joigus Posted November 1 Posted November 1 2 hours ago, arthur jackson said: That’s a fine point that I’d not considered. It would be another premise that the charge pairs attract/repel each other but don’t fall into or disappear into each other, so like electrons and protons don’t normally fall into each other. I wouldn’t say you need electric charge to generate space. More that a model of space should include explanations of positive/negative charges and electromagnetic waves (as well as gravitation etc). That make sense? One problem with this configuration is that it is anisotropic. And what keeps the spheres from collapsing due to electrostatic attraction? You need a constraint, like rigidities in mechanical problems. Or guess what... quantum mechanics. Dislocations, or kinks, or twists in this grid would not propagate equally in every direction, I think. You should also be aware that field theory does all of this much more simply and elegantly. Plus it gives the right predictions. And that people have tried for ages to build something in the way of a mechanical model, without success...
studiot Posted November 1 Posted November 1 @arthur jackson I wonder what the electric field around one of your green and yellow object would look like ?
Phi for All Posted November 1 Posted November 1 2 hours ago, Sensei said: @arthur jackson His post was misleading (lying) to novices like you. ! Moderator Note Who are you accusing of lying, and do you have any evidence of intent? Please don't insert words you don't mean.
arthur jackson Posted November 2 Author Posted November 2 (edited) 13 hours ago, swansont said: If you have linearly polarized light with the electric field in the vertical direction, it’s alway vertical. It doesn’t point in any other direction. Even with randomly polarized light, the field is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. With your configuration and twisting, that won’t be the case. Sorry I don't really understand. Does this diagram help? Surely it just shows a transverse wave that can be oriented in any direction. 13 hours ago, studiot said: @arthur jackson I wonder what the electric field around one of your green and yellow object would look like ? I don't think there would be one around the charge pairs in that first illustration - it's the rotation of the charge pairs that I'm defining as the virtual photons that produce an electromagnetic field. These surround the central line of charge pairs that rotate to form the photon, and are attracted to this central line but not strongly enough to form photons themselves. The central line is shown in the second diagram I've just posted. (sorry, I'm not sure this is very clear I'll come back and clarify in a bit). Incidentally I've seen different versions of the electromagnetic fields produced by a photon - with the electric and magnetic fields in phase, or (hopefully) 90 Degrees out of phase as I've drawn it. I'm not sure which would be correct). Thanks for all the comments, people, again much appreciated. I tried to like the posts but the site informs me that I've liked too many posts today already I'm just off into the garden for a bit of weeding to take advantage of the good weather. I shall return and address a couple of the other posts. . Edited November 2 by arthur jackson
swansont Posted November 2 Posted November 2 1 hour ago, arthur jackson said: Sorry I don't really understand. Does this diagram help? Surely it just shows a transverse wave that can be oriented in any direction. . The issue is whether the electric field is vertical when the charges have rotated. It doesn’t look like it would be.
studiot Posted November 2 Posted November 2 3 hours ago, arthur jackson said: I don't think there would be one around the charge pairs in that first illustration - it's the rotation of the charge pairs that I'm defining as the virtual photons that produce an electromagnetic field. Thank you for your reply. Why would there be no electric field surrounding an electric charge ? As I understand you proposition you are proposing that at every point in space the exists a split charge all perfectly lined up as in your original diagram. You further propose (diag2) that an EM wave (note the difference between electric and electromagnetic) can be propagated by a medium with these properties. I have a number of serious reservations about this along with clarification questions you have yet to address. This is in effect an aether - the original name for the propagation medium for EM waves when it was though that no wave could propagate in vacuo. You have a rectangular array. Maxwell's model, that I have already referred to, realised that hexagonal packing is more efficient that rectangular. I have now dug out the reference Something to think about. If such an array exists how big are your green and yellow pinheads ? If they have zero extent, what is the meaning of their 'rotation' , given that the zero vector has no direction ? In what way and by what agency are these pinheads moving moving through space ?
