Electromagnetism: quantum mechanics or vortices?

It isn't a "mathematical object". It's something real. Even OnlyMe was able to dig up something.

Two charged particles with no initial motion move linearly towards each other or away from each other, depending on whether they have the same charge or not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's just like the way counter-rotating vortices attract and co-rotating vortices repel. If the charged particles did have initial relative motion they also rotate around one another, just like vortices. Did you look at Maxwell's page title and take note of his reference to a screw mechanism? Why do you think particles move linearly and rotationally? By throwing photons back and forth? Magic?

I've referred you to Einstein talking about that enough times.

It wasn't me who dreamed up screw mechanisms and vortices. Or spinors. And what I've described to you has a clear relationship to the observational evidence. By the way, note that the arrowheads on the radial electric lines of force don't work. The linear "electric" force pushes two negative particles apart, and it pushes two positive particles apart, but it pulls two opposite-charged particles together. That's because it takes two to tango. The force is the result of electromagnetic field interactions. It isn't a field in its own right. They aren't field lines. They're lines of force, and until you have two charged particles, there isn't any force.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: this thread is supposed to be about neutrinos. Perhaps you'd care to start a new thread to discuss the electromagnetic field?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So what you are saying that you have no evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

did you just seriously say this ?
wow,how many times a day can you make it obvious, yourself, that you clearly do not understand any science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

is it not math of how you find the lines ?

 

was it not you who changed this topic from neutrinos to farsights, hilarious flawed ramblings of the typical lack of justification of ego stroking show, due to one's emotional instability ?

 

Yes, I "believe" in vacuum fluctuations. But they aren't the same thing as photons, or virtual photons. Have you ever been on a ship? For an analogy, think of a photon as an oceanic swell wave. It's this big low hump of water that keeps on going in the same direction at maybe 8 knots. Vacuum fluctuations are like the "chop" of random little ripplets on the surface of the sea. A virtual photon is neither of the above, it's just a chunk of the ocean.

That's not how it is. What I've said is that the electron and the proton aren't throwing photons back and forth. That hydrogen atoms don't twinkle. And it's true.

There's no new mathematics. For example take a look at

\(|\boldsymbol{F}|= \frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0} {|q_1q_2|\over r^2}\)

Now ask yourself why this expression holds true. Ask yourself why there's a force between two charged particles. How does it work?

Then accept what Maxwell said and what Minkowski said. I don't make this stuff up.

I'm not wrong. Experimental evidence proves what happens, not mathematics.

I'm a bit of a Feynman fan. I don't have an issue with QED, but I'm unhappy that it's attracted some "cargo cult" baggage over the years. See this old paper dating from 1973. It says "The identity of these evanescent waves with virtual photons is established". No problem there. But virtual particles seem to have morphed into real photons that pop into existence like magic.

No theory does. QED doesn't.

No, I haven't got anything else. But note it isn't my theory of vortices. Look at Maxwell's page title. It's his theory of molecular vortices. A long time before anybody discovered the electron.

Come off it. We've got depictions of gravitational fields, gravitomagnetic fields, electric fields, magnetic fields, but no depictions of the electromagnetic field. Find me one. When you can't, face up to the omission.

The text said "the magnitude of the electric field E created by a single source point charge q at a certain distance from it". There is no electric field E. The electron has its electromagnetic field. E denotes the force between two charged particles q1 and q2, each of which has an electromagnetic field. And they aren't point particles.

Pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas effect, spin angular momentum, spinors, magnetic moment. Something's going round and round. Now what can it be? Let's see now, we've also got annihilation to gamma photons. There's plenty of reasons to conclude that the electron is an optical vortex.

Here's the Wikipedia article again, it says this:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion–antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. "

A 511keV photon doesn't flutter along turning into a 511keV electron and a 511keV positron, which then obligingly annihilate back to a single 511keV photon which nevertheless manages to propagate at c. And gamma-gamma pair production doesn't occur because pair production occurs, spontaneously, for no reason, like worms from mud. Instead it occurs because photons interact with photons. Photons do couple directly to each other. And when a 511keV photon couples to itself, we don't call it a photon any more. We call it an electron.

I have to go out now. I'll catch up later.

