Timo wrote:

Well, put it very simply: It is easier to think in little balls moving
around, knowing their charge, their preferences (such as to repel each other),
their mass, etc.
It allows you to visualise.
AND THEY REALLY EXISTS!

Sure, they exist. OK, and you like to visualise them as little balls. But
surely "mechanism" means more than "easily visualised"! Where is the
"mechanism"?

Like I said: There is a limit to the depth (of our knowledge), and especially
_my_ knowledge, you have to stop somewhere, but it is needed to ask the question
'how' nevertheless.
The level of little balls (with charge of course) is in many cases sufficient
to 'visualise' or understand what is happening (like in a vacuum tube, or capacitor, etc).

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)

[moved]
Well, to know what happens in these devices, you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

Nope, works just fine.

By how much do the _electromagnets_ increase the speed of the particles?

That depends on the timing, the field strength.
Tick tick tick, like a clock, wrong timing and they slow down.

By how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a charged particle?

Never more then accelerating it to close to c.

What? The "little ball" analogy fails to provide any kind of quantitative
answer? Again, by how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a
charged particle?

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:50:04 GMT, Jan Panteltje <PNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:14:28 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri
Wilson) wrote in <14gv04pmgm48ggoc2cjfl8n418t6dbojj0@4ax.com>:

It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.

...and you were doing so well.....

This has been discussed, go to any optics related group, all waves.

You should know that the wave theory cannot explain many aspects of light.

EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is intrinsically
oscillating.

If EM radiation is generated by an electron changing orbit in an atom,
then the amount of enery is E = h.c / wavelength, where h is Planck's constant.
And, depending on that electron orbit and atom, a specific frequency
(energy) is emitted.
This is a mathematical construct.
But what if the electron is simply moved by some remote field (electrostatic
or magnetic), can it not have any energy?
So what does that leave of 'light comes in photons'? Nothing.

Well, when an electron is accelerated by a field it DOES emit EM radiation. How
and why that radiation can be quantized is hard to say.

Maybe when an electron 'freefalls' in a field, it doesn't radiate EM.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Oh! This is the level of "mechanism" you are happy with? An easily
visualisable picture that is _known_ to be wrong? This is the kind of
"mechanism", known to be wrong, that you said physics will not advance
without?

please look at

On Apr 23, 7:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:



On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:13:22 GMT, Jan Panteltje <PNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:47:57 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in
Pine.WNT.4.64.0804230631100.1...@serene.st>:

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)

Visualising photons as little balls can also be
very misleading at times.

Not only misleading, but plainly wrong, photon is simply a mathematical construct,
EM is waves.

It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.

...and you were doing so well.....

.> EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is
intrinsically
.> oscillating.

Here is a simplistic challenge to this traditional interpretation.
According to relativity theory the time dilation of an object becomes
zero via the Lorentz factor:
t' = t ( sqrt( 1 - v v / c c )
where sqrt is the square root and t' is the time of the photon from
the observer's local frame where v is c since the object is a photon.
The age of every photon is zero regardless of how far it has
propagated. How then can it oscillate?

It seems clear that from our
reference frame that photons do oscillate yet according to relativity
in the photon's own frame it cannot. While the actual Lorentz factor
becomes infinite we would be forced to accept a pencil shape if the
photon is granted a minimum diameter.

The conflict extends farther than the oscillating photon
interpretation.
One way around this puzzle is to grant the photon a more complicated
path which would then exceed the propagation velocity c. Polarization
could then take a mechanistic interpretation as could the energy of
the individual photon. So for instance we could attempt a model of a
photon corkscrewing through space. Wavelength would take a more
physical value for such a photon. The impedance of free space could
take an anisotropic interpretation that will leave us with the
traditional electrical and magnetic field interpretation. There are
signals of such an interpretation within the polysign spacetime basis.
Since the higher energy photon is shorter in wavelength it is catchy
to consider the photon as a ripple of an elastic space. Does this
tweak particle/wave duality? Does it become particle/space duality?
This new duality is perfect.

- Tim

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:16:30 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri

This has been discussed, go to any optics related group, all waves.

