No. I don't need any mathematics for you to know that the electromagnetic field is not generally depicted.
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.
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.
We need to see some evidence that you are not merely insane or lying. Mathematics will do that.
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: $$|E|={1\over4\pi\varepsilon_0}{|q|\over r^2}$$.
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.
That's wrong on so many counts I don't know where to start.
I do: read a physics textbook and work through the problems.
No, it's made from light in pair production.
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.
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.
That's not the given explanation, that's wikipedia. If you are truly interested, you can read a textbook on the subject.
There is no magic! I suggest you read
what Rod Nave says about it:
He also says that the photon is completely absorbed. Note that he speaks of two separate photons, the incident photon and the scattered photon.
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?
If this is true, show us your theory that matches all the evidence. Otherwise, all you have is crazy rambling.
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...
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.
It will give you a visceral understanding of why the electron moves.
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.
