 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / June 2005having energy but no charge
im afraid i cant understand PD and dirk van they postulate that photons, considered as being either particles or waves (depending on the day of week), have energy but no charge what is energy and no charge how is the energy carried by photons if not in form of charge Dear massless: > im afraid i cant understand PD > and dirk van [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or waves (depending on the day of > week), have energy but no charge Same for neutrons. Same for a host of other particles. > what is energy and no charge > how is the energy carried by photons > if not in form of charge In the form of momentum, and a constant speed c. (Now Nick, sorry, Massless, will drop the other shoe, and ask how you can have momentum without mass.) David A. Smith >Now Nick, sorry, Massless, will drop the other shoe, and ask how >you can have momentum without mass.) >David A. Smith ahaha, of course, how you have momentum with no mass and you confuse c with light speed light speed is medium dependend, we discussed this before less speed in amedia means less momoentum, herby less energy !? thanks Dear massless: >>Now Nick, sorry, Massless, will drop the other shoe, >>and ask how you can have momentum without mass.) > > ahaha, of course, how you have momentum with no mass > and you confuse c with light speed Use E = h*nu then. No I don't confuse propagation velocity in a medium with propagation velocity in vacuum. Because E = pc works for light also. > light speed is medium dependend, we discussed this > before > > less speed in amedia means less momoentum, herby > less energy !? No. E = h*nu. nu is a function of frequency, not propgation velocity. David A. Smith > No. E = h*nu. nu is a function of frequency, not propgation > velocity. you mean momentum is not a function of amplitude and velocity !? how is that Dear frog: >> No. E = h*nu. nu is a function of frequency, >> not propgation velocity. > > you mean momentum is not a function of > amplitude and velocity !? how is that Think about what "amplitude" means. If light were like a water stream, momentum is transferred by both the stream velocity *and* the "intensity" or "amplitude". No, momentum is a property inherent between the source of the light, and the receiver of the light. The light simply serves as the carrier. David A. Smith > Dear frog: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > David A. Smith even more confussed light dont requires a receiver to be emited but lets say it anyway, then the momentum carried by light is nothing but it color? i mean, the momentum is all about the vibrating or decaying atomic state generating the light transmited to a receiving atom / surface? so is only the color, is it? Dear Don Giovanni: >> Dear frog: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > even more confussed Sorry. > light dont requires a receiver to be emited Most believe this is true, yes. Some "wacky folks" don't. > but lets say it anyway, then the momentum > carried by light is nothing but it color? More than that. Color has no associated direction, but momentum does. > i mean, the momentum is all about the > vibrating or decaying atomic state > generating the light transmited to a > receiving atom / surface? More than that. If there is enough light, it says something about the processes that generated it (spectra), and the relationship between the source and the detector (relative velocity aka. relativisic Doppler shift, position in a gravity well aka. expansion or gravitational time dilation). Otherwise you get an impulse *only* from a single photon... no information about the emitter, only (possibly) a direction and estimation of net energy. > so is only the color, is it? The color is truly imbedded in the relationship between the source and the receiver. Note that ancient light is red shifted, even out of the visible range, and this without "touching" the light. So color is *not* an inherent property of light. I would argue that light has "color" (or momentum) as a property, just not any *particular* color. The specifics are left to the detector to infer/reveal. But this is quite easily a distinction without a difference. David A. Smith > > light dont requires a receiver to be emited > Most believe this is true, yes. Some "wacky folks" don't. this is nice, would you mind elaborate a litle? > Dear Don Giovanni: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > David A. Smith << Some "wacky folks" don't. >> What wacky folks believe is: The emission of light requires the motion of a charge. The existance of a charge requires the existance of a charge of opposite sign. Charges of opposite sign are coupled by the Coulomb force. So... in this universe, a destination always exists. Wacky Sue... > > Dear Don Giovanni: > > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Wacky Sue... thanks so, acording to this, light dont propagate spherical, but only concentrate where it has a destination > > > Dear Don Giovanni: > > > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > so, acording to this, light dont propagate spherical, > but only concentrate where it has a destination You just used a statement about emission to infer something about propagation, aparently without a model. A real bad habit... Right answer, Wrong reason. See: << we cannot realise an isotropic radiator in practice since there will be places on the unit sphere where we cannot specify a unique "polarisation direction" for the direction of the electric field. >> http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html The page explains why and on it's own is a pretty good introductory piece. Kind regards, Sue... Dear Don Giovanni: >> > Dear Don Giovanni: ... >> > > light dont requires a receiver to be emited >> > >> > Most believe this is true, yes. Some "wacky >> > folks" don't. ... >> What wacky folks believe is: >> The emission of light requires the motion of a charge. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > so, acording to this, light dont propagate spherical, > but only concentrate where it has a destination If you set up detectors spherically from a light source, they will all "negotiate a transaction" with the source, and they will all then detect a "spherical wavefront". Don't be confused with quantum interactions, as they don't play directly to any "common sense" argument. It would be better for you to have a better foundation in quantum mechanics, before you try to map them into the macroscopic world. This is something no one has yet been able to describe... to me at least. Quantum Field Theory purportedly does this very well, makes predictions, and agrees with experiment. But it is beyond my capacity to comprehend... yet. Now why "sue jahn" invokes charges of opposite sign, to a newbie, when it is clear that changes in *electron* momentum generate and absorb visible light, without directly involving the positively charged nucleus (or at least any differently than for the two operations, emission or absorption), is beyond me. Maybe "sue jahn" could consider the OP's background, and be a little less cryptic? David A. Smith > Dear Don Giovanni: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > jahn" could consider the OP's background, and be a little less > cryptic? I am not aware that anyone has ever removed an electron far enough from other matter to observe what it does purely as a result of it's own momentum. If such an event was ever observed we would have to question what absolute frame, the momentum is with reference to. The OP's leap from isotropic charges to anisotropic EM structures left me no cause to underestimate.. but Jefferies site has a sufficiently broad scope for overestimation, underestimation and even misunderestimation. ;-) The caution about quantum emission and absorbtion is always appropriate and usually behind all such queries even when it's below the radar. It's good you added that. Sue... > David A. Smith How can something that is called electromagnetic be said not to have a charge? > How can something that is called electromagnetic > be said not to have a charge? Because electromagnetism implies more than that. The particles that interact electromagnetically have charge - these are the fermions. The particle that mediates the electromagnetic the electromagnetic interaction do not have charge - they are the bosons. PD > im afraid i cant understand PD > and dirk van [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > how is the energy carried by photons > if not in form of charge Charge is not a form of energy, as far as I know. Why would you think it is? Because of lightning or sparks from your fingertip? Presuming that the answer is yes, let me elucidate one point. The lightning you see is NOT charge. It is *caused* by the movement of charge, but it is not charge nor the movement of charge. It requires force to separate charge. Expending that force costs energy, which gets stored someplace, in this case as "potential energy". When a charged up cloud gets sufficiently charged, some of it will run to where it's not separated anymore. This running "downhill" does exactly the opposite of the force used to separate the charge in the first place -- instead of costing energy, you get energy back in the form of kinetic energy stored in the charged particles as they speed up. When they get going fast enough, they knock other electrons out of the atoms of air, and when those electrons fall back into their atoms, *that* energy is released as light. It's the light that is energy, not the charges. - Separated charges carry potential energy - Moving charges carry kinetic energy - Charges falling back into atomic holes give up energy in the form of light. But charge is not energy. PD [Charge is not a form of energy, as far as I know. Why would you think it is? Because of lightning or sparks from your fingertip?] they say to recharge when no more energy [Presuming that the answer is yes, let me elucidate one point. The lightning you see is NOT charge. It is *caused* by the movement of charge, but it is not charge nor the movement of charge.] okay!? [It requires force to separate charge.] are the induces electrons in an AM antenna charges enough? [ Expending that force costs energy, which gets stored someplace, in this case as "potential energy". When a charged up cloud gets sufficiently charged, some of it will run to where it's not separated anymore.] fine, electrons are EM as well, and you defined them once as photons electrons carries charges, right? [ This running "downhill" does exactly the opposite of the force used to separate the charge in the first place -- instead of costing energy, you get energy back in