 

Farsight, when I posted the link referenced below, it was directly in response to your assertion, that an electromagnetic field could not be so depicted. That assertion summed up in the last sentence of your post quoted below, as a challenge.

BTW That link was the the first obvious result of a Google search on the words, Electromagnietic Field.., that included a graphic depiction... It was posted only as a responce to your challenge. Not meant in any way to suggest that it is accurate, in all or any respects. All of these graphic depictions are flawed in some way and none should be taken as entirely accurate examples of the underlying physics. (Passive recall suggests there may be an exception to that last comment, of mine.., as I seem to remember there was one picture that was of the arrangement of iron fillings/dust as arranged by the north/south magnetic poles of what appeared to be a common bar magnet... But that would not be an electromagnetic field.., though it could I suppose be replicated with an electromagnetic field...)

Anyway, my only point was that your assertion that it could not be done, found or shown, was erroneous, as it took a Google search and less tha 60 second to find that link.

 

A virtually photon is definitely not a photon in transit. I know people talk about exchange particles, but there aren't any particles being exchanged between the electron and the proton. The electron and the proton are the only particles there. They "exchange field" such that the hydrogen atom has hardly any discernible field.

No it isn't. The unsupported assertion is the idea there's photons flying back and forth between the electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom. It just isn't happening.

No. What I'm telling up about is the interpretation. Like E isn't a field, it's a force. And I repeat: it was Maxwell who talked about vortices well before me. They aren't my vortices. It wasn't me who discovered the Einstein-de Haas effect or that that the electron rotates or came up with the word spinor.

You surely know that co-rotating vortices repel and counter-rotating vortices attract? So you know there's a force between two charged particles that depends on their charge and their separation. The vortex model explains why the force is there, no other model does.

It's not that different. Minkowski talked about the field and about electric and magnetic force. Maxwell talked about vortices. They both talked about the screw nature of electromagnetism. And all of that is missing from the typical physicist's education on electromagnetism. It's like it's all gone, for no good reason.

Yes, and like I said virtual photons aren't real photons. They're field quanta. The electron and the proton exchange field. They don't throw photons back and forth.

Yes I do. And he didn't say virtual particles are real particles.

Don't dismiss Maxwell like that. We do physics to understand the world, not to make predictions.

Well it's wrong. It's an electromagnetic wave. It isn't an electric wave and a magnetic wave at right-angles to it. Remember what I said about the spatial derivative and the time derivative of potential? Imagine you're in a canoe and a big (troughless) wave comes at you. The angle of your canoe represents the "electric field variation". The rate of change of the angle of your canoe represents the "magnetic field variation".

No it isn't. Now show me a depiction of the electromagnetic field or concede that there's an omission.

Wrong again. Imagine there's an electron ahead of you, and you move past it. You detect what you call a B field. But you didn't create a B field for that electron just because you moved.

What I can say is this: there are no point particles, because the electron's field is what it is, and it's an electromagnetic field, not an electric field.

There's a force between two charged particles, there's no problem with that. The problem is with the baggage.

Because it's something you do with light. It's a wave thing. Not a point-particle thing.

Well it doesn't. So if it does, QED needs fixing.

The two photons provide it.

I gave the argument. A photon can't be travelling at c if it spends part of its time as an electron and a positron. A 511keV can't turn into a 511keV electron and a 511keV positron because energy is conserved. An electron and a positron can't annihilate into one photon because that's in breach of conservation of momentum. The given explanation is rubbish. The notion that pair production occurs because pair production occurs is cargo-cult trash.

No. You need two photons in gamma-gamma pair production because a photon stays a photon if it doesn't have something to interact with. And what you make is one electron and one positron.

It came from the electron. You need to do that circle-drawing thing. When an electron absorbs a photon its wavelength decreases. When it emits a photon its wavelength decreases. It's a bit like splitting one photon into two longer-wavelength photons.

 

it appears one also needs to learn and understand phasing.

 

Revisiting your earlier post:

That the electron doesn't absorb one photon and spit another one out. It takes a slice off the incident photon, and it decelerates it in the vector sense reducing its energy.

IMHO it's something like this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No. Because photons are the "lowest common denominator". And neutrinos are more like photons than electrons. Which we can make out of photons in pair production.

