How did Photons Construct Light?
Our entire description of photons is based on energy Eo=hν [1], momentum Po=h/λ [2], and Helicity and Massless. we are not sure of the wave function Ψo(t,x) of photons, although there have been many different ideas and attempts to do so [3][4][5][6]. Experiments have shown that photons have wave-particle duality; two-photon interference can occur between them [7], and single-photon interference can occur by itself [8]; low energy photons can make electrons jump, photoelectric effect occurs [9], and the energy is converted to free "photoelectrons" in the matter; mid-level energy photons can collide with electrons and produce Compton scattering [10], so that the photon energy is reduced; High-energy photons can generate "pair-production" [11][12] with the help of atomic nuclei, e.g. γ+γ→e+e-.
Classical field theory is based entirely on the Maxwell's Equations, which consists of Faraday‘s Law, Ampere's Law, Gauss's Law, and Coulomb's Law, where both Faraday's equations and Ampere's equations in free space describe electromagnetic waves. We believe that electromagnetic waves consist of two orthogonal, synchronized, time-varying fields, the electric field E and the magnetic field H. Maxwell's equations is a synthesis of experimental results, not a result of mathematical derivation.
We believe that "All beams of electromagnetic radiation are made of photons" [4], including Laser beams, but "A key question is, can we view light as being comprised of particles called photons, or must one view light as a field, and the 'number of photons' only as the name we give to quantum states of the electromagnetic field [5]? electromagnetic field [5]? We know that cosmic microwave background (CMB) is electromagnetic, and that it needs to be detected with a radar antenna because the wavelength is too long; we know that blackbody radiation is electromagnetic, and that it needs to be detected with a photodetector because the wavelength is too short. We know that X-rays, gamma rays, millimeter waves, meter-wave radio waves, and radio astronomy telescopes detect photons.
However, "What is a photon" [4], should a photon have a scale? Is a bridge needed between the classical Maxwell equations and the photon? We have described them both correctly yet cannot connect them directly. The barrier between photons and electromagnetic waves may never be broken if we remain entangled in the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function [17], photon localizability [18], and Negative-energy solution [19], and such quantum mechanical problems.
Nature does not exist without a reason, and there must be a profound reason why an electromagnetic wave consists of two orthogonal, synchronized, time-varying fields, an electric field E and a magnetic field, rather than one field [23]. This reason either is the cause of its existence, something else causing the phenomenon, or it is the result of its existence, the phenomenon having to constrain the form of existence of something else. In any case, there must be a consistent "ecological chain" between the various forms of existence. This is precisely why the E of an electromagnetic wave is identical to the E of electron charge, the E of W±, the E of quarks, and why the H of an electromagnetic wave is identical to the H of a magnet, the H of a spin magnetic moment. If the electric field, E, and the magnetic field, H, of the electromagnetic wave, surprisingly do not exist in its constituent unit, the photon, then how was it created?
Questions:
1) The wave equation does not require two physical quantities, but why are there two quantities, E and H, in the electromagnetic wave equation? And they are not independent*, they must be orthogonal and synchronized [20]**.
2) What kind of photon equation (wave function) is possible to construct a deterministic Maxwell electromagnetic wave equation? It is reasonable to assume that a photon should never be a point particle and must itself have an electric field E and a magnetic field H. The Maxwell equation formed should not be its Probability density‡.
3) Where is the energy of an electromagnetic wave stored? Is it merely a superposition of photon energies? This question has been asked again and again, from Maxwell to Feynman [15] [16], with no answer so far. Is it possible to localize the energy-momentum of a gravitational field if it is not possible to localize the energy-momentum of an electromagnetic wave?
3) How does the Space-Time Curvature act on the electric field E and the magnetic field H of an electromagnetic wave when light is bent in a gravitational field?
4) Why does the physical world follow the invariance principle? How many invariants should there be in physics? What is the relationship between them? Do Maxwell's equations have all invariants? Lorentz invariance, gauge invariance [21], and general covariance [22], etc.?
-----------------------------------------
Notes
* Are E and H fixed relationships, or are they independent? "The electric field for one inertial observer is a particular combination of the electric and magnetic fields of the other observer. and similarly for the magnetic field. It follows that the electric and magnetic fields do not, in this sense, have a separate existence but rather are observer-dependent manifestations of a single electromagnetic field" [13][14]. This phenomenon is very significant in that it actually implies the inseparability of E and H.
** On the question of the synchronization of the electric field E and the magnetic field H, @André Michaud initiated a discussion a long time ago and received a wide range of responses.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-did-the-Lorenz-interpretation-prevail-over-Maxwells-in-defining-Electrodynamics
“To summarize the issue, Ludvig Lorenz interpreted both E and B fields of free moving electromagnetic energy as peaking to maximum synchronously at the same time, which is an interpretation that Maxwell disagreed with; while Maxwell's was that both fields have to mutually induce each other while being 180 degrees out of phase for the electromagnetic energy to even exist and propagate, in permanent oscillation on a plane transverse with respect to the direction of motion of the energy in vacuum.”
