Photons are said to be the electromagnetic force carries. But I have a hard time imagining photons being the particles that carries a force between negative and positive charges. Everytime I hear about photons, they are described as light particles. So is there some other type of electromagnetic force-carrier particle that acts between two charges? I've heard that there are 8 different types of strong nuclear force carries and 3 different kinds of weak nuclear force carries.
Saith, Electromagnetic photons have oscillating electric and magnetic fields. They are emitted by electrons at certain frequencies that are related to their energies. The particles that are responsible for static electric and magnetic fields may not be photons at all. Although, the scientific community calls these particles "virtual photons", nobody really knows what static fields (electric and magnetic) are composed of. It is my opinion that the static electric field of an electron is not the result of an emmision of particles from the electron, but that it is actually an extension of the electron itself. In other words, I believe that an electric field is a "less dense" part of the electron. Tom
Saith There are four known force carriers, the photon; carrier of the electromagnetic force, the gluon; carrier of the strong force, and the electroweak bosons (W and Z). The graviton is theoriezed as the carrier of gravity however, it has not been detected. So far, I think that's about it for force carriers.
Wouldn't W+, W-, and Z be considered three particles? Since particles with a different charge are considered to be different particles, like the electron and posititron or up and down quark. And gluons can carry three different kinds of colour charge. I ask because I heard that there are 48 quantum particles. And I only came up with 28. Also, don't the pions take part in mediating the strong nuclear force between baryons? I have a lot easier time understanding fundamental bosons rather than the composite ones. Are all bosons considered force carriers?
There seems to be very little information on new theories and the observations that the theories were based on. For example, what observation gave the conclusion that light comes in packets, or electrons have set energy levels. Does anyone know how someone would measure the wavelength and amplitude of a photon? Has any expirement seen the effects of an incomplete photon (that is one that never completely reached the end of its wave, which is to say one that maybe had a positive flux for so long, then had a negative flux for so long, but stopped before it got back to zero)? Has any experiment shown that it is possible for a photon to have an incomplete cycle? For anyone that doesn't know what i mean by flux, here is the explanation: a flux is a change. A photon goes through a change from being positive, then changes negative, then goes back to 0. In this way a photon is neutral, beacuse the chages cancel out, much like in an atom. These questions are hard to find answers to im sure, but it would be great if a couple could be answered. Frencheneesz
The photoelectric effect (Einstein). Cavity radiation (Planck). As for wavelength, very often you know the energy of the photon (if you are generating the photons). E=hc/(lambda), where (lambda) is the wavelength. As for amplitude, that is not a property of individual photons, only of classical EM waves (which are composed of trillions of photons). Photons do not have cycles like EM waves have. The closest analogy I can think of is... water waves:water molecules::EM waves: photons There is no experimental justification for that model of a photon. It's not as hard as you think--there's free physics stuff everywhere online. Start by digging around here: http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/welcome.html Tom
Tom Why did Einstein choose to define the universe in terms of three spatial and one time dimension instead of four spatial dimensions? Jeff <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm> Shadows </a>
jeffocal, Cause he was an idiot. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh....I'm sorry. You must have been asking the other Tom. Tom
aaaaah not the shadow monster! I think Albert did so because it is coherent with our perceptions. Why did he not define the universe in terms of 431 spatial, 56 temporal, 123 temporary, 12 weird and 1 totally-uncomprehensible dimension?