Mordred Posted November 2 Posted November 2 (edited) Here is another detail to consider. Photon polarization already exists and can be shown through the Maxwell equations as the primary basis. In QM they make use of this. For example parametric downconversion relies on photon polarization for a huge range of experiments involving entsnglement where the polarization filter seperates the polarization waves from monochromatic light. Here is the mathematical basis (step by step) including a useful mathematica program. https://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~suzuki/QuantumMechanicsFiles/2-1_Photon_polarization.pdf These polarization relations are also used in QM/QFT for charge conjugation involving photons/antiphotons where the charge conjugation relationship distinguishes whether or not a photon is a photon or antiphoton based on its polarization helicity. So how will your theory work under the above ? Edited November 2 by Mordred
joigus Posted November 2 Posted November 2 21 hours ago, studiot said: So we have Maxwell's hexagonal aether agin. Maxwell himself rejected it and commented that it was the only mechanism he could think of or make work for the aether. Thanks for the very interesting historical note. I didn't know it went by the name of 'hexagonal aether'. I do remember Feynman's Lectures on Physics mentioning it along the lines of 'Maxwell conceived of an aether made up of gears' or something like that.
studiot Posted November 2 Posted November 2 24 minutes ago, joigus said: Thanks for the very interesting historical note. I didn't know it went by the name of 'hexagonal aether'. I do remember Feynman's Lectures on Physics mentioning it along the lines of 'Maxwell conceived of an aether made up of gears' or something like that. That's actually my term, inspired by crystallography. Cubic packing of round things like spheres or circles inevitably leads to funny shaped gaps between the round objects. Hexagonal objects, hexagonally packed leave no gaps. @arthur jackson Anyway let's examine one of the dual charged pinheads more closely. I'm sorry I don't have yellow so I have used red (-) and green (+). And I am plotting the force field on a + test charge at various points around the pinhead. On the red side the radial rays point inwards towards the centre. On the green side they point outwards away from the centre The blue rays represent a discontinuity across the diameter where they meet. What is your description of the directions I should assign to these rays ? I haven't tried to also draw the potnetial field, but it must have a corresponding discontinuity.
Mordred Posted November 2 Posted November 2 (edited) 19 minutes ago, studiot said: That's actually my term, inspired by crystallography. Cubic packing of round things like spheres or circles inevitably leads to funny shaped gaps between the round objects. It's quite similar to the Yang Mills mass gap problem which is off topic but thought I would mention it formally connecting that under geometric terms is quite formal and tricky. Well above the nature of this thread. Edited November 2 by Mordred
arthur jackson Posted November 2 Author Posted November 2 (edited) I wrote the following before seeing the other comments and problems. Some very good points and I’ll have to go and study them but am not sure I’ll be able to give answers. In the meantime, some more background. Part 1 of my description discusses pretty well what I’ve said so far. I’ve missed out some of the description so this is from the end of Part 1: The charge pairs alongside the central line but perpendicular to the direction of the paper also try to follow the central pairs round. They align 'end on', however, and briefly gyrate clockwise (call it “north”) or anticlockwise (“south”), as in Figure 3. So, perpendicular to the electric wave (y direction) and distance (x direction) is a magnetic wave in the z direction. … The 'wobbling' of the surrounding charge pairs appears as virtual photons, which must exist for a time <ħ/2ΔE or they would form actual photons. We cannot detect virtual photons but suspect they are there by their effects. They tumble out at speed c, leaving a brief Catherine-wheel-like trail approximately the photon's wavelength across as it travels along its path. Part 2 discusses photons with enough energy to form electrons and protons. On 11/1/2024 at 6:55 PM, studiot said: So we have Maxwell's hexagonal aether agin. Maxwell himself rejected it and commented that it was the only mechanism he could think of or make work for the aether. But we know better today. Please note that all known carriers of charge are material. As swansont has already said there is no magic substance called charge. Yes I’ve purposely avoided mentioning the aether, I knew I wasn’t fooling anyone though . I’d not come across the hexagonal aether, interesting. I’ve read that Einstein was comfortable with the aether given certain conditions that I totally failed to understand. If Maxwell used it to develop his equations, it has to have something going for it. From Wiki Aether theories: Physicist Robert B. Laughlin wrote: "The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. ..." We may know better now as you say, but I’ve not seen a description that is half way understandable without actually having a degree in the subject we’re supposed to be studying. There look to be just two premises: that the +/-ve charge pairs underlie space and can rotate to form photons, and that they don’t collapse into each other. The rest seems to follow. I’ve often seen the aether being dismissed because of Occam’s Razor. I’d say quite the opposite – it seems to give a simple model for a lot of physics theories (virtual photons, gravity etc.) Relativity must be the definitive way to visualize things, but that’s just not accessible to people beginning study. I’m not really proposing charge as a magic substance, rather a property of the charge pairs. On second thoughts they may well have mass – as I say Part 2 of my text discusses photons with enough energy to produce electrons and protons, which indeed do have mass. Edited November 2 by arthur jackson 1