the form of kinetic energy stored in the charged particles as they speed up. When they get going fast enough, they knock other electrons out of the atoms of air, and when those electrons fall back into their atoms, *that* energy is released as light. It's the light that is energy, not the charges.] ok, thanks,. I begin to understand, is the same sh.t it happens in lasers, population, right? [- Separated charges carry potential energy - Moving charges carry kinetic energy - Charges falling back into atomic holes give up energy in the form of light. But charge is not energy. PD no energy] im confussed again, are charges nothinng but Ep and Ek, so there are indeed energies > [Charge is not a form of energy, as far as I know. Why would you think > it is? Because of lightning or sparks from your fingertip?] > > they say to recharge when no more energy Which is a battery term, and a loose colloquiallism. It doesn't mean charge is a form of energy. > [Presuming that the answer is yes, let me elucidate one point. The > lightning you see is NOT charge. It is *caused* by the movement of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > are the induces electrons in an AM antenna charges enough? Enough for what? It takes energy to push the electrons around in an antenna, yes. So? > [ Expending that force costs > energy, which gets stored someplace, in this case as "potential [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fine, electrons are EM as well, and you defined them > once as photons I've never defined electrons as photons. > electrons carries charges, right? Yes. > [ This running "downhill" > does exactly the opposite of the force used to separate the charge in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ok, thanks,. I begin to understand, is the same sh.t > it happens in lasers, population, right? A little bit more mundane than that. It's what happens in a neon lamp, yes. > [- Separated charges carry potential energy > - Moving charges carry kinetic energy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > im confussed again, are charges nothinng but > Ep and Ek, so there are indeed energies What the heck are Ep and Ek? PD i guess kinetic energy and potential energy and indeed there must be a difference a taggible one between the both excuse for interrapting Y.P ------------------------------ right interrap as much you can > > [Charge is not a form of energy, as far as I know. Why would you think > > it is? Because of lightning or sparks from your fingertip?] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Which is a battery term, and a loose colloquiallism. It doesn't mean > charge is a form of energy. what is charge so if not an energy quanta, completely blank > > [Presuming that the answer is yes, let me elucidate one point. The > > lightning you see is NOT charge. It is *caused* by the movement of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Enough for what? It takes energy to push the electrons around in an > antenna, yes. So? how they got they energy > > [ Expending that force costs > > energy, which gets stored someplace, in this case as "potential [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I've never defined electrons as photons. no but said AM radio EM are photons > > electrons carries charges, right? > > Yes. and if they are bounded to nucleus they dont have? the photons carries energy as momentum, as light color, what about electrons, what is their energy, charge or momentum > > [ This running "downhill" > > does exactly the opposite of the force used to separate the charge in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > A little bit more mundane than that. It's what happens in a neon lamp, > yes. maybe you dont know what population inversion is it sonthin going on in laser cavities, and neons i cant rememebre what we are talkin about, but photons carries energy by their momentum charge is a potential only by means of electrons? > > [- Separated charges carry potential energy > > - Moving charges carry kinetic energy [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What the heck are Ep and Ek? you just mentioned potential and kinetic energy, the notation in textbooks, what else > PD > > > [Charge is not a form of energy, as far as I know. Why would you think > > > it is? Because of lightning or sparks from your fingertip?] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > what is charge so if not an energy quanta, > completely blank Charge is a *property* associated with a particle that tells you how strongly that particle participates in the electromagnetic interaction. If it has charge, it emits and absorbs photons. If it has a lot of charge, it emits and absorbs a lot of photons. I don't think it's a good idea to try to drop all physical things into bins like, "Everything in physics is either mass or energy. Charge is a something described by physics, so it must be either mass or energy. It's not mass so it must be energy." That's nonsense. > > > [Presuming that the answer is yes, let me elucidate one point. The > > > lightning you see is NOT charge. It is *caused* by the movement of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > how they got they energy Photons hit them and delivered their energy. > > > [ Expending that force costs > > > energy, which gets stored someplace, in this case as "potential [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > no but said AM radio EM are photons Yes. > > > electrons carries charges, right? > > > > Yes. > > and if they are bounded to nucleus they dont have? Of course they do. The binding is due to the swap of photons between the nucleus and the electrons. That photon-swap wouldn't happen if either had no charge. See above. > the photons carries energy as momentum, as light color, > what about electrons, what is their energy, charge or > momentum I wouldn't say photons carry energy AS momentum or color. What I would say i that you can *relate* a photon's energy to its color. E=h*nu. But that doesn't mean energy IS color. An photon's energy is its energy. Same with an electron. By the way, I can *also* associate an electron's energy to its color (frequency), even though our eyes would not be sensitive to that color. > > > [ This running "downhill" > > > does exactly the opposite of the force used to separate the charge in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > maybe you dont know what population inversion is Sure I do. I just thought there was a simpler, more everyday example. > it sonthin going on in laser cavities, and neons > > i cant rememebre what we are talkin about, but > photons carries energy by their momentum > > charge is a potential only by means of electrons? No. See above. > > > [- Separated charges carry potential energy > > > - Moving charges carry kinetic energy [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you just mentioned potential and kinetic energy, > the notation in textbooks, what else Sorry, the abbreviations threw me off. I've used a bad term myself: "separated charges". What I meant to say is "separated charged particles". Separated charged particles carry both charge and energy, though those are distinct attributes. As the particles fall back together, the potential energy is released to photons, which carry the energy away. That's a little better said. PD thanks for the explanations these charges stuff is more complex then i thought it was you are nice, thanks for the explanations these charges stuff is more complex then i thought it was you are nice, thanks for the explanations these charges stuff are more complex then i thought it was you saied that binding is due to the 'swap of photons between nuc and electrons' now a little question: the photons move in streight lines right ? so if yes just keep that fact in your memory. now is theer a posibility that not all th ephotons will hit thier target?? we supose yes! os what happens with all those photons that miss their target?? 2 why dont we see them constantly or detect them with our senses or tools that are able to detect them ? since that process is goint on like mad nonstop?? 3 why is the source of those phjotons is not depleated along the billions of years?? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- > you saied that binding is due to the 'swap of photons between nuc and > electrons' > > now a little question: > > the photons move in streight lines right ? You're thinking classically. Photons are quantum objects. > so if yes just keep that fact in your memory. > > now is theer a posibility that not all th ephotons will hit thier > target?? Do photons "leak" out of atoms? Sure. > we supose yes! > os what happens with all those photons that miss their target?? They participate in molecular bonding, for one. > 2 why dont we see them constantly > or detect them with our senses or tools that are able to detect them Because they are not classical "bullets" sprayed out in straight lines from nucleons and electrons. > ? > since that process > is goint on like mad nonstop?? > > 3 why is the source of those phjotons is not depleated along the > billions of years?? See the above. > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------------- > > you saied that binding is due to the 'swap of photons between nuc and > > electrons' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You're thinking classically. Photons are quantum objects. ------------ do you deny that photons move in stright lines?? quantum smantun so waht is photons physically not mathematically?? waht is thier way of movement?? how do they spread out ?? geomrtrically do you think that qm alowes you to fiddle in any of your mathematical 'needs' ?? --------- ---------- > > so if yes just keep that fact in your memory. > > > > now is theer a posibility that not all th ephotons will hit thier > > target?? > > Do photons "leak" out of atoms? Sure. sorry you didnt got the point!! if phtoton emmition and absorbtion is what keeps particles to gether it is a process of tremendous spead and *repetative* rate we cant immagine how many cycles per second now it should be ()listen carefully) a *constant flow* of those photons that miss the target!! there is 360 deg and 3d directions to shoot them the acted particle is just in a small portion of that vast 3d angle so what keeps then 'finding their target' if that is the picture most of them should be lost nealy *immediately!! and that is not at all th eexperimental observation!! we see photons only while the particles involves are exited or shoked by some external force or energy not all th etime!! common man did you lost completely your quantitative sense?? -------- > > we supose yes! > > os what happens with all those photons that miss their target?? > > They