Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Faster Than Light?


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#35 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1341 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 03:50 AM

I have pointed out to you before that this idea you seem to have about radio waves is wrong. Radio waves are composed of real photons, just as real as visible light or γ-rays. The only difference is the wavelength.

 

In QED, you have real photons, just as you do in simple quantum mechanics, but in addition you have these transient disturbances in the EM field labelled rather unfortunately "virtual photons".

 

These are not photons. More here: https://profmattstra...-what-are-they/

 

I am not sure what you mean by the photons "of Einstein". As far as I know, Einstein's picture of photons was essentially the one we still have today. He got his Nobel Prize for demonstrating the wave-particle duality of light.  In what way do you think photons were seen differently in his day from the more modern picture?

 

This is what I am driving at https://www.research..._the_QED_photon

 

Further more an interesting discussion on virtual photons which is partly related https://www.research...virtual_photon2

 

Photons travel in straight lines, Virtual photons can have many differing properties and can bend around corners like magnetic field lines for example, which photons can not. When discussing photons and virtual photons, people often use the wrong terms. 

 

Radio waves in my book on QFT in the section on QED are transmitted by polarized virtual photons, not polarized photons. Photons can not be polarized, other than perhaps in QED they are made up of a particle anti particle pair ripped from the vacuum. 



#36 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1341 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 03:59 AM

A wave does not imply uncertainty. A wave function is deterministic.

 

How a photon (particle/wave function) interacts, with other particles via absorption and emission as it passes through a gas and is slowed down and refracted. Might be a similar effect in space due to interaction with virtual particles.

 

Modelling of interactions of little particles is easier with a wave function, as you dont know exactly where the little ****er is until it is detected. And according to bohemian theory photons dont go in straight lines due to interactions with the medium they are passing through.


Edited by Flummoxed, 28 September 2019 - 04:03 AM.


#37 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3495 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 04:18 AM

How a photon (particle/wave function) interacts, with other particles via absorption and emission as it passes through a gas and is slowed down and refracted. Might be a similar effect in space due to interaction with virtual particles.
 
Modelling of interactions of little particles is easier with a wave function, as you dont know exactly where the little ****er is until it is detected. And according to bohemian theory photons dont go in straight lines due to interactions with the medium they are passing through.


But they do interact with a guiding wave.

#38 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1341 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 04:47 AM

But they do interact with a guiding wave.

 

Yes they do interact according to the mathematical model with a guiding wave. But a particle is not a solid thing in QFT it has increasingly blurred edges as you move away from it, giving the appearance of a wave. 


Edited by Flummoxed, 28 September 2019 - 04:48 AM.


#39 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 05:23 AM

This is what I am driving at https://www.research..._the_QED_photon

 

Further more an interesting discussion on virtual photons which is partly related https://www.research...virtual_photon2

 

Photons travel in straight lines, Virtual photons can have many differing properties and can bend around corners like magnetic field lines for example, which photons can not. When discussing photons and virtual photons, people often use the wrong terms. 

 

Radio waves in my book on QFT in the section on QED are transmitted by polarized virtual photons, not polarized photons. Photons can not be polarized, other than perhaps in QED they are made up of a particle anti particle pair ripped from the vacuum. 

This is wrong. Here is an article on photon polarisation: https://en.wikipedia...on_polarization

 

The idea that radio waves are not quantised into photons like all other EM radiation is frankly daft. I think you either have a bad book or you have misunderstood what it is saying. If you can post an extract I'd be interested to read it, but I am very sceptical that what you say is what is meant. 



#40 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3495 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 06:44 AM

Yes they do interact according to the mathematical model with a guiding wave. But a particle is not a solid thing in QFT it has increasingly blurred edges as you move away from it, giving the appearance of a wave.


In debroglie model, both wave and particle exist.

#41 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1341 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 07:01 AM

This is wrong. Here is an article on photon polarisation: https://en.wikipedia...on_polarization

 

The idea that radio waves are not quantised into photons like all other EM radiation is frankly daft. I think you either have a bad book or you have misunderstood what it is saying. If you can post an extract I'd be interested to read it, but I am very sceptical that what you say is what is meant. 

 

I still do not think the guys discussing photons and QED photons in the link I posted were daft people. 

 

This is the most recommended comment on the first thread I posted from research gate discussing photons. Is this what you think is daft, if so why ?