Mordred Posted November 2 Posted November 2 Glad we don't have to cover the distinction between real and virtual particles you have that part correct. +1 1
studiot Posted November 2 Posted November 2 2 hours ago, Mordred said: It's quite similar to the Yang Mills mass gap problem which is off topic but thought I would mention it formally connecting that under geometric terms is quite formal and tricky. Well above the nature of this thread. 53 minutes ago, Mordred said: Glad we don't have to cover the distinction between real and virtual particles you have that part correct. +1 And there was I getting ready to solve the rest of the millenium problems before bedtime. 😀 1 hour ago, arthur jackson said: We cannot detect virtual photons but suspect they are there by their effects Surely that is self contradictory ? If we can detect effects then isn't that how we detect anything ? 1
arthur jackson Posted November 2 Author Posted November 2 (edited) 25 minutes ago, studiot said: Surely that is self contradictory ? If we can detect effects then isn't that how we detect anything ? On reflection yes you're right (I copied that from a physics book - I'll delete it ). I can see the point though, they're not quite like electrons and atoms. Edited November 2 by arthur jackson
Mordred Posted November 2 Posted November 2 1 hour ago, studiot said: And there was I getting ready to solve the rest of the millenium problems before bedtime. 😀 The million dollar prize is still available for Yang-Mills mass gap lmao
studiot Posted November 3 Posted November 3 On 11/2/2024 at 8:14 PM, arthur jackson said: On reflection yes you're right (I copied that from a physics book - I'll delete it ). I can see the point though, they're not quite like electrons and atoms. As a guide here are a couple of pages of very good advice of how to develop your theory of how your medium can support and transmist EM waves. From Optical Physics Lipson and Lipson Cambridge university press. 1
arthur jackson Posted November 6 Author Posted November 6 (edited) On 11/1/2024 at 2:31 PM, swansont said: Why don’t these charge pairs cancel? What are these particles? Charge is a property, not a substance. How do we get these massless particles to have a charge? How do they respond to a static electric field? First apologies for this long post - the site has concatenated all of my replies, I've tried to answer the various questions below. Why they don’t cancel has to be an additional premise, for example like protons and electrons don’t cancel (I've read) because of the Uncertainty Principle when they’re close to each other in a hydrogen atom or (I presume) a nucleus where the charges look like they cancel from outside, but I presume they remain separate. I see the charge pairs as virtual (imaginary) particles that form the surface of space. When hit with enough energy a charge pair is pulled out to form a real electron above space and a balancing ‘unreal’ (whatever that might mean) positron below space. Hit with much more energy the charge pair is similarly pulled out to become a proton/antiproton. So yes the particles will have size and mass, although with much less mass than an electron since there I'd imagine there have to be huge numbers of charge pairs but dark matter I understand makes up only 85% of the matter of the universe? Presumably hitting the charge pairs with large amounts of energy adds to the mass. I think the charge pairs would rotate to align themselves with a static electric field. Two more predictions by the way: that there is dark matter, and that, since the big bang, space is expanding (the charge pairs are gradually moving apart). On 11/1/2024 at 8:58 PM, swansont said: The assertion that the electron would have 3ħ/2 of angular momentum already restricts this scenario to there not being a photon after the interaction. Unless you are asserting there can be a photon with no angular momentum. If you have linearly polarized light with the electric field in the vertical direction, it’s alway vertical. It doesn’t point in any other direction. Even with randomly polarized light, the field is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. With your configuration and twisting, that won’t be the case. I’m thinking that the twist that is a photon sticks to the electron and adds to its energy until something happens and the photon escapes again. So no, not a photon with no angular momentum. Sorry I still don’t understand, why won’t my photons be polarized? Are you viewing the axis of twisting as being along the direction of travel? I’m viewing the axis of twisting to be perpendicular to the direction of travel like wheels on a conveyor belt. So a twist and its electric field would be oriented vertically as on that second diagram I gave. Using the Catherine Wheel analogy again, the electric field corresponds to the sparks flying round. A polarizing filter could therefore surely block all orientations except the single orientation it allows through. On 11/1/2024 at 9:42 PM, joigus said: One problem with this configuration is that it is anisotropic. And what keeps the spheres from collapsing due to electrostatic attraction? You need a constraint, like rigidities in mechanical problems. Or guess what... quantum mechanics. Dislocations, or kinks, or twists in this grid would not propagate equally in every direction, I think. You should also be aware that field theory does all of this much more simply and elegantly. Plus it gives the