‡ It is usually described as such, e.g. "energy-density photon wave function", "position probability density amplitude", "probability density of the photon"[4][6][19]。
-----------------------------------------
References
[1] Planck, M. (1900). The theory of heat radiation (1914 (Translation) ed., Vol. 144).
[2] Einstein, A. (1917). Physikalisehe Zeitschrift, xviii, p.121
[3] Sipe, J. (1995). Photon wave functions. Physical Review A, 52(3), 1875. //
[4] Bialynicki-Birula, I., & Bialynicka-Birula, Z. (2006). Beams of electromagnetic radiation carrying angular momentum: the Riemann–Silberstein vector and the classical–quantum correspondence. Optics communications, 264(2), 342-351. //
[5] Smith, B. J., & Raymer, M. (2007). Photon wave functions, wave-packet quantization of light, and coherence theory. New Journal of Physics, 9(11), 414.
[6] Cugnon, J. (2011). The photon wave function. Open Journal of Microphysics, 1.
[7] Pfleegor, R. L., & Mandel, L. (1967). Interference of Independent Photon Beams. Physical Review, 159(5), 1084-1088. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.159.1084
[8] De Broglie, L., & Silva, J. A. E. (1968). Interpretation of a Recent Experiment on Interference of Photon Beams. Physical Review, 172(5), 1284-1285. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.172.1284
[9] Einstein, A. (1905). 关于光的产生和转换的一个启发性观点 (Chinese ed., Vol. 4).
[10] Compton, A. H. (1923). The Spectrum of Scattered X-Rays. Physical Review, 22(5), 409-413. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.22.409
[11] Breit, G., & Wheeler, J. A. (1934). Collision of two light quanta. Physical Review, 46(12), 1087.
[12] Burke, D. L., Field, R. C., Horton-Smith, G., Spencer, J. E., Walz, D., Berridge, S. C., Bugg, W. M., Shmakov, K., Weidemann, A. W., Bula, C., McDonald, K. T., Prebys, E. J., Bamber, C., Boege, S. J., Koffas, T., Kotseroglou, T., Melissinos, A. C., Meyerhofer, D. D., Reis, D. A., & Ragg, W. (1997). Positron Production in Multiphoton Light-by-Light Scattering. Physical Review Letters, 79(9), 1626-1629. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626
[13] Hall, G. (2008). Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and special relativity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1871), 1849-1860.
[14] Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Feynman Lectures on Physics(III) [费恩曼物理学讲义] (Chinese ed., Vol. III).
[15] Maxwell, J. C. (1865). VIII. A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London(155), 459-512.
[16] Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Feynman Lectures on Physics(II) [费恩曼物理学讲义] (Chinese ed., Vol. II).
[17] Born, M. (1926). Quantum mechanics of collision processes. Uspekhi Fizich.
[18] Zhi-Yong, W., Cai-Dong, X., & Ole, K. (2007). The first-quantized theory of photons. Chinese Physics Letters, 24(2), 418.
[19] Kobe, D. H. (1999). A Relativistic Schrödinger-like Equation for a Photon and Its Second Quantization. Foundations of Physics, 29(8), 1203-1231. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018855630724
[20] Michaud, A. (2021). Mise en évidence de l'interprétation initiale de Maxwell de l'électromagnétisme (Republication augmentée PI).
[21] Yang, C. N. (2014). The conceptual origins of Maxwell's equations and gauge theory. Physics Today, 67(11), 45.
[22] Petruzziello, L. (2020). A dissertation on General Covariance and its application in particle physics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
[23] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377566579_The_Relationship_Between_the_Theory_of_Everything_and_the_Constants_of_Nature_English_Version
Dear Chian Fan
Certainly with your question
“Why do Electromagnetic Waves Consist of two fields, Electric Field E and Magnetic Field H?”
I just wonder if that question has to do with the fact that the starting point of it, is the dualistic point of view?
What about if we assume that it is the Magnetic Field the Fundamental Field of the Universe and that the Electric Field is a derived Field, as is established in the Second Maxwell’s Equation in the Table 3.1?
“In Table 3.1 we then represent these equations in such a way that:
- the first equation tells us that there are no isolated magnetic poles
- the second indicates that a time-varying magnetic field produces an electric field
- the third that every static electric field has a corresponding electric charge associated with it, and
- the fourth that every electric current has a magnetic field associated with it.”
On the other side if we take a complex trajectory, I mean in the complex plane, on which the Basic Systemic Unit
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374951800_The_Principle_of_Synergy_and_Isomorphic_Units_a_revisited_version),
based on Euler’s Relation that has the most remarkable property of remaining the same with those operations that represent change, I mean Integration and Derivation, then it possible to conceive “INVARIANT” or entities that remain the same with change.
In fact what was found in the University of Ottawa regarding the “Quantum Entanglement”, is precisely due to the fact, that in the Complex Plane those entities remain Invariant, no need to assume superluminic velocities to explain that.
My best regards
Edgar Paternina
I have a random guess after reading some RG posts: there is a fundamental structure like a tube sucks in photons and pushes out the same speed like a diode, thus no energy gain or loss. This tube travels across space and rotate the two poles giving the fields which is orthogonal to each other. Its own energy is determined by the frequency of such rotations.
