# Electromagnetism: quantum mechanics or vortices?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by James R, Jan 7, 2015.

1. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,829
---------------

Farsight,

So, on the one hand you say that electrons are quantum field excitations, but on the other hand you don't believe in virtual photons. How does that work?

What I mean when I say that an electron is a point particle is that it has no detectable internal structure. It still has uncertainty in its position, just like every particle.

If you think an electron is not point-like, please tell me how big it is, and show me how you calculated that.

Photons stop dead when they are absorbed. And when they are emitted, they are emitted travelling at c, instantly. They don't accelerate. The magnetic moment is related to the spin, and is similarly quantised. As far as I am aware, no magic is involved.

Last edited: Jan 10, 2015

3. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
Virtual photons aren't real photons. They're "field quanta". It's like you divvy an electromagnetic field up into chunks and say each one is a like a photon. To depict the electron's electromagnetic field draw radial electric field lines and concentric magnetic field lines, then combine them like this:

Can you see how it relates to gravitomagnetism? When you have two charged particles, each experiences linear and/or rotational force because it's "a dynamical spinor in frame-dragged space". So the electron and the positron move linearly and rotationally like cyclones and anticyclones:

See positronium. Counter-rotating vortices attract, co-rotating vortices repel. There is no magical mysterious action at a distance, and they aren't throwing photons at one another. Hydrogen atoms don't twinkle, magnets don't shine. Instead virtual photons are "field quanta", and an electron and a proton will effectively "exchange field" such that the hydrogen atom has little field remaining.

That's wrong too. It has a spin ½ structure. Like Dirac's belt.

Because of its wave nature.

Its size is unbounded, because the electron's field is what it is. That isn't something I calculated.

No they don't. Who told you that? Go and look at pair production and Compton scattering. The electron is made from a photon, and it has its spin. When the electron absorbs part of a photon, the electron moves. Draw repeated circles on a piece of paper without lifting your pen off the paper, then repeat with incomplete circles representing a smaller wavelength.

Quite. Because they were always travelling at c.

You betchya.

Last edited: Jan 7, 2015

5. ### PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
Can you do a standard QFT problem with your pictures to as much accuracy as a QFT prediction?
No. Can you do a gravitomagnetism problem with your pictures to as much accuracy as the mathematical physics of real GR?
Given that the electron and the photon have different spins, you are clearly wrong. Can you show us a mathematical model of an electron that shows it is a photon and that captures all the phenomena associated with electrons? Or are you simply lying to us?

7. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
• Members should support any accusations of lying with appropriate evidence.
Only I'm not. It's called pair production.

All: this guy is dishonest. I've put him on ignore. I recommend you do the same.

8. ### Dr_ToadIt's green!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,527
Farsight, you're too fond of lies. Wikipedia and all but crackpots like you know that the photon is a spin-1 particle and the electron is a spin-1/2 particle.

And here's a thought: Put everyone here on ignore so you won't be bothered by reality, you pitiful fool.

Kristoffer likes this.
9. ### PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
Well, there is the tactic: when challenged on the scientific evidence (e.g, the different spin of the two particles), he insults me and simply dodges the question. Great scholarship, Farasight.

Messages:
2,973

11. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
"is the difference between the states"

12. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
well, from my own assessment, i found that it's you who is " dishonest ", as it has been clearly shown/ pointed out, numerous times, continuously. you put physbang and anyone else who does this on ignore. only because they show what a deceiving manipulative individual you are by using actual math and physics. nothing more.

13. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,829
Farsight,

Er... yes. Although, according to that model real photons are field quanta too.

No. It's like you define a photon to be an excitation of the field. That is what a photon is, in the field picture.

What? Show me the mathematics of how those fields add together to produce the diagrams you've provided. For a start, electric and magnetic fields have different units, so I don't see how you can add them as vectors. And even if you could, I don't see how you'd get pictures like the ones you've posted.

No.

Ok. Fine. Show me how you derive Coulomb's law from your model.

No. An electron's spin is not internal structure. It is a property that the electron has. The electron is not made of spin.

Then why do electrons act as if they are localised, if they are all infinitely large?

Pair production involves photons either being created or absorbed. When they are absorbed, they disappear and are replaced by something else.

Compton scattering involves absorption of a photon and emission of a second photon. When the photon is absorbed it vanishes.

I don't see how either of these effects support your claim.

No. The electron isn't made of anything, as far as we can tell. And it certainly isn't equivalent to a photon.

There's no such thing as absorbing part of a photon. It's all or nothing.

And that will prove .... what?

Aqueous Id likes this.
14. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
No problem. The important point is that hydrogen atoms don't twinkle and magnets don't shine. Virtual photons are not photons. They aren't short-lived photons. They don't pop into existence like magic. And they aren't the same thing as vacuum fluctuations.

No problem.

