Is a photon a magnetic monopole?

[acsinuk]

Light and non-classical light are made from electro-magnetic energy waves of photons which are massless. I read recently that evanescents waves can pass on the energy without any particles or charges being exchanged! Can this be true?

CliveS

[swansont]

No, photons are not magnetic monopoles.

 

What's the supposed connection with evanescent waves?

[acsinuk]

What I am trying to understand is how electromagnetic energy can move across empty space without touching any matter. It is as if the space itself is magnetised thus allowing an electrically charged photon pair to tumble forward.

CliveS

[swansont]

The answer is given in Maxwell's equations. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field induces an electric field. If those changes are sinusoidal, the effect is to propagate a wave perpendicular to both. No external medium required.

[Amanbir Singh Grewal]

yes. dirac tried to break a magnet into two looking for that monopole. he smashed it with a hammer. yep.

 

photon? i'm listening what.

[acsinuk]

wave theory seems to indicate that a photon vibration would expand outwards in all direction leading to infinite dilution pretty fast. light travels in straight lines so what is restricting its movement into a sort of helixing pulse if not a magnetic tunnel?

CliveS

[swansont]

Does a "helixing pulse" satisfy the wave equation?

[acsinuk]

Yes, the 3D magnetic flux wave I have in mind would certainly obey Maxwells law. We really need to re-order Maxwell so instead of E/D we need to have it in the form of

 

energy = voltage times current loop Cos angle per unit volume x,y,z.

 

CliveS

[swansont]

Yes, the 3D magnetic flux wave I have in mind would certainly obey Maxwells law.

Well, then, no "magnetic tunnel" would be needed, since it's not part of the wave equation.

[acsinuk]

No, we do not require a magnetic tunnel if the volume of space through which the light moves is fully magnetized at right angles to the direction of transmission. But it is just a convenient way of showing that light can move forward in one direction rather than outwards in all directions equally.

I believe that outer space is magnetized and that the microwave background radiation is evidence of that fact. Outside the universe we will find no radiation at all. It is total void of nothingness.

CliveS

[swansont]

I don't care what you believe. Do you have any experimental evidence that space is magnetized? (Independent of your idea, that is)

 

How can space be "fully magnetized at right angles to the direction of transmission" and also have isotropic light transmission? Those would seem to contradict each other.

[acsinuk]

Well, the internet often has articles by UCLA, NASA and ESA and other top research organisations that give details of some unexplainable behaviour of stars which they attribute to magnetism.

However, despite this obvious magnetic connection cosmologists preferred to believe that stars were just rotated by chance at creation; as spin is not a gravity related force. A massive gamma ray burst in 1979 baffled scientists until it was finally traced to a magnetar which exploded magnetically without the assistance of gravity. Considerable work has now been commenced on magnetic surveys of some galaxies using the Faraday rotation techniques, that positively identify these magnetic fields in space.

Unpolarised random emission light may be isotropic but laser light and star light I am sure are magnetically focused in a specific direction.

CliveS

[swansont]

How does this have any bearing on your claim that outer space is magnetized, and in a particular way that would seem to only allow transmission along one axis? Don't change the subject. You made a claim, now back it up or admit it's wrong and abandon it.

[acsinuk]

To prove that I am correct or the standard model is correct is not possible but we can apply logic to the universe and use some common sense.

At the time of the big bang it was necessary to confine the plasma flash of AC light and stop the created energy from moving away at the speed of light which would have lead to an infinite dispersion. This restriction still applies today, for if 99.99% of the stars/Sun energy is just blasted off into space which is 99.99% empty, then 99.99% of the energy will arrive at the edge of the universe with nowhere to go except outwards leading to a catastrophic dilution. As the edge of the universe is defined by a known amount of red-shift and the edge is not shining brilliantly, we can deduce that the random T^4 energy law may only apply to a tiny number of Wolf Rayet type stars. Stars in the main sequence are not emitted in all directions, as believed by Stefan but only through the magnetic-flux tunnels in space directly towards an attractive target. Thus the Sun beams most of its output directly to the planets and the intervening space is mostly dark. Stars appear as lighthouses, beaming light directly to all the planets but mostly their own planets, moons, comets & asteroids.

At present the Voyagers are travelling into outer space and will at some stage come to the boundary of the solar system which is the point where the incoming star light energy exactly balances the output energy from our sun. It is predicable that they will cross some of the light beam tunnels that are emitted from our sun to other stars planets and also cross some light beam tunnels of external starlight coming into our systems planets etc. Please just be patient and hopefully the Voyagers will come up with this evidence for us.

CliveS

[swansont]

You do realize the universe is expanding, right?