"7.1) Life and Open Systems in Dynamic Equilibrium
The biologist Humberto Maturana says that all living systems are interconnected not because they are in contact with each other, but because they are part of a story. And in fact we could say that they are interrelated precisely because of that backdrop, that sphere of reality that includes the space-time continuum and at the same time transcends it and which we have called the sphere of form; a backdrop against which form as "organization" remains invariant in the midst of structural changes. In reality all organization implies a hierarchy among the relations that constitute the organization; in such a way that their relations will not necessarily be interchangeable indistinctly, one with the other.
The concept of field as we have introduced it is, analogously speaking, that "dynamic membrane" that distinguishes a Basic Systemic Unit from its external environment. It is precisely through this concept that the interactions of the BUS with its external environment occur on the one hand, and on the other hand, also, it is this concept that gives the possibility of storing or constructing an internal history of these interactions, which will make possible the autopoiesis, or the maintenance of its unity in the midst of change. This history will be an internal representation of how the system should respond to changes in interaction and not a reflection of external reality. The double spiral structure of the DNA would then be the internal structure for the storage of the information of the vital field.
In the case of the quantum system the intrinsic magnetic field of the electron and its energetic character allow defining its internal history or sum of its interactions, by means of the four quantum numbers..."
Taken from Physics. Semiotic and Ontology
This is another example of the Concept of Field and INVARIANTS
Edgar Paternina
Dear Edgar Paternina
You have made an intentional cut to Maxwell's system of equations. It is particularly difficult to give up the concept of the current loop in order to explain the source of the magnetic field. But electric current J should not be a fundamental parameter by any means, it is a macroscopic parameter.
I went through the paper you linked to and I believe there are important ideas. One suggestion, however, might be easier for others to read if it is not in bold.
Life and Open Systems in Dynamic Equilibrium is a very good, mutually reinforcing extension.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Jixin Chen
You have provided a very informative model. It's just that we need to know what the tube is. We should try to avoid introducing new problems in order to solve old one. Similar to string theory, we describe the function of a string, which explains many physical phenomena, but what is a string again? We turn around and have to study it again. Anyway, your model is valuable.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan,
You are totally right when you wrote
“ It is particularly difficult to give up the concept of the current loop in order to explain the source of the magnetic field. But electric current J should not be a fundamental parameter by any means, it is a macroscopic parameter.”
In fact it is the electron the one that produces that electric current we use daily ( the one that produces the current), but it is also the source of the Magnetic Field, as was shown in that experiment of the violation of parity in weak interactions, where the invariant character of the spin direction of the magnetic field plays such a fundamental role... as in it was shown the rule of the direction of the magnetic field determined by the right-hand screw rule, which incidentally accounts for the formal definition of the vector product, so we can conclude that the magnetic field reflects the three-dimensional nature of space.
It is the electron the one that behaves like a magnet with its two inherent poles, the real source of the magnetic field, and as so is the source of the energy and its utilization daily.
My best regards
Edgar Paternina
Dear Chian Fan .
This happens because electricity and magnetism are inextricably linked with each other. They cannot exist separately.
As already written earlier, the quantum of action h is equal to the product of the magnitude of the electric charge e by the quantum of magnetic flux μ: h=eμ. Essentially, the quantum of action h is a discrete element of a certain space in which the charge e is surrounded by a ring of magnetic flux quantum. It is surrounded in the same way as the magnetic moment of the electron μ0=eh/4πmec (sorry for using the same symbol μ) is surrounded by a ring of electric displacement current due to the spin of electron. In this case, me is the mass of the electron, c is the speed of light. Therefore, the excitation of photon - a discrete element h=ετ=pλ of another space is necessarily accompanied by the appearance of both annular flows - magnetic and displacement current. Which are connected (engaged) with each other, since they are performed by the same charged particle when it accelerates or when the direction of its spin changes. This is how a photon is born.
And one more addition. We should not be confused by constant electrostatic and magnetic fields. When in the first case we do not observe a magnetic field, and in the second - an electric one. It’s just that for these classical fields, elementary electric displacement currents and magnetic flux quanta inherent in charges are leveled out due to their mutual interference. And yes: these constant fields do not give rise to an alternating electromagnetic field.
Yours sincerely, Mikhail Dulin.
Mikhail N Dulin I would like to see your derivation of h=eμ, and hereby take it you are not referring u to u0 or e0, but that you are referring to h = Panck constant, and e = elementary charge?
In my naive paper on quarks I derive Q as a result of only constants. (I used Q instead of e)
Preprint Challenging the concept of fractional charges for quarks thr...
Equation 11, for which you can further simplify by substituting ke = 1/(4*pi*ε0). Point is from this you can arrange to have any of these natural constants as a relation of other constants. In this case
h = Q2 / (2*α*c*ε0), or in terms of u0,
h = Q2*u0*c / (2*α)
Dear Francois Zinserling .
Unfortunately or fortunately, I do not derive the formula h=eμ. I just take it from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_flux_quantum) because I think it is well known. There this formula differs from mine by a factor of 2, and the flux quantum itself has the designation Ф0.