The reason I asked is because if one transposes Einstein’s space time equations that were derived in terms of velocity and time into four spatial dimensions in terms of momentum and energy wouldn’t they be more compatible with the energy and moment equations of Quantum mechanics. Merlijn Do you think this would make it possible for one to directly compare the relativistic solutions regarding the force of gravity to quantum mechanical solution regarding the quantum nature of mass and energy? Jeff http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm
Well, I've never asked him Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! , but I imagine it is because the spacetime coordinates of an event are uniquely specified by those 4 coordinates. You mean you have a theory that requires more than 4 paramaters to specify an event??? :bugeye: I thought you were all about economy, Tom! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sincerely, "The other" Tom Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What i meant by having little information on new theories and the observations they are based on, is that i can't FIND them. Like they have to be published SOMEWHERE i know, i just can't find them. Well i was kind of going for explanations of the observations instead of sitations, but thats ok. I kind of had the mind that the theory on light is that photons are that the photons DO osscilate (sp error sorry)... eh whatever. the thing is i am trying to learn about light so i can make my own theory. I have a very simplistic theory that just takes into account forces and the particles associated with those forces. So far I have been able to explain many many things from this simple point of view, from the reason why evaporation cools things to heat and pressure to why matter changes states to brownian motion to why plasma happens. Of course most of it stems from what is already taught, but it has a more easy to understand overview. Some of the things i haven't been able to explain are anything about light, electricity, and im sure there are more things, but i can't remeber them right now. From what I know right now, people think light comes in packets called photons. And these photons have the wave property. I know the picture of a light wave with crests and troughs, frequencies and amplitudes are nothing but a graph of some sort of test on light. In no way am i going to believe that a light "wave" travels up and down like that. My question is: What do the axis of the graphs mean? As in a higher amplitude means what, and i presume that the farther along the wavelenght you go is for time? Please explain your explanation of light with the photons that don't ocislate, because i have a very similar idea, it is just not what i've heard from "the books". When i've heard your explanation i can discuss further. Thanks. Frencheneesz
I found the book Q.E.D. by Richard Feynmann very insightfull! It is not too hard to read and much fun. try it. SinceI am not a physicist, I think I am not the right person to try to explain it. The thing that I understood was, that the wave function of particles, is not so much a fysical property but more a quatum-probablility property. The state of a photon can be bescribed with a probability vector of constant legth, but with varying direction (it's 'rotating'). When two photons collide it's the sumn of the two vectors that determine the result. they extinguish each other, add up, or something in between. Hmm abstract FUN! WOW! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
“Well, I've never asked him , but I imagine it is because the space-time coordinates of an event are uniquely specified by those 4 coordinates.” Tom2 Relativity attributes physical properties and causality to the dimension of time. Relativity defines the curvature of space-time as the causality of the force of gravity. However Chapter Sixteen http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter16.htm of Shadows defines time only in terms of the sequential ordering of the causality of events while defining the force of gravity in terms of a curvature of three dimensional space with respect to the fourth spatial dimension. Therefore, according to the shadows http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm , model time is non-physical dimension, which allows one to uniquely specify an event in four spatial dimensions. Jeff
Tom2, Let me remind you that in Einstein's curved-space model there are more parameters than four, since now you have to explain how space can curve at all. Let me also remind you that the curved-space theory is an exclusive model: it excludes other long-distance interactions such as the electromagnetic interaction. I have a gravitational model that not only lets space remain uncurved, but also includes the electromagnetic interaction. Tom
“I have a gravitational model that not only lets space remain incurved, but also includes the electromagnetic interaction.” Tom I’d be interested in reviewing this if possible. However, I disagree with you that a curved space model it excludes other long-distance interactions such as the electromagnetic interaction. The curved space mechanisms defined in shadows does explain and predict all long-range interactions including those associated with electromagnetic energy. Jeff
Prosoothus, The question was: In other words, "Why did Einstein develop a theory in which 4 parameters are required to specify a point in spacetime?" I'm not sure, so let's count them: x (that's one) y (that's two) z (that's three) t (yay! that's four!) Whatever other parameters you are thinking of, they are unrelated to the question at hand. Tom
Tom2, Let me complete your list: Conversion of x,y,z,t from one geometry to another (that's at least five) Tom
Jeffocal, i was wondering if you could give us explanations here in the forum, instead of siting the shadows long and frankly hard to read paper. Thanks.
My Theory Hey, Since I have my theory, I was wondering if anyone would test it by asking me to explain things with my theory. Look at the post of mine before my previous post if you don't know what im talking about. But even if you don't know what im talking about, just ask any question you can think of that doesn't involve complicated thinking (like such a specific question like why does iron bond with air, nothing like that) Will anyone take me up on that? Come on it'll be a challenge from people who think they know it all, and itll be a chance to improve my theory! Frencheneesz