right predictions. And that people have tried for ages to build something in the way of a mechanical model, without success... Another good point on anisotropy. Properties would indeed look to be different if the wave was for example travelling diagonally rather than vertically or horizontally (having a hexagonal shape like Maxwell’s would improve this but not really solve it, and I don’t want to add the complication). The charge pairs could perhaps be self orienting – a charge pair twisting in a particular direction could attract the next charge pair closer to it so properties weren’t anisotropic? I don’t think I’ll try to address this, though, just add a note that it is an imperfection in the model. I'd agree that field theory does all of this more elegantly but I'm not sure about more simply. I’ve not seen a description of field theory that is half way understandable to anyone who doesn’t actually have a degree in the subject they’re supposed to be studying. The twist model has just two or three relatively simple premises (although initially somewhat difficult to visualize but I think good gif images would make it much clearer – I’ve had a go at this but have so far failed spectacularly) and seems to introduce the major concepts of atomic physics as long as there’s a clear statement of the limitations. They do also have different aims. Field theory aims to give as accurate a description of the world as possible. I’m just aiming to give a simple model to get across the basic concepts. I’m specifically not talking about sub-atomic particles, partially because I can’t see how the model would apply but mainly because I have no idea what’s going on in sub-atomic processes. I’m limiting it to photons, electrons/protons and atoms: to make sense of the electronics I learned at uni. I’ve not thought of this as a mechanical model but in one sense I suppose it is – the charge pairs along the direction of motion do act like gears meshing together to pass on the motion. On 11/1/2024 at 9:51 PM, studiot said: @arthur jackson I wonder what the electric field around one of your green and yellow object would look like ? No real idea, I’m afraid but I’d imagine any ‘lines of force’ would (for example) go from positives to negatives. Here, too, I wouldn’t plan to address this since I’m only really interested in explaining photons, electrons and protons. It would be interesting to know what it might be but I feel the getting into the possible mechanics of the aether would be a distraction. On 11/2/2024 at 2:09 PM, studiot said: Thank you for your reply. Why would there be no electric field surrounding an electric charge ? As I understand you proposition you are proposing that at every point in space the exists a split charge all perfectly lined up as in your original diagram. You further propose (diag2) that an EM wave (note the difference between electric and electromagnetic) can be propagated by a medium with these properties. I have a number of serious reservations about this along with clarification questions you have yet to address. This is in effect an aether - the original name for the propagation medium for EM waves when it was though that no wave could propagate in vacuo. You have a rectangular array. Maxwell's model, that I have already referred to, realised that hexagonal packing is more efficient that rectangular. I have now dug out the reference Something to think about. If such an array exists how big are your green and yellow pinheads ? If they have zero extent, what is the meaning of their 'rotation' , given that the zero vector has no direction ? In what way and by what agency are these pinheads moving moving through space ? Again fair point about why no electric field surrounding the electric charge, but I think any electric field would stay on the ‘surface’ of space (within the aether). It would not show up in the real world, where it’s the rotation of charge pairs that cause an electric field. I think. Yes behind every point in space (or rather on the surface of space) is a charge pair. And yes as above they can’t really be point charges. The charge pairs don’t actually move through space, it’s the twist that moves to give apparent motion of the photon. When a charge pair is hit with enough energy to form an electron or proton, those particles are freed from the surface of space to move frictionlessly across the top of space (which I think means there would be no ‘aether wind’ so the Michelson-Morley objections to the aether wouldn’t I think apply). You say there are clarification issues I've not addressed. I've just gone through all the questions again and tried to answer them – are there any others? On 11/2/2024 at 2:48 PM, Mordred said: Here is another detail to consider. Photon polarization already exists and can be shown through the Maxwell equations as the primary basis. In QM they make use of this. For example parametric downconversion relies on photon polarization for a huge range of experiments involving entsnglement where the polarization filter seperates the polarization waves from monochromatic light. Here is the mathematical basis (step by step) including a useful mathematica program. https://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~suzuki/QuantumMechanicsFiles/2-1_Photon_polarization.pdf These polarization relations are also used in QM/QFT for charge conjugation involving photons/antiphotons where the charge conjugation relationship distinguishes whether or not a photon is a photon or antiphoton based on its polarization helicity. So how will your theory work under the above ? Again, why are the photons I describe not polarized? And again I’m not proposing the aether as replacing anything in physics theory, but only as a concept to help with understanding and be thrown away once someone has a picture