But then I take a very serious step - I assume that each elemental charge is surrounded by a magnetic flux quantum in the form of a ring. This assumption turns out to be fundamental for many further arguments.
With best regards,
Mikhail Dulin.
Dear Francois Zinserling
I haven't read your paper yet and I'm sure there must be something very brilliant about it.
However, I have some questions about your relation to the various constants. h is supposed to be the most fundamental constant, and it is not supposed to be obtained from other constants, but rather a parameter of other constants. Perhaps it should be reconsidered.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan I am not here to punt my own work since this is your discussion. The relation I quote is not unknown and not 'first' derived by me. It is available on the Codata website although this link currently appears broken:
https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e
To return to my point, it doesn't matter which constant is 'on the left'. It could be h or q or any of them. Here we have constants in relation to other constants. It doesn't get more fundamental than this.
Mikhail N Dulin thank you for your reply. It is always interesting to consider other interpretations. Not just raw maths but an understanding of the mechanics. I feel a bit guilty for jumping in here since I still have to read Chian Fan 's paper.
Dear Francois Zinserling
RG is an open community, everyone has the right to contribute their own scientific opinions and information, and individuals do not claim ownership of the discussions they initiate. If I made you feel a bit guilty, I must have made a mistake in my words somewhere. If that is the case, then I should be the one to apologize.
In any case, anyone's comments are welcome. Attention is value.
"it doesn't matter which constant is 'on the left'." Whether left or right in an equation may not be an issue in math, but it can be an important issue in physics, where the interpretations are not all reversible. For example, E=mc^2, Gµν=Tµν. this is exactly what causality causes, and perhaps we can discuss this in another place.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan it certainly does. For instance E = mc2 and m = E/c2 tells two different stories.
Your paper:
Preprint The Relationship Between the Theory of Everything and the Co...
A thought-provoking and very interesting read.
Having read the paper, and coming back to the constants, a better link to CoData may have been this one that shows the equation but not the derivation, but here in terms of alpha:
https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
, where e.g. e,c and h are exact values, but e0 and therefore alpha has uncertainties. However, the origin of the equation (in my case) has q on the left.
The point is we have an equation of a constant in terms of other constants. Where we might understand each of those constants have a real meaning, it could well have been that e.g. alpha = 1 if the measured units of our SI system were chosen slightly different, then e.g alpha would have meant nothing, with a value of 1, and no units. And so there might be other constants e.g. G which should clearly be 4*pi*('newG') where we have lost some valuable interpretation of our fundamental physics.
Now all this does not really relate to your question. E x H. In my mind and my understanding E was always fundamental, with H as a resultant relativistic observation effect. However it is not so simple as to always replace H as a function of E. The two are much more co-dependent, as you so very well show in your paper. There is also the observational effect where we can measure a static magnetic field, but no electric field, which cannot be expained simply by H = f(E). Your paper has certainly opened my thinking to alternate reasoning.
I particularly liked your 'strings and rings', with their respective equations. It works well mathematically, and gives an understanding to an otherwise abstract concept.
Dear Francois Zinserling
Sincerely thank you for your comments and interest in my paper.
It should be emphasized that E=mc^2 holds for all particles with mass m; but m=E/c^2 does not hold for photons. This is shown by Eisntein's derivation of this equation.
The dimensions of physics are artificially defined, and except for the most fundamental constants, which can be taken to be 1, other constants may not lend themselves to arbitrary values, especially dimensionless ratios. They are unchangeable like π.
For constants, we can always discuss them. The link you provided is a good place to look, and there are some very valuable answers in the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/No28The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_4-Could_All_Physical_Constants_be_Unified_to_a_set_of_Fundamental_Constants_of_Nature/1
Best Regards， Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan,
As far as I know photons are another manifestation of energy, so it does not have to do anything with mass. Certainly energy can manifest itself as a particle when the state of the Basic Systemic Unit can be determined; on the other side it will manifest as a wave, as it is shown with Schrödinger's complex Wave equation. The great crisis of physics has to do precisely with the fact to take the most weak force of the universe, as the fundamental one, as was put by Einstein in his general theory of relativity, when using Tensor Analysis and reducing time to a space dimension, that has taken physics to that crisis that was denounced by Schrödinger in 1952.
My best regards
Edgar Paternina
Dear Edgar Paternina
you said, “photons are another manifestation of energy, so it does not have to do anything with mass. ”
You raise a very thought-provoking question: why is a photon another form of energy, and why is it independent of mass. If we explain this question clearly, everything may be clear.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Why electromgnetic waves have two fields?:
Because the black body radiation in D-dimensional Universes should have at least D=2 dimensions.
See the link:
Cardoso & de Castro “The blackbody radiation in D-dimensional Universes” arxiv 0510002v1 , https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510002
The magnetic field is not independent. It is derived from the electric field.
Dear Chian Fan,
This time my answer, will be given by the physicist Fritjof Capra in his 35th Anniversary Edition of his book The Tao of Physics, that in a certain sense resonates profoundly with my own proposal as electrical engineer, based on complex numbers, where I introduced a concept of unit very similar to that ancient symbol of Yin-Yang, that as a matter of fact, the Ottawa University has already found in their experiments about the so called Quantum Entanglement.