You should know that the wave theory cannot explain many aspects of light.

EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is intrinsically
oscillating.

If EM radiation is generated by an electron changing orbit in an atom,
then the amount of enery is E = h.c / wavelength, where h is Planck's constant.
And, depending on that electron orbit and atom, a specific frequency
(energy) is emitted.
This is a mathematical construct.
But what if the electron is simply moved by some remote field (electrostatic
or magnetic), can it not have any energy?
So what does that leave of 'light comes in photons'? Nothing.

Well, when an electron is accelerated by a field it DOES emit EM radiation. How
and why that radiation can be quantized is hard to say.

Maybe when an electron 'freefalls' in a field, it doesn't radiate EM.


As to the 'ball' versus wave idea, I think it is clear that 'ball' does not
explain everything.

This is a nice link, please scroll to the bottom,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
here it shows that interference, diffraction, and polarisation
cannot be explained by the particle idea.
I think the photoelectric effect can be explained by the wave idea,
and in the past have posted about that.

So do we really need 'photon', other then as mathematical construct?

Of course one can say: 'If something waves, then what makes up the waves?'
Sort of chicken and egg problem, then you have particles again.
That, or there is something else we cannot imagine with our brains.

FreddyFX posted some nice explanations in this group, but I have not heard
from him for a while.
There are many theories.

It is fun to think about, although I am not dedicating a lot of brain cycles to this
issue.
For those who do, maybe something will pop up.
We could really use a FTL drive, or gravity neutraliser, etc,
real fusion power too.

So we can move to those stars that have habitable planets, and
do what we do here....

As to the 'ball' versus wave idea, I think it is clear that 'ball' does not
explain everything.

It is obviously a restricted analogy, useful only in certain circumstances.

This is a nice link, please scroll to the bottom,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
here it shows that interference, diffraction, and polarisation
cannot be explained by the particle idea.
I think the photoelectric effect can be explained by the wave idea,
and in the past have posted about that.

My photon concept explains everything.
A photon is an oscillating lump of the 'stuff that fields are made of'.

This explains both the PE effect and as well as interference, diffraction and
polarization.

Diffraction grating works like this
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
(Note: here, I didn't stress that y = lambda, the distance between the above
mentioned standing wave 'nodes'.)

On Apr 25, 11:28 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
Tim

Here is a simplistic challenge to this traditional interpretation.
According to relativity theory the time dilation of an object becomes
zero via the Lorentz factor:
t' = t ( sqrt( 1 - v v / c c )
where sqrt is the square root and t' is the time of the photon from
the observer's local frame where v is c since the object is a photon.
The age of every photon is zero regardless of how far it has
propagated. How then can it oscillate?

A measureable oscillation occurs when the
"photon" is reacting and destroyed by an
eyeball or an radio antenna for example.
I'd argue the photon is brought to rest
by an apparatus, and there conveys energy
and mass to the apparatus, hence the photon
does has "rest" mass, when measured.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

That's a pretty standard interpretation, except for the rest mass.
Still Ken, if we consider the photon as a little spaceship as in
relativity theory we get caught accepting that the photon's elapsed
time is zero from emission to reception regardless of distance. This
then is in conflict with the oscillatory traditional interpretation.

It is satisfying as to the upper unconditional propagation limit c yet
it splits open more puzzles. Since c is attributed to properties of
space and is composed of two unique values mu and epsilon whose
properties are geometrically related via standard electromagnetism we
can take this as a lead in to anisotropic spacetime models.

Polarization I review Chapter 17 of "Foundations Of Electromagnetic
Theory" third edition by Reitz, Milford, and Christy. The outset of
this chapter is based on opening the E and B fields up to complex
valued components, all within traditional isotropic space. Did they
raise the dimension of the system? Polarization can be considered a
fairly simple property but I'm trying to consider some of that
complexity shifted into anisotropic space so the problem opens up
again.

A possible extension would be to consider the solutions which do not
propagate. By definition such energies would remain local. Like total
internal reflection on steroids such a behavior could link to
stability of the heavier particles such as electrons and protons;
their energies remaining local.