I reject your assertion that the electron fully absorbs the incident photon and spits out another photon. Here's what another website says:

"As mentioned on the previous page, Compton scattering occurs when the incident x-ray photon is deflected from its original path by an interaction with an electron. The electron is ejected from its orbital position and the x-ray photon loses energy because of the interaction but continues to travel through the material along an altered path."

 

Like I said, it doesn't combine the field lines. It isn't a great depiction. And it seems like it's the best any of you can do. Don't you think it's strange that you struggle to find a depiction of the electromagnetic field?

 

You say that as if any of your graphics are good depictions of anything!

The point is none of the graphics presented fully or accurately depict the physics being discussed. A fact you don't seem to understand.

 

Well, now you just lied about your citation, like you do about almost every citation. Your citation claims that a photon is completely absorbed and another photon is emitted, that's simply the facts about your citation. You either didn't bother to read your own citation and you are lying about its contents without knowledge of them or you did read it and you are lying despite the contents.

If you are going to go with this simplified picture, then you are going to reject the quantum mechanical picture. You are going to claim that a photon is a particle in the non-quantum sense.

 

Because there's hard scientific evidence such as the Einstein-de Haas effect and magnetic moment plus historical references to the rotation being a genuine rotation. And a non-sequitur wherein "it doesn't rotate like a planet" is used to say "it doesn't rotate at all". Besides, who say electron charge or mass is just "a fundamental property". That isn't good enough. I will not accept it.

I utterly reject that. Read The discovery of the electron spin by S A Goudsmit:

"Well, I had introduced those quantum numbers, but if I had been a good physicist, then I would have noticed already in May 1925 that this implied that the electron possessed spin. But I was no good physicist, I am no good physicist and thus I did not realize this. "

See above. Think of the Pauli exclusion principle as something like two whirlpools cannot overlap.

I reject that too. Because in 1915 the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrated that "that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". That was a hundred years ago Billy. I am reminded of The Sleeping Beauty.

The nonsense is thinking of the electron as a spinning ball. It isn't. You make it out of light, and you can diffract it, and it's got a magnetic moment. It's crystal clear that it's a wave in some kind of closed path. A field variation that now looks like a standing field. So charge isn't some fundamental property.

Again no. Again see The discovery of the electron spin: "When the day came I had to tell Uhlenbeck about the Pauli principle - of course using my own quantum numbers - then he said to me: "But don't you see what this implies? It means that there is a fourth degree of freedom for the electron. It means that the electron has a spin, that it rotates". "

Which is the wrong assumption.

Well don't, because it isn't. The photon isn't a point, it has an E=hf wave nature, we make electrons and positron out of photons, and we can diffract electrons. No way is the electron a point.

The muon is not an electron.

That's wrong thinking.

No. I will not be told that it just is. I don't do physics to be told that we cannot understand the electron. Or the world.

 

Historical references do not make physics because the history of physics shows old ideas being superseded by ideas that match the observations better. Where is your model of the electron that can show the same spin as the electron? Whenever I ask this question, you dodge the question and then you insult me, presumably in the hope that I will forget the question. If you can't match the mathematical properties of spin, then you have no worthwhile theory.

So, for probably the 50th time: Where is your model of the electron that can show the same spin as the electron?

If one can think of it this way, it is because the mathematics matches. So, please, show us the mathematics of these whirlpools and how they create the mathematics that match the Pauli exclusion principle.

If it is, then you should be able to show us the mathematics. In any case, you should face the fact that your "crystal clear" is your own personal experience and not something objective. (I hope that this drives you to seek professional help.)

You don't do physics. You present your fantasies and then demand that other people ignore whether or not these fantasies match the observations of the world.

So, again, show us your mathematical model or admit that you don't do physics.

 

Huh? I don't have one. What I'm doing is pointing to the evidence and saying spin is real. That's evidence like the electron's magnetic moment: "A loop of electric current, a bar magnet, an electron, a molecule, and a planet all have magnetic moments". And I'm pointing to the history. And to the cargo-cult non-sequitur wherein people say the electron doesn't spin like a planet so it doesn't spin at all. Well of course it doesn't spin like a planet, it's a spin ½ particle.

And where have you asked me for "my" model of the electron before?