But here is what Fritjof Capra wrote:
“The whole development started when Max Planck discovered that the energy of heat radiation is not emitted continuously but appears in the form of "energy packets." Einstein called these energy packets quanta and recognized them as a fundamental aspect of nature. He was bold enough to postulate that light and every other form of electromagnetic radiation can appear not only as electromagnetic waves but also in the form of these quanta. The light quanta, which gave quantum theory its name, have since been accepted as bona fide particles and are now called photons. They are particles of a special kind, however, massless and always traveling with the speed of light...
Quantum theory has shown that all these astonishing properties of atoms arise from the wave nature of their electrons. To begin with, the solid aspect of matter is the consequence of a typical "quantum effect'' connected with the dual wave/particle aspect of matter, a feature of the subatomic world which has no macroscopic analogue. Whenever a particle is confined to a small region of space it reacts to this confinement by moving around, and the smaller the region of confinement is, the faster the particle moves around in it. In the atom, now, there are two competing forces.”
My best regards.
Edgar Paternina
Dear Edgar Paternina
"The Tao of Physics" looks wonderful. However, what are "two competing forces"? When forces are finally unified, isn't there one? Do they have to be unified into two? Electromagnetic forces appear to be attractive and repulsive, but we still consider them to be one force, the difference being only in direction, not in magnitude.
This is an extremely important question, how many forces should there be in nature.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
They don't. "EM waves" are really just components of photons which are magnets. Moving magnets produce electric fields. That photons become coherent over long distance traveling is well known. So, too their components. This coherence is a bunching of particles whose density may be like a wave. The Maxwell's equations have experiments that reject them.
See the model and the experiments at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtbSroyJ4lU
This manuscript supports Warren Frisina's statement. Preprint Minkowski space-time, simultaneity and electric field strength
What we think of as Maxwell's equations were written by Oliver Heaviside. Maxwell worked in Hamilton's quaternions. The Magnetic field is simply a relativistic Electric field. It only appears when there is motion of an Electric field. The magnetic field was invented by Oliver Heaviside as a simple and brilliant method of calculating forces before relativity was presented.
Dear N Tanguay,
Well the magnetic field can be found in a permanent magnetic as an intrinsic polarity that as far as I know cannot be isolated, and too in electrons associated with its spin property.
And as a matter of fact, we, as electrical engineer owe a great deal to the Great Oliver Heaviside that introduced complex numbers to work Maxwell's equations, that definitively solved the war of currents, I mean the war between Edison (Direct Current) and Westinghouse (Alternating Current).
My best regards
Edgar Paternina
Edgard Paternina,
Oliver Heaviside did indeed contribute greatly to the ease of calculations and as I note, It was he who wrote what we now call Maxwells equations.
However, as you have noted a permanent magnet is the result of moving electric fields. From the national magnet lab: Permanent Magnet Definition -
"So the magnetic fields of permanent magnets are the sums of the nuclear spins, the electron spins and the orbits of the electrons themselves."
nationalmaglab.org/about-the-maglab/around-the-lab/maglab-dictionary/permanent-magnet/
the magnetic field is generally recognized as a relativistic effect of the electric field. It is stated here: galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/rel_el_mag.html
"The purely electrical force is identical in magnitude to the purely magnetic force in the other frame! So, observers in the two frames will agree on the rate at which the particle accelerates away from the wire, but one will call the accelerating force magnetic, the other electric. We are forced to the conclusion that whether a particular force on an actual particle is magnetic or electric, or some mixture of both, depends on the frame of reference——so the distinction is rather artificial."
the textbook used here is Purcell, Electricity and Magnetism, McGraw Hill, 1985
Best Regards
Peter Tanguay
You wrote:
"So the magnetic fields of permanent magnets are the sums of the nuclear spins, the electron spins and the orbits of the electrons themselves."
Yes nuclear spins, a strange property produced by electrons, that is in fact sort kind of unity, that has taken to think in superluminic velocities, in the so called Quantum-Entanglement or EPR:
“Suppose now that the spin of particle 1 is measured along a vertical axis and is found to be "up." Because the combined spin of the two particles is zero, this measurement tells us that the spin of particle 2 must be "down" Thus, by measuring the spin of particle 1 we obtain an indirect measurement of the spin of particle 2 without in any way disturbing that particle. “...
“This is the crux of the EPR experiment, and this is where Einstein disagreed with Bohr. According to Einstein, since no signal can travel faster then the speed of light, it is impossible that the measurement performed on one electron will instantly determine the direction of the other electron's spin, thousands of miles away.”
The Tao of Physics by
Fritjof Capra
Best regards
Edgar Paternina
So we can say that the electron is the Fundamental Magnet of the Universe¡
Edgar Paternina
Dear Chian Fan
Your questions are related to the use of a certain point of view (phenomenological physics).
Try to imagine a ball that is thrown through the air. We can make a video of it with the help of a video camera. If we know the air resistance, the mass and the size of the ball we can even calculate the amount of force that was responsible for the trajectory of the ball. Etc., etc. Nevertheless, our way of detecting and interpretation represents the phenomenological point of view.