 

Any evidence that the sun's emission is not isotropic?

 

The claim that other stars behave this way is trivially falsified because we see many spiral galaxies that have an oblique orientation with respect to us. Clearly, the light is not directed along the plane of rotation.

[acsinuk]

Yes, it is expanding slowly because as matter gradually gets pushed out the volume magnetized increases fractionally

Any evidence that the sun's emission is not isotropic? Not easy to detect as the sun sees the rotating satellite detector as a very small negativly charged matter target.

Yes, it is as well that some galaxies are at slightly oblique angles due to traumer in their past, otherwise the shape of the universe would be even flatter than it is.

CliveS

[swansont]

Yes, it is expanding slowly because as matter gradually gets pushed out the volume magnetized increases fractionally

Any evidence that the sun's emission is not isotropic? Not easy to detect as the sun sees the rotating satellite detector as a very small negativly charged matter target.

Yes, it is as well that some galaxies are at slightly oblique angles due to traumer in their past, otherwise the shape of the universe would be even flatter than it is.

CliveS

 

 

Slightly oblique? The Hubble deep filed pictures show galaxies at all angles relative to us. Including basically 90º.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HubbleDeepField.800px.jpg

 

And in all directions. The "flatness" of the universe is a relativity statement, not reference to any spatial distribution.

 

If your claim is correct and light can only go radially from the sun owing to these magnetic properties, we shouldn't see light from any other direction, including the moon most of the day. The idea is bogus.

[acsinuk]

The energy light from the sun is emitted through the magnetic tunnel formed by the solar wind. Once it hits the target it is released as free light and can be reflected in any direction and is isotropic and that is why we can see the moon and asteroids etc. But the light from a faraway star is confined to its magnoflux tunnel until it hits its target planet earth. To balance the arrival of a +ion an electron must be sent back to the transmitting star.

We really need new physics that prioritizes the conservation of charge not just energy and establishes where the balancing charges are situated at any instant inside the magnetised volume of space. Almost certainly the engineers working on the tocamak experiments must know all about this as they need electrically and magnetically to confine and direct the ions so they do not touch the sides of the tunnel . Why not ask them?

CliveS

[swansont]

Load o' crap. Provide the empirical evidence I've asked for, instead of restating the claims.

[John Cuthber]

The energy light from the sun is emitted through the magnetic tunnel formed by the solar wind. Once it hits the target it is released as free light and can be reflected in any direction and is isotropic and that is why we can see the moon and asteroids etc. But the light from a faraway star is confined to its magnoflux tunnel until it hits its target planet earth. To balance the arrival of a +ion an electron must be sent back to the transmitting star.

We really need new physics that prioritizes the conservation of charge not just energy and establishes where the balancing charges are situated at any instant inside the magnetised volume of space. Almost certainly the engineers working on the tocamak experiments must know all about this as they need electrically and magnetically to confine and direct the ions so they do not touch the sides of the tunnel . Why not ask them?

CliveS

Your observation about tokamaks is correct.

If your ideas were anything other than dross, those people would have noticed the effects.

They would have written them up and won Nobel prizes for them too.

However, in reality, they have not done so.

The corollary of this is that your ideas are wrong.

You can stop now.

[swansont]

Almost certainly the engineers working on the tocamak experiments must know all about this as they need electrically and magnetically to confine and direct the ions so they do not touch the sides of the tunnel . Why not ask them?

CliveS

 

If I were to ask, almost certainly they would immediately point out that ions are charged and photons are not, while looking at me like I was an idiot.

[acsinuk]

Yes, they certainly should know after 20 years of experimenting but perhaps they have signed the official secrets act?

What is the difference between an unmagnetized metal bar and a magnetized one. As far as chemistry and classic physics nothing.

As far as electricity and new physics are concerned there is a whole universe of difference.

Happy Christmas

CliveS

[John Cuthber]

I have signed the OSA and it doesn't stop me publishing stuff about fundamental science.

Stop being silly/ paranoid

 

Re "What is the difference between an unmagnetized metal bar and a magnetized one. As far as chemistry and classic physics nothing. "

Plain wrong.

I'm off to spend Xmas with the family so I won't be posting so much for a while.

All the best to everyone here.

See you in the new year.

[acsinuk]

Happy New Year John,

This thread appears to have been transferred to speculations which I certainly object to.

Concerning your point that classic physics does acknowledge magnetism I take it you mean the domain theory; but mathematically this does not described the 3D nature of the magnetic force at all; as the particles inside the magnetic material have not changed physically or chemically.

We will just have to wait for the voyagers to find the evidence I guess.

CliveS