"7th Jul, 2016

Eindhoven University of Technology
Before you start explaining what photons are, it is sensible to consider some contradictions in the current knowledge about photons.
Photons are known to be able to travel billions of light years and can then still be detected by relatively small photon detectors. Waves are not capable of performing that trick. Wave packages disperse when they move. Single waves spread over space and their amplitude diminishes with increasing distance from the source.
The EM field relies on the nearby existence of electric charges. It cannot act as a stable and constant carrier during long distance trips of photons. Thus, quite probably photons are not vibrations or excitations of the EM field. 
However, the set of solutions of multidimensional homogeneous second order partial differential equations cover more than waves. For odd numbers of participating dimensions solutions exist that can be considered as shape keeping fronts and in one participating dimension these solutions also keep their amplitude. These last kind of solutions can travel over huge distances without losing their integrity. 

A significant difference exist between these solutions and EM waves. Also the carrier field will differ. That field must always and everywhere be present. A good candidate is our deformed living space. That field comes closer to the field that we know as gravitation potential.

"

 

I will dig my text book out and see how many pages I would have to scan on QED, no guarantees I am not scanning the entire book. I will also take the opportunity again to reread the section I am thinking about. 


  • Dubbelosix likes this

#42 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1341 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 07:12 AM

In debroglie model, both wave and particle exist.

 

In reality a quantum field/fluctuation can be modeled mathematically as a wave or as a particle and tests can be arranged to show either property, as you correctly point out. BUT neither a clearly defined solid particle or wave need actually exist. A smudge moving through space with increasingly blurred edges can also be modeled as a wave or particle depending on how you try and observe it.

 

Edit 1 interesting link on QFT  https://medium.com/s...al-b670cc8462d0

 

Edit 2

Method 1: classical electromagnetism: Every charged particle can be associated with an electric field. Other charged particles lying within this electric field will be subject to a force.

Method 2: particle physics EM interaction. Every charged particle emits virtual photons to every other charged particle, which exchange energy and momentum according to conservation laws.
Method 3: QED: every charged particle is a quantum particle. Quantum particles interact with each other based on a theory of quantum systems, which are described using a combination of wave functions and operators and whose results are (typically) eigenvalues describing the possible set of outcomes for a given observation
Method 4: QFT: every charged particle is a quantum field. Quantum fields interact with each other according to QFT (using functionals and other unique QFT concepts).

 

In QED the photon is the quanta of the electromagnetic field, which is a field radiating outward from a source as a wave, just like in maxwells equations, which becomes weaker as it travels. Is QED saying that the energy in a radio wave is transferred by individual photons to a receiving antennae via inertia E=pv, if so how much energy would each photon have to be able travel several light years and still be received as a continuous wave front? Photons dont lose energy as they travel through space! so at some point individual photons should be able to be detected from a radio wave. The fact is radio waves are continuous and are electrically polarized and can cancel each other out. Photons dont cancel each other out, they pass through each other. 


Edited by Flummoxed, 28 September 2019 - 08:07 AM.


#43 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 08:12 AM

I still do not think the guys discussing photons and QED photons in the link I posted were daft people. 

 

This is the most recommended comment on the first thread I posted from research gate discussing photons. Is this what you think is daft, if so why ?

"7th Jul, 2016

Eindhoven University of Technology
Before you start explaining what photons are, it is sensible to consider some contradictions in the current knowledge about photons.
Photons are known to be able to travel billions of light years and can then still be detected by relatively small photon detectors. Waves are not capable of performing that trick. Wave packages disperse when they move. Single waves spread over space and their amplitude diminishes with increasing distance from the source.
The EM field relies on the nearby existence of electric charges. It cannot act as a stable and constant carrier during long distance trips of photons. Thus, quite probably photons are not vibrations or excitations of the EM field. 
However, the set of solutions of multidimensional homogeneous second order partial differential equations cover more than waves. For odd numbers of participating dimensions solutions exist that can be considered as shape keeping fronts and in one participating dimension these solutions also keep their amplitude. These last kind of solutions can travel over huge distances without losing their integrity. 

A significant difference exist between these solutions and EM waves. Also the carrier field will differ. That field must always and everywhere be present. A good candidate is our deformed living space. That field comes closer to the field that we know as gravitation potential.

"

 

I will dig my text book out and see how many pages I would have to scan on QED, no guarantees I am not scanning the entire book. I will also take the opportunity again to reread the section I am thinking about. 

I've told you what I think is daft.

 

I do not see that the quoted passage singles out radio waves as differing from other EM radiation in any way. Radio waves are actually not mentioned. Nor  do I read it as denying that EM radiation is quantised into photons.  