of how things could work. I’m also only looking at the physics needed to build up a model of the atom. On 11/1/2024 at 2:18 PM, studiot said: Anyone who has ever done any quantum or classical resonance calculations will know that the above quote is a meaningless statement by itself. Energy of what , under what circumstances, over what timescale and within what region of space ? All those pieces of information are needed. the calculations cannot be done without them. Coming back to this, when I said energy isn’t quantized I was using the word in it’s commonly used sense, as in the equation E = hν. In that equation involving Planck’s constant, it not the energy that is quantized. For example, the first search (and there are many more) for ’quantum of energy’ throws up “In the realm of quantum physics, energy is not a continuous quantity but rather comes in discrete packets, known as quanta. ” That is what I take issue with. Aside from (I understand) some arcane theories energy is infinitely variable like frequency is infinitely variable. It’s not energy that’s quantized, but action. I know what they mean but it’s not really accurate. I would still though like to lob 20 quid into the server fund as a thanks to people for their time – I did check on the site but can’t see how to do this. On 11/3/2024 at 8:26 PM, studiot said: As a guide here are a couple of pages of very good advice of how to develop your theory of how your medium can support and transmist EM waves. From Optical Physics Lipson and Lipson Cambridge university press. And as a footnote - thanks for that I actually understood it pretty well up to the point it involved zeta so I'll go back and take a look at it again. Edited November 6 by arthur jackson
swansont Posted November 6 Posted November 6 2 hours ago, arthur jackson said: Why they don’t cancel has to be an additional premise, for example like protons and electrons don’t cancel (I've read) because of the Uncertainty Principle when they’re close to each other in a hydrogen atom or (I presume) a nucleus where the charges look like they cancel from outside, but I presume they remain separate. The field from the charges do cancel in atoms; they are neutral. You have to get close to them to see effects of a charge distribution. In the nucleus there is no cancellation, since there are only the positively-charged protons. 2 hours ago, arthur jackson said: I see the charge pairs as virtual (imaginary) particles that form the surface of space. When hit with enough energy a charge pair is pulled out to form a real electron above space and a balancing ‘unreal’ (whatever that might mean) positron below space. Hit with much more energy the charge pair is similarly pulled out to become a proton/antiproton. So yes the particles will have size and mass, although with much less mass than an electron since there I'd imagine there have to be huge numbers of charge pairs but dark matter I understand makes up only 85% of the matter of the universe? Presumably hitting the charge pairs with large amounts of energy adds to the mass. Why haven’t we detected these particles? 2 hours ago, arthur jackson said: I think the charge pairs would rotate to align themselves with a static electric field. How would that affect photon propagation? It should be harder to “twist” This is one of many issues where having math is important.
Mordred Posted November 6 Posted November 6 (edited) 3 hours ago, arthur jackson said: Sorry I still don’t understand, why won’t my photons be polarized? Are you viewing the axis of twisting as being along the direction of travel? I’m viewing the axis of twisting to be perpendicular to the direction of travel like wheels on a conveyor belt. So a twist and its electric field would be oriented vertically as on that second diagram I gave. Using the Catherine Wheel analogy again, the electric field corresponds to the sparks flying round. Every particle in the SM model has polarizations but those polarizations are not physical twists in space. Your adding effects not seen in any study of photons for example the known polarizations have physical effects when photons pass through a polarization filter yet yours do not. So why are your twists not seen in any experiment ? Also your mathematics do not include any wave vectors Edited November 6 by Mordred
arthur jackson Posted November 6 Author Posted November 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, swansont said: The field from the charges do cancel in atoms; they are neutral. You have to get close to them to see effects of a charge distribution. In the nucleus there is no cancellation, since there are only the positively-charged protons. Why haven’t we detected these particles? How would that affect photon propagation? It should be harder to “twist” This is one of many issues where having math is important. OK when you said 'cancel' I thought you meant merge into each other. They'd be similar to protons/electrons in that case - you'd have to get close to see the charge distribution. We have detected the particles: virtual particles bubbling up out of a vacuum, and again the ones that have been hit with enough energy to form stable electrons, protons etc. If you mean it would be harder to 'twist' because the charge pair is in a different orientation because of a static field I don't think so - it still just needs a whole twist to form a photon. Edited November 6 by arthur jackson
swansont Posted November 6 Posted November 6 11 minutes ago, arthur jackson said: OK when you said 'cancel' I thought you meant merge into each other. They'd be similar to protons/electrons in that case - you'd have to get close to see the charge distribution. But you are always close in your model. If you weren’t there would be no field. No field, no photon. Can’t have it both ways.