Abstractly, an electron's mobility is much higher than a proton's from
traditional evidence. Whether we attribute this feature to the
particle's mass or invert that conclusion via some stability argument
providing those mobilities could be a lead.

It's a bit flustering and as I go down that path I feel like I don't
understand polarization any more, or did I ever? Can a single photon
carry a left handed circular polarization attribute? I guess that's
alright, but it doesn't mean the the attribute is within the photon.
To keep up the particle charade we'd go back to an electron that made
the photon and blame it for the disturbance. It would be helpful to
have a more integrated model there. Rather than consider mechanism at
the generation of a photon modern physics makes that an assumption via
atomic phenomena of electron shells. Getting back toward fields the
static electrical field doesn't feel any better for all of this,
except that if the same curvatures of space that were made on gravity
can be made on charge then a photon as a ripple of that elastic space
could hold up.

Why shouldn't Einstein's equivalence between acceleration of matter
and gravity extend to charge? Force is clearly there between the
three. I'd rather try to get stability first but could it be possible
to work backward through there?

It's an overwhelming task which forces
us back to the security of existing theory. Still, something is likely
broken. Conservation of energy at a dynamic level is fine but we still
have a surplus in the static level. Maybe the same is true of charge.
In other words could there be more protons than electrons?

That could
help the dark matter puzzle. I'm not getting far enough on this rant
but perhaps it will spark somebody else's imagination.

- Tim

Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'. Apart from the fact that the maths describing the forces
are well known, action-at-a-distance is as much a mystery as ever.

Consider a completely isolated negative charge in remote space. The question
is, does its 'field' exist in the absence of another charge. If so, how is the
surrounding space modified in such a way that if another charge is introduced
at any distance , a force immediately exists between the two. That force can be
attractive or repulsive depending whether the charges are unlike or like.

The gravitational field associated with unit mass is fundamentally different in
that like masses ATTRACT each other. There is no information about the nature
of forces between positive and 'negative' mass (presumeably anti-matter).
It can be deduced from this that the properties of space that account for an
electrostatic field must be fundamentally different from those that are
associated with gravity.
It is also apparent that the relative movement of a charge or charges somehow
alters their combined surrounding fields to create what is called a magnetic
field. Again, although the maths of magnetism are well documented, there is no
actual physical model that describes the relationship between electrostatic and
magnetic force fields.

A second question asks whether the effect of the field of an individual source
truly extends to infinity according to the inverse square law or it
disintegrates, becomes fragmented and eventually merges with other fields.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT), mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:





On Apr 13, 3:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'. Apart from the fact that the maths describing the forces
are well known, action-at-a-distance is as much a mystery as ever.

Consider a completely isolated negative charge in remote space. The question
is, does its 'field' exist in the absence of another charge. If so, how is the
surrounding space modified in such a way that if another charge is introduced
at any distance , a force immediately exists between the two. That force can be
attractive or repulsive depending whether the charges are unlike or like.

The gravitational field associated with unit mass is fundamentally different in
that like masses ATTRACT each other. There is no information about the nature
of forces between positive and 'negative' mass (presumeably anti-matter).
It can be deduced from this that the properties of space that account for an
electrostatic field must be fundamentally different from those that are
associated with gravity.
It is also apparent that the relative movement of a charge or charges somehow
alters their combined surrounding fields to create what is called a magnetic
field. Again, although the maths of magnetism are well documented, there is no
actual physical model that describes the relationship between electrostatic and
magnetic force fields.

A second question asks whether the effect of the field of an individual source
truly extends to infinity according to the inverse square law or it
disintegrates, becomes fragmented and eventually merges with other fields.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians.....

New matter is born of the mass of the field of accelerated particles.
These are the exotic products of colliders.

Yes.
How do fields turn into matter.... and vice versa?

Is there really any difference?

Mitch Raemsch

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:25:52 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri
Wilson) wrote in <7pn414dhp7b895rs53e7p8ucrq8lh5vu5t@4ax.com>:

As to the 'ball' versus wave idea, I think it is clear that 'ball' does not
explain everything.

