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

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

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

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.

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

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

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