participate in molecular bonding, for one. how are they participating? why are at least many ot them shot out the control space of the particles?? molecular bonding is exactly the question on stake! you cant just shoot out words! sort of : they dont get lost because they have a task to do...... we are not lawyers we are physicists. -------------- --------- > > 2 why dont we see them constantly > > or detect them with our senses or tools that are able to detect them > > Because they are not classical "bullets" sprayed out in straight lines > from nucleons and electrons. see above there is some physical reality that you cant just ignore and hide behind a matemathical formula so if you dont know just be honest enough and say 'i dont know !!' i have no real explanation to that and by that you contribute something to the advance of our obscure delutions, ---------- > > ? > > since that process [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > See the above. you see above !!(and start to see around you as well) my guess is that now you will disapear.... (or answer some old phrases.) TIA Y.Porat ---------------- > > > you saied that binding is due to the 'swap of photons between nuc and > > > electrons' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ------------ > do you deny that photons move in stright lines?? Yes, I deny that. Young's double slit interference shows that. > quantum smantun so waht is photons physically not mathematically?? > waht is thier way of movement?? > how do they spread out ?? geomrtrically > do you think that qm alowes you to fiddle in any of your > mathematical 'needs' ?? Unfortunately, our wee minds have a tough time grasping what photons are physically, not mathematically. We have a good conceptual grip on what a particle is, and we have a good conceptual grip on what a wave is, but we have poor conceptual grip on something that is neither, but exhibits properties of both. The math, fortunately, does a much better job of conveying that. > --------- > ---------- [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > now it should be ()listen carefully) a *constant flow* > of those photons that miss the target!! Read below. That's not how they behave. > there is 360 deg and 3d directions to shoot them > the acted particle is just in a small portion of that vast [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > there is some physical reality that you cant just ignore Yeah, but it isn't what you said. They are not radiating out in straight lines at tremendous rates over 4*pi steradians. > and hide behind a matemathical formula > so if you dont know [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------------- > > > > you saied that binding is due to the 'swap of photons between nuc and > > > > electrons' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ------------ > > do you deny that photons move in stright lines?? ------------- > Yes, I deny that. Young's double slit interference shows that. ------------------------ realy?? so what was the Einstein experiment 'that proved the curvature of space-time' it was based on the knowlwdge that photns (light) moves ij streight line and next to the sun it deviated from the stright line right?? now about the intreference of light where do you see the deviatin from the stright line and even so waht is that magnitude of deviation do you see in that experiment that light will deviate in 180 deg from its innitial direction or even say 90 deg from the stright line ?? please man keep your quantitative sense going on !! > > quantum smantun so waht is photons physically not mathematically?? > > waht is thier way of movement?? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is, but we have poor conceptual grip on something that is neither, but > exhibits properties of both. ---------- very nice your 'poor gripp' is a beginning of addmitance that you dont know btw what is so difficult to say 'we dont know'!!! are you aware that most scintists delude themselves and others *that they know !!* ? and that someone who ask questions like me ask questions like that just because *he* is an ignorant he and not all of us !! iow not being aware about how far we are from realy knowing!! yet realising that the situation is sick is half the way for corrections.or improvement. ---------------- The math, fortunately, does a much better i would say unfortunately because partial knowlwdge is sometimes worse than lack of knowledge (because if smugness and self delusion. like sometimes part of the 'truth' is a sort of a lie. > job of conveying that. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Read below. That's not how they behave. ok please tell us how it behaves.! > > there is 360 deg and 3d directions to shoot them > > the acted particle is just in a small portion of that vast [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Yeah, but it isn't what you said. They are not radiating out in > straight lines at tremendous rates over 4*pi steradians. why not and waht is your alternative explanation. lets take a simple example of the Hydrogen atom in case No 1 while it is single and in case 2 while it is H2 how the photons there bahave in each case?? ---------------- > > > ---------- > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > ---------------- TIA Y.Porat ------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.