It is obviously a restricted analogy, useful only in certain circumstances.

This is a nice link, please scroll to the bottom,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
here it shows that interference, diffraction, and polarisation
cannot be explained by the particle idea.
I think the photoelectric effect can be explained by the wave idea,
and in the past have posted about that.

My photon concept explains everything.
A photon is an oscillating lump of the 'stuff that fields are made of'.

One can say it is actually some periods of a wave...
As soon as you say 'oscillating' then you have a periodic signal,
a wave with a frequency, attack and decay time, polarisation, etc.

Somebody here (Florian) pointed to a nice animation:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html
Run the animations, fascinating.

This explains both the PE effect and as well as interference, diffraction and
polarization.

Diffraction grating works like this
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
(Note: here, I didn't stress that y = lambda, the distance between the above
mentioned standing wave 'nodes'.)

c+v ? ;-)

Well, somebody is going to yell at this.

On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:39:23 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in
Pine.WNT.4.64.0804251327060.1236@serene.st>:

What? The "little ball" analogy fails to provide any kind of quantitative
answer? Again, by how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a
charged particle?

Look dude, read a text book.
I dunno what your point is, or if you have one.

Like I said: There is a limit to the depth (of our knowledge), and especially
_my_ knowledge, you have to stop somewhere, but it is needed to ask the question
'how' nevertheless.
The level of little balls (with charge of course) is in many cases sufficient
to 'visualise' or understand what is happening (like in a vacuum tube, or capacitor, etc).

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)

[moved]
Well, to know what happens in these devices, you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

Nope, works just fine.

But it gets tiring arguing with a knowbetter.
You are beyond reason.

On Apr 13, 3:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'. Apart from the fact that the maths describing the forces
are well known, action-at-a-distance is as much a mystery as ever.

Consider a completely isolated negative charge in remote space. The question
is, does its 'field' exist in the absence of another charge. If so, how is the
surrounding space modified in such a way that if another charge is introduced
at any distance , a force immediately exists between the two. That force can be
attractive or repulsive depending whether the charges are unlike or like.

The gravitational field associated with unit mass is fundamentally different in
that like masses ATTRACT each other. There is no information about the nature
of forces between positive and 'negative' mass (presumeably anti-matter).
It can be deduced from this that the properties of space that account for an
electrostatic field must be fundamentally different from those that are
associated with gravity.
It is also apparent that the relative movement of a charge or charges somehow
alters their combined surrounding fields to create what is called a magnetic
field. Again, although the maths of magnetism are well documented, there is no
actual physical model that describes the relationship between electrostatic and
magnetic force fields.

A second question asks whether the effect of the field of an individual source
truly extends to infinity according to the inverse square law or it
disintegrates, becomes fragmented and eventually merges with other fields.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

New matter is born of the mass of the field of accelerated particles.
These are the exotic products of colliders.

Mitch Raemsch

I dunno what your point is, or if you have one.

The point was in the rest of the post, which you cut. The point was: why
is the "little ball" analogy an adequate "mechanism", when it isn't
correct?

Like I said: There is a limit to the depth (of our knowledge), and especially
_my_ knowledge, you have to stop somewhere, but it is needed to ask the question
'how' nevertheless.
The level of little balls (with charge of course) is in many cases sufficient
to 'visualise' or understand what is happening (like in a vacuum tube, or capacitor, etc).

Oh! This is the level of "mechanism" you are happy with? An easily
visualisable picture that is _known_ to be wrong? This is the kind of
"mechanism", known to be wrong, that you said physics will not advance
without?

No wonder you were unwilling to commit yourself to saying that the whole
Newtonian approach - mathematical models without mechanism - was wrong!

Nope, works just fine.

Oh? How do "little balls" tell you about, e.g., electron diffraction?
Atomic energy levels (even the Bohr model does better than "little
balls")?

Almost all electrons we deal with in everyday life are attached to atoms.
"Little ball" fails miserably when trying to deal with the behaviour of
such electrons.

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Perhaps if you presented some evidence for your case, perhaps from the
history of physics or other sciences, or at least discussed the topic that
_you_ introduced, it might be more interesting.