 

What it seems to be saying is that you can't represent a photon accurately as a classical "wave packet" (viz. as  a Fourier series of waves of differing wavelength). That is rather a different point, surely? 



#44 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1341 posts

Posted 29 September 2019 - 05:03 AM

I've told you what I think is daft.

 

I do not see that the quoted passage singles out radio waves as differing from other EM radiation in any way. Radio waves are actually not mentioned. Nor  do I read it as denying that EM radiation is quantised into photons.  

 

What it seems to be saying is that you can't represent a photon accurately as a classical "wave packet" (viz. as  a Fourier series of waves of differing wavelength). That is rather a different point, surely? 

 

I am trying to pull together different models to get a more real picture. As I have said before I might be wrong. BUT

 

My understanding is the models are more mathematical than physical. Some believe religiously that the model portrays a physical reality, they do not, they are just approximations, which is what I think you may be agreeing too.

 

The concept of virtual photons transferring forces is not provable (but fits nicely with the model). An electron transfers its forces by its own field, ie an electron without an electric field is not an electron. A moving electron transmits a moving electric field, which radiates out into space as a radio wave. An individual photon with an electric or magnetic field is not a photon. The only similarity is the speed they travel.

 

The moving electric field is variously claimed to be made up of real individual photons or virtual particles. I suspect both these explanations are more mathematical than physical. A radio wave induces a voltage, a polarity in the receiving antennae, as it moves through space. Likewise as it moves through space it is inducing a polarity in the virtual particles momentarily existing in space as it moves, without providing enough energy to cause them to become real. 

 

With enough energy a radio transmitter can separate virtual particles and cause them to become real (dynamic casimir effect comes to mind) but these new real particles are not radio waves, they are real particles in their own right. 

 

I think that to be correct in QED virtual photons should be the term used not real photons, when discussing radio waves. 



#45 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1341 posts

Posted 29 September 2019 - 05:37 AM

In debroglie model, both wave and particle exist.

 

Woops I missed a possible nudge in the direction of SED, are you referring to pilot wave theory ?



#46 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 30 September 2019 - 02:36 AM

I am trying to pull together different models to get a more real picture. As I have said before I might be wrong. BUT

 

My understanding is the models are more mathematical than physical. Some believe religiously that the model portrays a physical reality, they do not, they are just approximations, which is what I think you may be agreeing too.

 

The concept of virtual photons transferring forces is not provable (but fits nicely with the model). An electron transfers its forces by its own field, ie an electron without an electric field is not an electron. A moving electron transmits a moving electric field, which radiates out into space as a radio wave. An individual photon with an electric or magnetic field is not a photon. The only similarity is the speed they travel.

 

The moving electric field is variously claimed to be made up of real individual photons or virtual particles. I suspect both these explanations are more mathematical than physical. A radio wave induces a voltage, a polarity in the receiving antennae, as it moves through space. Likewise as it moves through space it is inducing a polarity in the virtual particles momentarily existing in space as it moves, without providing enough energy to cause them to become real. 

 

With enough energy a radio transmitter can separate virtual particles and cause them to become real (dynamic casimir effect comes to mind) but these new real particles are not radio waves, they are real particles in their own right. 

 

I think that to be correct in QED virtual photons should be the term used not real photons, when discussing radio waves. 

No, this is wrong. I defy you to produce any reference that says radio frequency EM radiation involves virtual photons whereas higher frequency radiation involves real ones. The only difference is wavelength - and hence the dimensions of the oscillators that emit and absorb them.  



#47 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1341 posts

Posted 30 September 2019 - 02:56 AM

No, this is wrong. I defy you to produce any reference that says radio frequency EM radiation involves virtual photons whereas higher frequency radiation involves real ones. The only difference is wavelength - and hence the dimensions of the oscillators that emit and absorb them.  

 

I think one of the research gate threads I posted above addresses some of your post.

 

However as you must be aware not all photons are equal in QED, they have different properties, and are not as simple as Einsteins photon. 

 

Thanks all for the exchanges.

 

I have decided to stop posting for a while as I have other things I need to do with my time.



#48 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 30 September 2019 - 07:15 AM

I think one of the research gate threads I posted above addresses some of your post.

 

However as you must be aware not all photons are equal in QED, they have different properties, and are not as simple as Einsteins photon. 

 

Thanks all for the exchanges.

 

I have decided to stop posting for a while as I have other things I need to do with my time.

I cannot see anything, in the links you have posted, that draws any distinction between radio waves and higher frequency EM radiation. If I have missed it, you will have to bring it to my attention.