Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
Cecil Moore wrote:
There is no contradiction in quantum electrodynamics. There's certainly a paradox. A photon encounters an electron in a radial and is absorbed. We know that electrons are inspired to move in a particular fashion when they are irradiated. But how does a photon tell the electron which way it should move? Kinematics would seem to have little to do with this phenomenon. Later, that same electron emits a photon. A photon which, if the direction in which it is emitted is unknown, can be made to create a diffraction pattern - implying that a wave was emitted rather than a particle. Putting us right back where we started. The photon cloud surrounding a radial contains photons that came from that radial and from everywhere else. But what is it about this "cloud" that is actually cloud-like? Isn't it really more like a wave of photons? :-) That some photons must be put in a basket labeled "reflected" and some put in a basket labeled "not reflected" is simply nonsense. I think Feynman uses almost that exact analogy, with probabilities assigned to each, in the first few pages of QED. 73, ac6xg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
Jim Kelley wrote:
But how does a photon tell the electron which way it should move? Energy and momentum must be conserved. A photon which, if the direction in which it is emitted is unknown, can be made to create a diffraction pattern - implying that a wave was emitted rather than a particle. Putting us right back where we started. Allow me to paraphrase Feynman: Only particles exist. But what is it about this "cloud" that is actually cloud-like? Isn't it really more like a wave of photons? :-) If you prefer liquid analogies to gaseous analogies, feel free. I think Feynman uses almost that exact analogy, with probabilities assigned to each, in the first few pages of QED. You missed the point. That an individual photon must be put in a basket labeled "reflected" and some other individual photon must be put in a basket labeled "not reflected" is simply nonsense. Talking about exactly where an individual photon goes is nonsense. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: But how does a photon tell the electron which way it should move? Energy and momentum must be conserved. Do you really want to go there? :-) According to QED, you first need to find some negative energy photons. Then you need to get them to propagate backward in time and subsequently interact with electrons. Then, the electrons can then move forward in time and emit positive energy photons while conserving momentum. A photon which, if the direction in which it is emitted is unknown, can be made to create a diffraction pattern - implying that a wave was emitted rather than a particle. Putting us right back where we started. Allow me to paraphrase Feynman: Only particles exist. Dear Merrium Webster, On behalf of a friend of mine, please consider adding this definition to your dictionary: paraphrase - to restate text in different form such that it conveys unintended meaning But what is it about this "cloud" that is actually cloud-like? Isn't it really more like a wave of photons? :-) If you prefer liquid analogies to gaseous analogies, feel free. A wave of photons. It's a physics joke, Cecil. Laugh already. 73, ac6xg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you really want to go there? :-) According to QED, you first need to find some negative energy photons. Then you need to get them to propagate backward in time and subsequently interact with electrons. Then, the electrons can then move forward in time and emit positive energy photons while conserving momentum. No prediction made by QED has ever been wrong. How's that for a track record? A wave of photons. It's a physics joke, Cecil. Laugh already. I already did, many hours ago. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:45:33 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: No prediction made by QED has ever been wrong. How's that for a track record? No prediction made by QED has ever been right. Every experiment destroys some of the knowledge of the system which was obtained by previous experiments. 73's (±3dB) Werner Heisenberg p.s. For the purpose of the original posting of "image theory:" There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
Richard Clark wrote:
p.s. For the purpose of the original posting of "image theory:" There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized. That's the point I was trying to make. One cannot correctly say "the radials are a reflector" or "the radials are non- radiating". The radials are partially reflecting, partially absorbing, partially radiating, and partially non-radiating based on a level of probability for each of the possible events which are not necessarily limited to those four events. It's not a 100% either/or situation. The original mirror Vs radiation "argument" between the authors is like arguing whether gray is black or white. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: Do you really want to go there? :-) According to QED, you first need to find some negative energy photons. Then you need to get them to propagate backward in time and subsequently interact with electrons. Then, the electrons can then move forward in time and emit positive energy photons while conserving momentum. No prediction made by QED has ever been wrong. How's that for a track record? I think QED is a very clever idea and I applaud your effort toward finding a good use for it. :-) 73, Jim AC6XG |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
Jim Kelley wrote:
I think QED is a very clever idea and I applaud your effort toward finding a good use for it. :-) It is very useful in settling the arguments about whether gray is black or white. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:51:40 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote: A photon encounters an electron in a radial and is absorbed. We know that electrons are inspired to move in a particular fashion when they are irradiated. But how does a photon tell the electron which way it should move? Kinematics would seem to have little to do with this phenomenon. And photon/electron interaction is not so indiscriminate (it doesn't always interact in the first place). Later, that same electron emits a photon. A photon which, if the direction in which it is emitted is unknown, can be made to create a diffraction pattern - implying that a wave was emitted rather than a particle. Putting us right back where we started. An electron does not always give rise to just one photon, or any photon, or a photon of the same energy. The photon cloud surrounding a radial contains photons that came from that radial and from everywhere else. But what is it about this "cloud" that is actually cloud-like? Isn't it really more like a wave of photons? :-) Cloud indeed. This is like a sack of magic beans in exchange for a cow. Is this ill-discussion of photons the legacy of image theory? It is like preening in front of a conjugate mirror. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Followon to image theory
Richard Clark wrote:
An electron does not always give rise to just one photon, or any photon, or a photon of the same energy. This is true. But in an amateur transmitter driven antenna system, the great majority of radiated photons are coherent with the transmitting frequency. Coherent photons are required to have the same energy level. The photons coherent with the transmitting frequency are first order effects. Assuming one is not close to another transmitter, the photons not coherent with the transmitting signal are Nth order effects. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
balun and image | Shortwave | |||
A "single conversion" question | Shortwave | |||
And Incase Lennie Doubted that MARS and Amateur Radio are a "Service to the Nation..." MARS Chief Says Otherwise | Policy | |||
Rare Books on Electronics and Radio and Commmunications | Equipment | |||
Rare Books on Electronics and Radio and Commmunications | Equipment |