How come a Photon has zero charge but has an Electric field?

On Jun 25, 3:45 pm, " wrote:
On Jun 25, 3:39 am, "Sue..." wrote:





On Jun 25, 1:00 am, wrote:

On 24 juin, 14:19, mathematician wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

If that were true then Feynman's photons would not
require wrist watches and the VLTI at Paranal would
not exhibit fringes when its delay lines are skewed.

That's like saying water waves cannot superposition because they are
composed of particles.

No it isn't. It is saying that the photon emitted by the source
must be divisible if the its phase information is found in
both delay lines. By altering one delay line by 1/2
wavelength the emitted photon can be made to interfere
with itself.

Sue...





http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-06-05.html


Ask the King of Sweden if you can bring some guest to
dinner when you catch a jar of light particles.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html

Sue...

On 25 juin, 15:30, "Sue..." wrote:
On Jun 25, 3:45 pm, " wrote:



On Jun 25, 3:39 am, "Sue..." wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:00 am, wrote:

On 24 juin, 14:19, mathematician wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

If that were true then Feynman's photons would not
require wrist watches and the VLTI at Paranal would
not exhibit fringes when its delay lines are skewed.

That's like saying water waves cannot superposition because they are
composed of particles.

No it isn't. It is saying that the photon emitted by the source
must be divisible if the its phase information is found in
both delay lines. By altering one delay line by 1/2
wavelength the emitted photon can be made to interfere
with itself.

Sue...

A photon interfering with itself is just a wild supposition
as far as I could ever ascertain. Not born out by
experiment

André Michaud


http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-06-05.html



Ask the King of Sweden if you can bring some guest to
dinner when you catch a jar of light particles.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html



Sue...

On 25 juin, 13:57, Igor wrote:
On Jun 25, 12:00 am, wrote:



On 24 juin, 14:19, mathematician wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

André Michaud

Actually, if you're referring to de Broglie's pilot wave (or double
solution) theory, it wasn't so much ignored,

I was not talking about his well known pilot wave theory.

I was talking about his little known conclusion that that the
only way for a photon to satisfy at the same time Bose-Einstein's
statistic and Planck's Law; and to perfectly explain the
photoelectric effect while obeying Maxwell's equations and
conforming to the properties of Dirac's theory of complementary
corpuscles symmetry, would be that it be constituted, not of one
corpuscle, but of two corpuscles, or half-photons, that would be
complementary like the electron is complementary to the positron

Ref: Louis de Broglie. "La physique nouvelle et les quanta",
Flammarion, France 1937, Second Edition 1993, with new 1973
preface by L. de Broglie, p.277.

According to him, "Such a complementary couple of particles
is liable to annihilate at the contact of matter by relinquishing
all of its energy, which perfectly accounts for the
characteristics of the photoelectric effect. "

Furthermore he wrote "The photon being made up of two
elementary particles of spin h/4pi, it must obey the
Bose-Einstein statistic as the precision of Planck's
law for the black body requires."

Finally, he concludes that "...this model of the photon allows
the definition of an electromagnetic field linked to the
probability of annihilation of the photon, a field that
obeys Maxwell's equations and has all of the characteristics
of electromagnetic light waves."

but, one could argue, evolved into David Bohm's nonlocal
hidden variable theories involving quantum potential.
There's a lot in common there and it's still being
debated.

Not talking about Bohm's well known theory either.

The real challenge, as far as I've always seen, is how do
you predict something based on either of those models that
is not present in traditional QM.

Nothing of any interest, as is well understood. But
they were not what I was talking about.

André Michaud

On 25 juin, 14:41, " wrote:
On Jun 25, 12:00 am, wrote:



On 24 juin, 14:19, mathematician wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

André Michaud

I personally find it hard to believe that two photons can occupy the
same space. More likely photons are compressable entities and demand
external energy to maintain that space localized space.

Experimental reality seems to show otherwise. Else how could
photons emitted by atoms at the surface of any star reach us
so that we can detect them and measure their frequencies ?