arthur jackson Posted November 6 Author Posted November 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mordred said: Every particle in the SM model has polarizations but those polarizations are not physical twists in space. Your adding effects not seen in any study of photons for example the known polarizations have physical effects when photons pass through a polarization filter yet yours do not. So why are your twists not seen in any experiment ? Also your mathematics do not include any wave vectors No they're not physical twists in space in the SM model - it's just my model that they're seen as twists of the charge pairs in space. Why would my photons not pass through a polarization filter? The diagram I put up showed the sinewave electric field, and this is in the same plane as the rotating twist, and at 90 degrees to the sinewave magnetic field. I'm hoping it's my diagram that isn't clear. The twists are actually just photons, so they are seen in all the experiments and in fact light up everything we see. Rather than a photon headed off into space my model says that all the charge pairs remain in their original position so none move, but one of them twists round through 360 degrees and this twist is passed on to a straight line of them. Each of them in turn twist, and that twist is what heads off into space at speed c. 11 minutes ago, swansont said: But you are always close in your model. If you weren’t there would be no field. No field, no photon. Can’t have it both ways. I'm not sure what you mean by always close. Each charge pair is close to the next charge pair which is why you get the twist being passed on, and it's that twist and its effect on the surrounding charge pairs which rotate some of the way (i.e. the virtual photons) that gives the electromagnetic field. The effect dies away at a distance around a wavelength of the photon. Edited November 6 by arthur jackson
studiot Posted November 6 Posted November 6 5 hours ago, arthur jackson said: No real idea, I’m afraid but I’d imagine any ‘lines of force’ would (for example) go from positives to negatives. This shows a remarkable lack of understanding of basic Physics, which is no good for your attempt to provide hand waving explanations for your proposition. Electric lines of force are quite different from magnetic ones. Electric lines do not go from positive to negative or the other way round. In fact there is not even any need for both polarities to be present. 6 hours ago, arthur jackson said: Coming back to this, when I said energy isn’t quantized I was using the word in it’s commonly used sense, as in the equation E = hν. In that equation involving Planck’s constant, it not the energy that is quantized. There is similar lack of basic Physics uunderstanding here. Where is frequency involved in your model ? You can do only so much with a hand wavy model, otherwise I might just as well propose a chain of yellow and green fairies holding buckets and passing the photon from bucket to bucket. Swnasont has called for some mathematics and you model puts me in mind of the many lattice models that have been studied extensively since the 1920s Here is a good way to find out about the sort of mathematics that is needed. From Prof Ziman's book which is essentially a study of the existence and propagation of fields and particles in lattice arrays. Principles of the Theory of Solids Ziman Cambridge University Press The muffin tin potential is in some ways a latter day development os Maxwell's idea
arthur jackson Posted November 6 Author Posted November 6 (edited) 45 minutes ago, studiot said: This shows a remarkable lack of understanding of basic Physics, which is no good for your attempt to provide hand waving explanations for your proposition. Electric lines of force are quite different from magnetic ones. Electric lines do not go from positive to negative or the other way round. In fact there is not even any need for both polarities to be present. Can we take this step by step? You asked about electric fields, not magnetic fields . I didn't mention magnetic fields but said "I’d imagine any ‘lines of force’ would (for example) go from positives to negatives. A quick web search gives: Electric field lines or electric lines of force are imaginary lines drawn to represent the electric field visually. Since the electric field is a vector quantity, it has both magnitude and direction. Suppose one looks at the image below. The arrows indicate the electric field lines, and they point in the direction of the electric field. https://www.sciencefacts.net/electric-field-lines.html How is that different to my remark? 45 minutes ago, studiot said: There is similar lack of basic Physics uunderstanding here. Where is frequency involved in your model ? The frequency is the frequency of the photons: how many photons (twists) per second you get. i.e. the ν in E = hν. Eta: or are you saying that the quantum of energy is Planck's constant? Edited November 6 by arthur jackson
swansont Posted November 6 Posted November 6 1 hour ago, arthur jackson said: I'm not sure what you mean by always close. Each charge pair is close to the next charge pair which is why you get the twist being passed on, and it's that twist and its effect on the surrounding charge pairs which rotate some of the way (i.e. the virtual photons) that gives the electromagnetic field. The effect dies away at a distance around a wavelength of the photon. Yes, exactly. Your charge pair twists must give us the electric field of the photon. The fields can’t cancel out. You need to show this mathematically. Pictures do not suffice.
Recommended Posts