If we want to know “what is really going on” we must change the way we interpret physical reality. First of all, there is a constant amount of changes everywhere in the universe. The amount of changes – termed “energy” – are conserved. Energy is quantized (h) thus the direction of all the “single” changes in the universe is conserved too (the vector part of momentum, the energy part is already covered by the law of conservation of energy).
Imagine a imaginary cube. The cube is much bigger than the ball in the example above. During the trajectory of the ball in the air, everything within the volume of the imaginary cube is changing. Not only the position of the ball, but also the air molecules, the light that passes through the cube, etc., etc. But all these synchronous changes represent energy. So if we want to know what is really going on – a supposed causality – we have to enlarge the imaginary cube. Now the person that had thrown the ball is part of the volume. Unfortunately, the person is a manifestation of the same energy that created the ball, the air molecules, the light, etc., etc. Because of the principle of non-locality we have to enlarge the imaginary cube till it has the size of the whole universe if we want to know “what is really going on”.
If we think about it for a while we will conclude that the cause/power behind the manifestation of energy is the volume of the universe itself. Because everywhere in the universe there is the continuous change of energy. In line with the principle of uncertainty (Heisenberg) because the smallest uncertainty in position is directly related to Planck’s constant (h).
In modern physics the properties of the volume of the universe are described by the basic quantum fields. So from our human point of view the basic quantum fields tessellate the volume of the universe. Of course this is a primitive point of view. The basic quantum fields are the volume of our universe and represent a spatial structure.
There is a universal scalar field (Higgs field), a 3D universal topological field that changes under invariant volume (electric field) and a vector field that corresponds with the changes of the topological field everywhere the scalars of the Higgs field have the same magnitude (the magnetic field). All the other fields known in physics are emerging compositions of the basic quantum fields – inclusive the gravitational field – under influence of local concentrations of energy by the electric field that we have termed “matter” (E = m c2).
With kind regards, Sydney
All the Universe is a variable concentration of the electromagnetic field. The rate of variation should be quantified. At low scale we have a quantum of energy h and it luck us a quantum of time: it is not Planck time because gravitation is observed at big scale.
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm
Very happy to see your comment. Your ideas are creative and inspiring. If we organize it, is it possible to understand that 1) the first principle of the universe is the " the uncertainty principle " and " the principle of conservation of energy ". 2) the spatial structure of the universe is "Volume element". The volume element is the quantum field. 3) There are three kinds of quantum fields: the universal Higgs scalar field, the topological field electric field E, and the vector field magnetic field H. Each of them is represented by a different action. 4) All other fields, the electron field, muon field... , gravitational field, are all localized density manifestations of energy.
However, I feel that it is rather difficult to understand and that the correlation among them needs more details.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Hello Chian Fan
For energy to be propagated as physical quantity E, space has to be populated with charges. Is that the case?
For energy to be propagated as physical quantity B, space does not have to be populated with charges.
The second point is that what can propagate as wave is disturbance/strains in a medium or field. What is E disturbing and what is H disturbing? It is only strains in those fields that can propagate as wave.
If divergent strains, they will propagate as longitudinal waves. If shear strains, they will propagate as transverse waves.
Chian Fan, et.al.,
What does it mean to say or claim this: “Classical field theory is based entirely on the Maxwell's Equations, which consists of Faraday‘s Law, Ampere's Law, Gauss's Law, and Coulomb's Law, where both Faraday's equations and Ampere's equations in free space describe electromagnetic waves?”
Is "free space" populated by charged particles or is it devoid of charges? In setting out the preamble to this discussion, clarity of terms is essential.
In the derivation of the wave equations, current and electrostatic charge were excluded in the consideration of periodic disturbances (see chapter XX, article 784 in Maxwell’s Treatise). See also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Vacuum_equations,_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light, “In a region with no charges (ρ = 0) and no currents (J = 0), such as in a vacuum, Maxwell's equations reduce to…”
We can therefore reasonable assume that in Maxwell’s view, free space is devoid of charged particles. This is also the mainstream position of the nature of vacuum. It is not densely filled up with particles having charge and mass.
If this is the case, energy can only be propagated in vacuum as a time-varying magnetic field B, given by ∇2B = µε∂2B/∂t2 and not as E, which is force per unit charge (i.e. E = F/q). See the equation in the linked Wikipedia page.
Energy can be propagated jointly as B and as E, only if charges are present, such as in transmission cables, where the energy is shared into both forms as given by the Poynting vector, S= E×B/μ.
Dear Chian Fan
You write that Maxwell's equations is a synthesis of experimental results, not a result of mathematical derivation. In my own paper "On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Quantum Mechanics" I have actually mathematically derived these equation. While research like mine surely is controversial (I'm not sure about my own current interpretation of charges and masses and continue to investigate), I have shown that the magnetic field and electromagnetic waves in vacuum are straightforward to derive if you take spacetime and its properties serious. Please share your thoughts about it with me if this is of interest to you.
Chian Fan on 20 Feb you wrote: "why is a photon another form of energy, and why is it independent of mass"
If we draw an anology between V=RI (voltage = resistance * current) and F=m*a (force = mass * acceleration), then we can infer that mass is a resistance to acceleration.