And considering they barely know the dimension of a photon and that a
higher intensity means more photons. "Seems" simple but a photon
without a frequency is not a photon (no wave) and likewise a frequency
must have an intensity otherwise it's not a frequency.

Agreement.

(Therefore a frequency of only one intensity (one photon) is
practically impossible to measure).

Well, it has been possible to do exactly that ever since
lasers were first fired.

André Michaud

On Jun 25, 5:01 pm, wrote:
On 25 juin, 15:30, "Sue..." wrote:





On Jun 25, 3:45 pm, " wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:39 am, "Sue..." wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:00 am, wrote:

On 24 juin, 14:19, mathematician wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

If that were true then Feynman's photons would not
require wrist watches and the VLTI at Paranal would
not exhibit fringes when its delay lines are skewed.

That's like saying water waves cannot superposition because they are
composed of particles.

No it isn't. It is saying that the photon emitted by the source
must be divisible if the its phase information is found in
both delay lines. By altering one delay line by 1/2
wavelength the emitted photon can be made to interfere
with itself.

Sue...

A photon interfering with itself is just a wild supposition
as far as I could ever ascertain. Not born out by
experiment

Now you have an experiment to think about.
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...05-preview.jpg

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-06-05.html

Sue...



André Michaud





http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-06-05.html

Ask the King of Sweden if you can bring some guest to
dinner when you catch a jar of light particles.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html

Sue...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 25, 3:30 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
On Jun 25, 3:45 pm, " wrote:





On Jun 25, 3:39 am, "Sue..." wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:00 am, wrote:

On 24 juin, 14:19, mathematician wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

If that were true then Feynman's photons would not
require wrist watches and the VLTI at Paranal would
not exhibit fringes when its delay lines are skewed.

That's like saying water waves cannot superposition because they are
composed of particles.

No it isn't. It is saying that the photon emitted by the source
must be divisible if the its phase information is found in
both delay lines. By altering one delay line by 1/2
wavelength the emitted photon can be made to interfere
with itself.

Sue...

??
There's two distant telescope recombining the LONG DISTANCE Imagery,
therefore it is not the SAME photon, it is two different photons of
the SAME IMAGE.



http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-06-05.html



Ask the King of Sweden if you can bring some guest to
dinner when you catch a jar of light particles.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html





Sue...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 25, 4:19 pm, wrote:
On 25 juin, 14:41, " wrote:





On Jun 25, 12:00 am, wrote:

On 24 juin, 14:19, mathematician wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

André Michaud

I personally find it hard to believe that two photons can occupy the
same space. More likely photons are compressable entities and demand
external energy to maintain that space localized space.

Experimental reality seems to show otherwise. Else how could
photons emitted by atoms at the surface of any star reach us
so that we can detect them and measure their frequencies ?


Not sure what you mean? photons do not need to occupy the same space
in order to reach us, likewise water particles do not need to occupy
the same space in order to reach us while maintaining the same wave
frequency...instead there would be a higher wave = higher intensity of
water particles (same as higher intensity from more photons).


And considering they barely know the dimension of a photon and that a
higher intensity means more photons. "Seems" simple but a photon
without a frequency is not a photon (no wave) and likewise a frequency
must have an intensity otherwise it's not a frequency.

Agreement.

(Therefore a frequency of only one intensity (one photon) is
practically impossible to measure).

Well, it has been possible to do exactly that ever since
lasers were first fired.

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 25, 5:46 pm, " wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

If that were true then Feynman's photons would not
require wrist watches and the VLTI at Paranal would
not exhibit fringes when its delay lines are skewed.

That's like saying water waves cannot superposition because they are
composed of particles.

No it isn't. It is saying that the photon emitted by the source
must be divisible if the its phase information is found in
both delay lines. By altering one delay line by 1/2
wavelength the emitted photon can be made to interfere
with itself.

Sue...

??
There's two distant telescope recombining the LONG DISTANCE Imagery,
therefore it is not the SAME photon, it is two different photons of
the SAME IMAGE.

