you're doubly incorrect. See my response to #3 and prove it, use refrences please. 6-------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do I get the impression you've learnt your quantum field theory from Wikipedia and you're just making crap up as you go along? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Wikipedia is one of many sources I have used yes, Regardless if gathered from Wikipedia or a physics journal the information is the same. example the Maxwell equations are still the Maxwell equations regardless of the source. As for the derogatory remark, what can I say. Try debate rather then Libel, Slander or Defamation.
That doesn't mean your comment was right. Can you cite a paper which puts a limit of 81 octaves? The human hearing range is limited, we cannot hear past a certain level. 81 octaves implies gamma rays have a limits frequency. This is obviously false. You are referring to 'loop processes' in QED. Photon-photon scattering is a 4 vertex process in QED so is suppressed compared to tree level processes like electrons scattering photons. Yes, via loop processes any particle can interact with any other particle but if you are talking about direct interaction then a particular boson group will only interact with a particle type if the particle type is charged under that force. For instance, photons have no colour charge and thus are 'invisible' to gluons at tree level. Tell me, have you ever calculated scattering cross sections for such things? Do you even know how? Thanks for the what seems like copy and paste definition of a quantum field theory. For future reference I am a theoretical physics PhD student who did half a dozen QFT courses at Cambridge. I don't need to be told what I have a degree and masters in. No, you're giving your interpretation of the qualitative explainations you've misunderstood from wordy sources of information. Have you ever read a book on QFT? For instance Peskin and Schroeder or Ryder? Mainstream physics has already made a case for an 'energized quantum field', as your copy and paste definition of 'field theory' demonstrates. Are you honestly asking me to prove that the photon has no U(1), SU(2) or SU(3) charge?! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Try any book or lecture course on the Standard Model from the last 35 years. Except you didn't use anything unambigious like equations, you avoided that and gave a series of questionable interpretations you have made. Feel free to use QFT equations. A number of people on these forums are obviously competant field theorists, don't worry about using equations, we'll understand. The question is, do you? How about "You know what, I don't actually know any field theory, you're right." Where have I said anything untrue? Besides, I haven't commited slander, do you know the difference between libel and slander?
without the rude sarcasm one is written one is oral, and it seems YOU ARE VERY ORAL. I do not mind debate and input like yours is why I posted, well.. without the rude sarcasm. So if you want to keep your comments civil and on focus to the data at hand, then we can continue this. I am more then happy to site all refrences and my thought process. However if you can not then I will be just as happy to add you to my ignore list.