Then, by extension, we can conclude that a photon has no resistance to acceleration, therefore it has no mass.
This might sound trivial, but it is not, since we know that a photon that exits from e.g. glass, wil immediately travel at c.
How it has no resistance to acceleration is not immediately clear, but this might be answered with some E and B components.
So I end with another question that needs asking: What is mass resisting against, and why does it not affect a photon in the same way?
Dear Akinbo Ojo
You said "For energy to be propagated as physical quantity E, space has to be populated with charges. Is that the case?"
Why does E propagation need charge? What is the dependence between them? There is also no evidence that electromagnetic wave propagation must be aided by dielectric perturbation.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Ingo D. Mane
Thank you so much for the new perspective!
I have downloaded your paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378469705_On_the_Origin_and_Unification_of_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_ Quantum_Mechanics] and I feel that there must be an important reference value, but it takes time to understand it deeply and accurately. Your paper is full of notation. if you can give a quick statement, it may help everyone to understand quickly. For example, if Maxwell's equations are not fundamental, what are the basic assumptions in your argument?
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Francois Zinserling
You raise a profound question: “What is mass resisting against, and why does it not affect a photon in the same way?”
Mass is usually thought of as resisting a change in the "state" of matter, but what is the "state"? Why does it resist change? Why can it resist change? My personal reference answer is here [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380105087_Supersymmetric_Standard_Model_SSM]. Mass originates from damping the superluminal intent of a spinning light ring and as a result is the fundamental property that distinguishes fermions from bosons.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
“【NO.31】The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics (7) - Why do Electromagnetic Waves Consist of Two Fields, Electric Field E and Magnetic Field H?”
- the scientific answer to this question is only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 Planck scale informational physical model, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces .
More see the link, here briefly: really only fundamental Nature Electric force exists, that acts between electric charges as exchange by its real mediators, intensive flows of which are observed in mainstream physics as electric and magnetic fields.
This Force acts “completely electrically” if electric charges are at rest in 3DXYZ space as Coulomb filed,
- however if a [“radiating”] charge moves in the space, the mediators – which aren’t particles,
[in QED the mediators are particles “virtual photons”, and in Standard Model real photons are postulated as real EM Force mediators, despite that all this looks as something too mystic, where mystic “virtual” photons really interact with real charges, while the real photons for/by some mystic reason/ways evidently aren’t observed, when charges evidently interact in the rest case above.. Though that isn’t unique strange thing in QED; and classical ED, though],
- obtain real momentums from corresponding charged body, and they interact with other [irradiated] charge, causing in the irradiated charge momentums which are directed not to the radiated charge, as that happens if both charges are at rest; what is observed as “magnetic force action”.
So, say, since magnetic force isn’t really a Force, magnetic charge, versions of which in the mainstream “ are called magnetic monopoles” fundamentally doesn’t exist.
Cheers
Dear Chian Fan
Many thanks for showing an interest in my paper Preprint On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitati...
, apologies that due to my inexperience I have tried to put too much information in there and structured it badly. I'm in the process to rewrite the paper to make it more accessible.Essentially, I'm arguing that (the mathematical properties of) spacetime itself is the reason for many physical laws. Mainly I'm looking at two things:
* Several consecutive time and space time derivatives of a field of bivectors.
* The effects of Lorentz boosts on bivectors.
One main assumption (but also conclusion) is that physical action can be written as a field of bivectors.
* Starting point is physical action, assumed to be a field of bivectors.
* The first derivative gives us energy, momentum and some angular momentum.
* The second derivative gives us forces.
* The third derivative gives us Maxwell's Equations and e.g. Poisson's equation of gravity (this is the part that referred to your original question).
* The fourth derivative gives us e.g. the field equations of General Relativity.
On the other hand, Lorentz boosts on bivectors e.g. lead to the magnetic field /Biot-Savart law.
There are also many interesting mathematical aspects of spacetime in the paper, e.g. that the second and fourth derivative are wave functions.
Best regards,
Ingo Mane
The scientific answer to the thread question see in the SS post on page 4; so here only note that the problem “what is Electric Force” was considered rather in details also in a few SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_electron_mass_strictly_of_electromagnetic_electrodynamic_origin/352, and links in the posts;
- and a note to
“…So I end with another question that needs asking: What is mass resisting against, and why does it not affect a photon in the same way?….”
- to answer this question it is necessary before to understand – what are at least [absolutely] fundamental phenomena/notions “Energy” and “Inertia” – and concretely at application to the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter” – what is “Matter”.
All these phenomena/notions, and not only, first of all also “Space”, “Time”, “Change”, “Information”, are completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, and so, though humans use some “understandings” of what the phenomena/notions are, they do that only completely instinctively, mostly even not asking – for/by what mystic reasons/ways all that exist, and for/by what mystic reasons/ways they observe something, obtain and logically process the obtained, information, including about space, time, material structures, etc.
The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- and more concretely at application to Matter the definitions are used in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, the model of Electric Force [the link see SS post on page 4] is only one of a number of other fundamental problems that are solved/clarified in the whole model.