If they interfere with 1/2 wavelength delay, it is the same emitted
photon. Other photons from the image will have a random
phase relationship.

You are unlikely to grasp that with your notions that headlamps
need to obey traffic signals so the photons won't collide
in the middle of an intersection so learn something about
light:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antennas.html

Sue...
..









http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-06-05.html

Ask the King of Sweden if you can bring some guest to
dinner when you catch a jar of light particles.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html

On Jun 25, 4:59 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
On Jun 25, 5:46 pm, " wrote:







On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

If that were true then Feynman's photons would not
require wrist watches and the VLTI at Paranal would
not exhibit fringes when its delay lines are skewed.

That's like saying water waves cannot superposition because they are
composed of particles.

No it isn't. It is saying that the photon emitted by the source
must be divisible if the its phase information is found in
both delay lines. By altering one delay line by 1/2
wavelength the emitted photon can be made to interfere
with itself.

Sue...

??
There's two distant telescope recombining the LONG DISTANCE Imagery,
therefore it is not the SAME photon, it is two different photons of
the SAME IMAGE.

If they interfere with 1/2 wavelength delay, it is the same emitted
photon.

No but have you been drinking Sue?
Planck's quanta is the smallest unit and CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED in two
or any other smaller value.

At the most it could be a Ket Vector...if that is what you mean.

Other photons from the image will have a random
phase relationship.

You are unlikely to grasp that with your notions that headlamps
need to obey traffic signals so the photons won't collide
in the middle of an intersection so learn something about
light:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../antennas.html

Sue...
.



http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-06-05.html

Ask the King of Sweden if you can bring some guest to
dinner when you catch a jar of light particles.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 25, 6:07 pm, " wrote:
On Jun 25, 4:59 pm, "Sue..." wrote:





On Jun 25, 5:46 pm, " wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

Isn't the Electron's electric field generated by it's charge?

If so, then how come a Photon has zero charge but still has
an electric field moving perpendicularly to it's magnetic field?

You will never get a straight answer on this issue from
a physicist. The reason being that Maxwell's theory
does not provide for discrete photons, only for EM
energy treated as waves.

Only de Broglie came up with a sensible approach but
he was ignored. He was the only major discoverer other
than Einstein who was convinced that photons and
electrons were permanently localized, even as they
were moving.

If that were true then Feynman's photons would not
require wrist watches and the VLTI at Paranal would
not exhibit fringes when its delay lines are skewed.

That's like saying water waves cannot superposition because they are
composed of particles.

No it isn't. It is saying that the photon emitted by the source
must be divisible if the its phase information is found in
both delay lines. By altering one delay line by 1/2
wavelength the emitted photon can be made to interfere
with itself.

Sue...

??
There's two distant telescope recombining the LONG DISTANCE Imagery,
therefore it is not the SAME photon, it is two different photons of
the SAME IMAGE.

If they interfere with 1/2 wavelength delay, it is the same emitted
photon.

No but have you been drinking Sue?

No... but I'll give you my agent's shipping
address if you want to remedy the problem.

http://www.eastendcellars.com.au/search?variety=134


Planck's quanta is the smallest unit and CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED in two
or any other smaller value.

No... Planck said an atom gains or looses a unit of energy.
That doesn't mean the energy can't spread out from an
emitting atom or be integrated from numerous sources by an
absorbing atom.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html




At the most it could be a Ket Vector...if that is what you mean.

I don't know what a Ket Vector is but I doubt it keeps
light from obeying the inverse square law or gives it
very much directivity.

http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html

Sue...




Other photons from the image will have a random
phase relationship.

You are unlikely to grasp that with your notions that headlamps
need to obey traffic signals so the photons won't collide
in the middle of an intersection so learn something about
light:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...t.edu/8.02t/ww...

Sue...
.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-06-05.html

Ask the King of Sweden if you can bring some guest to
dinner when you catch a jar of light particles.