A photon as a 'twist' in space

[studiot]

42 minutes ago, arthur jackson said:

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?

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 Planck's constant is the quantum of energy?

 

Your weblink is quite good but a bit too elementary.

You do not have two nearby charges in your model you have an array of infinitesimal dipoles.

Furthermore if they are twisting they are not 'static'.

And a moving electric field causes a magnetic field.

That is how EM radiation works.

~Wiki has a good animation for movement, though it is trqanslational not rotational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment

 

 

 

But if you have an array of dipoles you get  a surface charge.

This one is not animated.

 

[arthur jackson]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

But it's not a mathematical model. It's an analogy which I'm intending to use to explain the basics to people who are fresh to the subject. I'm not trying to convince anyone that the model is mathematically rigorous - it's just an analogy.

One of the main problems I've found with trying to understand atomic physics is the advanced mathematics that is needed - as I say you need a degree in the subject to understand the textbooks. Yes I know you need to understand the mathematics to properly understand the subject (please note that!). However, giving a model helps people visualize what is going on and once they have that they can then tackle the mathematics. 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, arthur jackson said:

But it's not a mathematical model.

Then how can you make specific predictions, as we require?

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, arthur jackson said:

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.

 

I'm trying to get you to make the connection between the photon to E or B field.

For example photons have no electric charge but has charge conjugation.

So ask your self how do photons mediate electric charge ? If the photon never carries electric charge?

It is the same direction Studiot is getting you to see and where the mathematics Swansont pointed out becomes essential 

[arthur jackson]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Your weblink is quite good but a bit too elementary.

You do not have two nearby charges in your model you have an array of infinitesimal dipoles.

Furthermore if they are twisting they are not 'static'.

And a moving electric field causes a magnetic field.

That is how EM radiation works.

~Wiki has a good animation for movement, though it is trqanslational not rotational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment

 

 

 

But if you have an array of dipoles you get  a surface charge.

This one is not animated.

 

Can I just point out before moving on that when I say something I'm getting "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. " When a website says the same thing it's " quite good but a bit too elementary".

I do have two nearby charges - the charge pairs - in fact there are lots of "two nearby charges" in the array. I was talking about a single charge pair when I was referring to two nearby charges. Pulling out a couple of electrons, say, would give the two nearby charges floating above the aether that I think you mean, but I wasn't referring to them.

I was answering the question what happens in a static electric field, in which I said I thought the charge pairs would align along that field. The charge pairs are static (+/-/+/-) until they're hit by an external energy which causes a twist which, if it is large enough and lasts long enough, causes a 360 degree rotation so produces a photon. And when they are twisting they are indeed no longer static.

I drew the electric field with the magnetic field at right angles on my diagram of a photon - which again indeed aims to show how electromagnetic radiation works.

Thank you for the diagram, but surely the dipoles you show are on the macroscopic scale, so involving electrons rather than charge pairs.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Then how can you make specific predictions, as we require?

I made more than a dozen specific predictions on the front page of the thread. They seem to me to follow logically rather than mathematically. 

40 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I'm trying to get you to make the connection between the photon to E or B field.

For example photons have no electric charge but has charge conjugation.

So ask your self how do photons mediate electric charge ? If the photon never carries electric charge?

It is the same direction Studiot is getting you to see and where the mathematics Swansont pointed out becomes essential 

OK I think I understand - I've been talking about charge pairs but you are talking about the fields around (for example) electrons and protons as electric charges.

There are three parts to the description I've done. I've largely been talking about part 1 which deals with photons. Give me a couple of days and I'll show a pdf of part 1 which hopefully will clear up any confusion from the summary I've given up page. I'll then show a pdf of part 2 which deals with electrons, protons and electric/magnetic fields.

Eta: they're quite short, honest

Edited 11 hours ago by arthur jackson
reassurance

[swansont]

1 hour ago, arthur jackson said:

I made more than a dozen specific predictions on the front page of the thread. They seem to me to follow logically rather than mathematically

“specific” means quantifiable.

A lot of your ”predictions” are things already known, so they aren’t really predictions. At least one of them was falsified (that a free electron could absorb a photon and have more angular momentum)

[arthur jackson]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

“specific” means quantifiable.

A lot of your ”predictions” are things already known, so they aren’t really predictions. At least one of them was falsified (that a free electron could absorb a photon and have more angular momentum)

Surely predictions (or, since this is a model, statements which agree with current theory) can be specific without being mathematical, and different models will always be coming up with predictions to explain things that are already known.

Only two of my 16 predictions/statements have actually been queried: polarization and angular momentum. I still haven’t had an explanation why my photons aren’t polarized, and I didn’t actually say ‘free electron’. Even if my original statement was wrong (but hardly ‘falsified’) I’ve freely admitted that I am learning, so surely learners are allowed to make mistakes as long as they accept corrections. It’s difficult because I just don’t understand a lot of the advanced maths and physics terms in the comments (which is why I’m just not able to give the mathematical proofs you’re asking for), but have answered all questions and points as fully and honestly as I can.

As I say, this isn’t a mathematical but a conceptual model. Surely a thread on the Bohr model of the atom would be allowable, even though the predictions it would make are similarly already known, and much of the mathematics would actually now be seen as wrong – it would still be valuable as a learning exercise.

It now feels like you’ve decided to delete the thread. Fair enough: your site, your rules and I was actually surprised I wasn’t called a quack and banned after the first post. Shame, though, because I am still learning and have unanswered questions. Could you just ignore the thread for a while and leave me in the tender hands of other posters if I’m annoying you? I don’t think it will last too much longer, so delete it by all means when it’s done.

Edited 7 hours ago by arthur jackson

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, arthur jackson said:

Only two of my 16 predictions/statements have actually been queried: polarization and angular momentum. I still haven’t had an explanation why my photons aren’t polarized, and I didn’t actually say ‘free electron’. Even if my original statement was wrong (but hardly ‘falsified’)

Wrong = falsified

You said electron. It’s true that in a composite system lime an atom you can absorb a photon, but the rules aren’t as simple as you suggest. Math is required.

The problem is that without the rigor that comes with math, the predictions are too vague and it’s too easy to start tap-dancing. It ends up being a big waste of time (which we’ve seen before). That’s why the rule is in place. This isn’t the WAG forum.

You want to ask questions and learn? Fine. But if you want to propose some new science, it has to be sufficiently formed as to merit discussion.

You can re-introduce the topic when you’ve gotten there.