In the conception the answer to the question in the quote above is as:
- since the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Change” is logically self-inconsistent, any changes of any informational pattern/system
[while, as that rigorously proven in the conception, there exist nothing besides some informational patterns/systems, including any material structure – particle, body, etc., and Matter as a whole are some such patterns systems]
- including, of course, creation of any pattern/system, including of any particle, including photons, are logically prohibited.
Just so to overcome this logical prohibition it is necessary to spend some portion of “Energy”, the logical resistance above is characterized by “Inertia”.
[Note, though, that the above isn’t sufficient, Logics is more mighty than Energy, and so on some scale any change are uncertain – “illogical”, in Matter that is QM scale].
Matter is rather simple logical system that is based on binary reversible logics and a few fundamental and universal laws/links/constants, so it is possible to characterize everything that exists and happens in Matter by measured, using some etalons of energy and inertia,
- at that “inertial mass”, m, as that yet Newton defined is “measure of inertia”.
Including informational pattern/particle “photon” has absolutely obligatorily inertial mass, m, momentum, P=mc, and energy E=Pc
– as that all/every other particles, bodies, etc., have; and all particles, including photons, are close-loop algorithms that tick with frequencies ω, and energies E=ћω. More about what is “ a particle” see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
Cheers
Hi Chian Fan,
You ask, “Why does E propagation need charge? What is the dependence between them?”
Going by the four Maxwell equations, which you also mentioned in your introduction, Electric charge is the source of electric field E, at least as far as Coulomb and Gauss’s laws are concerned. You buttressed that when you also said, “This is precisely why the E of an electromagnetic wave is identical to the E of electron charge”, which is interpreted to mean the E in all the four Maxwell equations are identical. Are you disagreeing with that interpretation?
Can electric field exist where there is no source charge? And if so, what then will be its source since fields have sources?
Dear Ingo D. Mane
you write, “ Starting point is physical action, assumed to be a field of bivectors. The first derivative gives us energy, momentum and some angular momentum. The second derivative gives us forces. The third derivative gives us Maxwell's Equations and e.g. Poisson's equation of gravity (this is the part that referred to your original question). The fourth derivative gives us e.g. the field equations of General Relativity.”
This looks so wonderful! I will definitely schedule time to read your paper thoroughly. Looking forward to a good result.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Cosmin Visan
Did you grab an exposed electrical wire? Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) is a safe and effective medical treatment for certain psychiatric disorders. However, it must be performed by a specialist. You cannot do it yourself, so be careful. We will treat you, don't lose hope.
Dear Akinbo Ojo
We usually think of an electric charge as the emitting source of an electromagnetic wave, not the concomitant. Electromagnetic waves traveling in free space do not need a source to accompany them.
Besides, have we ever seen an “electric charge”? We have only seen the electric field of an electron.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Hi Chian Fan,
“Electric charge” is a property of an electron, just as “mass” is the property of matter particles. As electric charge gives rise to electric field E, so does mass give rise to gravitational field. When energy travels as wave, just as it is not gravitational field that travels, so also it is not the electric field E that travels. What can propagate as wave is disturbance/deformations in the respective field.
So, unless, you are using definitions different from the four Maxwell equations, the source of E, the electric field IS charge. This is written as the first of the four, i.e. ∇∙E = ρ/ε (Gauss’s law of electricity).
The emitting source of electromagnetic wave is alternating current (in a conductor - transmission antenna). Electric field E is not the same thing as a wave.
The scientific answer to the thread question see in the SS posts on pages 4, 5; so for readers who really want to know the answer, i.e. what is fundamental Nature Electric force, i.e. what are electric charge, the Forces mediators – and so fields, etc.,
- more see these posts and links in the posts, including that the problem “what is Electric Force” is considered rather in details also in a few SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_electron_mass_strictly_of_electromagnetic_electrodynamic_origin/352.
If quite briefly, Electric Force, as every other [Gravity, Weak, Strong/Nuclear] Forces, acts as that the Forces’ charges, which are “written” in particles’ algorithms, radiatethe Forces mediators, in classical physics intensive flows of mediators compose the “Forces fields”.
At that mediators aren’t particles, including just so the fields at statics don’t contain energy, and just therefore the energy conservation law acts, while postulates in the mainstream that the fields contain energy evidently violate this low, etc.
So here only a note to
“…When energy travels as wave, just as it is not gravitational field that travels, so also it is not the electric field E that travels. What can propagate as wave is disturbance/deformations in the respective field.….”
Really “energy as [EM and Gravity in this case] wave” travels as flows of particles “photons” and “gravitons”, intensive flows of which compose the “waves”, what so – see above – isn’t a “disturbance/deformations in the respective field”.
Though yeah, photons and gravitons are created/radiated by Electric and Gravity Forces charges also, but only if the charges are accelerated,
- and in this case the radiated mediators [which, again, aren’t particles, i.e. some close-loop algorithms] obtain corresponding additional momentums so that they - as all other particles [more how particles are created see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics],
- curl into a closed algorithms – i.e. become be particles, which travel in the space independently on the “host fields” that remain to be as the fields by the definition above.
Cheers