No. I don't need any mathematics for you to know that the electromagnetic field is not generally depicted. You know that there's plenty of depictions of electric fields and magnetic fields, and you also know that these are aspects of the electromagnetic field. And that Heaviside developed gravitomagnetism as an analogy of electromagnetism. And you've heard of spinors and Maxwell's vortices. So accept what I tell you. Don't try to dismiss it by demanding some kind of mathematical proof. Mathematics will not prove that electrons and protons throw photons at one another.

Note that in John Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics section 11.10 he says "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fμv rather than E or B separately". Then ask yourself why you've never seen a depiction of the electromagnetic field, and then try to depict it yourself.

No. Because that would take a whole thread all on its own. See Wikipedia? See where it says this:

"it follows from Coulomb's law that the magnitude of the electric field E created by a single source point charge q at a certain distance from it r in vacuum is given by: $|E|={1\over4\pi\varepsilon_0}{|q|\over r^2}$.

That's wrong on so many counts I don't know where to start.

No, it's made from light in pair production. It's a spinor. An optical vortex. I know that isn't what's taught, but it will be.

Because they have a centre like a hurricane has a centre, because an electron is a spinor.

There is no magic. Try to explain what actually happens in for example gamma-gamma pair production. If you're sharp you can spot what's wrong in the given explanation.

There is no magic! I suggest you read what Rod Nave says about it:

We made it out of light in pair production. And we can diffract it. And when we annihilate it with the positron we get light again. So it isn't made of cheese, now is it?

Where are you getting such assertions from. It's called Compton scattering. Not Compton absorption. And I quote: when the incoming photon gives part of its energy to the electron...

It will give you a visceral understanding of why the electron moves.

15. ### PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
But we need the mathematics to know that you aren't simply insane. If there is any truth to your pictures, then you have to be able to show how they match the mathematics of the physics. Otherwise, you are merely a liar or deluded. You can choose what path you take. One option is to apologize.

We need to see some evidence that you are not merely insane or lying. Mathematics will do that.
As usual, you dodge the real questions. Learning math is hard, Farsight, but that doesn't excuse you from learning it and just lying and calling yourself a "physics expert". You just don't understand. When asked for a derivation of something, you can't just give something else that is derived from it.

I do: read a physics textbook and work through the problems.
Sure, but you have no theory about this that can match the evidence. And when asked to account for the different spin between photons and electrons you desperately change the subject.
Everything is a spinor, you fool! A spinor is a mathematical object that can be used to describe anything. It's like you are calling light a set or a number.
That's not the given explanation, that's wikipedia. If you are truly interested, you can read a textbook on the subject.
He also says that the photon is completely absorbed. Note that he speaks of two separate photons, the incident photon and the scattered photon.
If this is true, show us your theory that matches all the evidence. Otherwise, all you have is crazy rambling.
You are arguing from textual analysis and cherry-picking. If you read the entire page, you note that Nave identifies two separate photons, on incoming and one outgoing. Part of the energy of the photon goes to the creation of a new photon and one goes to the momentum of the electron, but the entire incoming photon is absorbed. This is a consistent story across legitimate scientific sources. Because of your dogma, you are ignoring the relevant context and harping on a single sentence.
But if you can't match the details people can observe, then you are merely presenting a fantasy of understanding, not real understanding. You are inviting them to share your world of delusion without care for the real world.

Aqueous Id likes this.
16. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
No you don't. You just need to know that the electromagnetic field is not generally depicted. Here's a depiction of the electric field:

Here's a depiction of the magnetic field:

Now you show me a depiction of the electromagnetic field.

17. ### PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
You are making more extensive claims. You are claiming that your particular picture shows us the electromagnetic field and you are claiming that your picture matches gravitomagnetism and how electrons and protons attract one another. So show us the math, or apologize for giving that impression and never claim to be showing a picture of the electromagnetic field again and never make the same claims about those picutres and those phenomena again.

18. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
No. Stop trying to put up a mathematical smokescreen. Show me a depiction of the electromagnetic field. Come on, what's the problem? You know about this don't you:

"Over time, it was realized that the electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole - the electromagnetic field".

So depict it.

19. ### PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
I do not care that it is impossible to depict a complicated mathematical object.

What I care about is the claims that you make and constantly refuse to answer questions about, despite your lies to the contrary.

So, please, answer the question: What is the evidence that your picture matches the details about how the electromagnetic field moves a charged particle?

Then you can get back to showing how inhomogeneous space, as you describe it, is used in a single physics example. So far, your ideas seem to have no relationship to observational evidence.

Messages:
3,914
21. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Statement: The world is flat.

Question: Can you tell me why, you believe the world is flat?

Answer: Because I know the world is flat!

Question: But can you prove how you know the world is flat?

Answer: You just have to take my word for it, because I am right.......

Messages:
3,492
23. ### Beer w/StrawTranscendental Ignorance!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
4,429
Statement: We have to know you're not insane.

Response: No you don't.