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

On 25 juin, 16:53, " wrote:
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).

Sorry for the confusion. I was trying at an answer to the
second sentence. The first one simply did not register.

I agree with you. I certainly don't think it is even possible
for two photons to occupy the same space.

André Michaud

On 25 juin, 16:42, "Sue..." wrote:
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...ages/phot-07e-...

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

Sue...

You must be kidding. This can't possibly be about one
individual photon interfering with itself. Do you have
any idea of the energy that a single photon of such a
wavelength would have ? Infinitesimal!!! Way below any
level that can be detected by an antena.

André Michaud

On 25 juin, 03:55, Rock Brentwood wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:44 am, " wrote:

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

Electromagnetic radiation doesn't have its own an electric or magnetic
field. It is an oscillation in the field. That's two completely
different things.

Not different really. By nature, eps0 and mu0 are respectively
units of capacitance and inductance per meter in vacuum, which
means that the field oscillation is to be assimilated to an LC
oscillation, which does involve both electric and magnetic
fields.

André Michaud

On Jun 25, 8:40 pm, wrote:
On 25 juin, 16:42, "Sue..." wrote:





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...ages/phot-07e-...

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

Sue...

You must be kidding. This can't possibly be about one
individual photon interfering with itself. Do you have
any idea of the energy that a single photon of such a
wavelength would have ? Infinitesimal!!! Way below any
level that can be detected by an antena.

A 1/2 wave delay causes any EM to interfere with itself.
Antennas don't detect anything. They establish aperture,
local-paths and match impedances.
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antennas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

Sue...




André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 25 juin, 19:49, "Sue..." wrote:
On Jun 25, 8:40 pm, wrote:



On 25 juin, 16:42, "Sue..." wrote:

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...ages/phot-07e-...

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

Sue...

You must be kidding. This can't possibly be about one
individual photon interfering with itself. Do you have
any idea of the energy that a single photon of such a
wavelength would have ? Infinitesimal!!! Way below any
level that can be detected by an antena.

A 1/2 wave delay causes any EM to interfere with itself.

EM wave yes. But we are talking here about individual
photons.

Antennas don't detect anything. They establish aperture,
local-paths and match impedances.http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/...al_formulation

Care to give us a wavelength that these antenas can
handle ?

I will then give you the energy of a single photon
of that wavelength. We will then verify if there
exists an antena capable to deal with such a low
energy level that one such individual photon amounts
to.

André Michaud

On Jun 25, 11:34 pm, wrote:
On 25 juin, 19:49, "Sue..." wrote:





On Jun 25, 8:40 pm, wrote:

On 25 juin, 16:42, "Sue..." wrote:

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...ages/phot-07e-...

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

Sue...

You must be kidding. This can't possibly be about one
individual photon interfering with itself. Do you have
any idea of the energy that a single photon of such a
wavelength would have ? Infinitesimal!!! Way below any
level that can be detected by an antena.

A 1/2 wave delay causes any EM to interfere with itself.

EM wave yes. But we are talking here about individual
photons.

Antennas don't detect anything. They establish aperture,
local-paths and match impedances.http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/...s.htmlhttp://e...

Care to give us a wavelength that these antenas can
handle ?

I will then give you the energy of a single photon
of that wavelength. We will then verify if there
exists an antena capable to deal with such a low
energy level that one such individual photon amounts
to.

It might be more productive if you read about the
Feynman path integral (URL above) and you will see
why that won't be a very productive exercise.


Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .

As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.

The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html

Sue...



André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 26, 5:34 am, wrote:
On 25 juin, 19:49, "Sue..." wrote:





On Jun 25, 8:40 pm, wrote:

On 25 juin, 16:42, "Sue..." wrote:

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...ages/phot-07e-...

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

Sue...

You must be kidding. This can't possibly be about one
individual photon interfering with itself. Do you have
any idea of the energy that a single photon of such a
wavelength would have ? Infinitesimal!!! Way below any
level that can be detected by an antena.

A 1/2 wave delay causes any EM to interfere with itself.

EM wave yes. But we are talking here about individual
photons.

Antennas don't detect anything. They establish aperture,
local-paths and match impedances.http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/...s.htmlhttp://e...

Care to give us a wavelength that these antenas can
handle ?

I will then give you the energy of a single photon
of that wavelength. We will then verify if there
exists an antena capable to deal with such a low
energy level that one such individual photon amounts
to.

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

------------
and the amount of a sinle photon 9
(the real single one)
is
h/c^2
with some formal unit adjsutments
but the figure is as i indicated
soof course
it is pur enonsens to talk about detaction
of a single photon energy
it can be done ONLY statistically
by tetecting a huge packet
of such single photons

ATB
Y.Porat
----------

On Jun 25, 11:23 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Jun 26, 5:34 am, wrote:



On 25 juin, 19:49, "Sue..." wrote:

On Jun 25, 8:40 pm, wrote:

On 25 juin, 16:42, "Sue..." wrote:

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...ages/phot-07e-...

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

Sue...

You must be kidding. This can't possibly be about one
individual photon interfering with itself. Do you have
any idea of the energy that a single photon of such a
wavelength would have ? Infinitesimal!!! Way below any
level that can be detected by an antena.

A 1/2 wave delay causes any EM to interfere with itself.

EM wave yes. But we are talking here about individual
photons.

Antennas don't detect anything. They establish aperture,
local-paths and match impedances.http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/...s.htmlhttp://e...

Care to give us a wavelength that these antenas can
handle ?

I will then give you the energy of a single photon
of that wavelength. We will then verify if there
exists an antena capable to deal with such a low
energy level that one such individual photon amounts
to.

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

------------
and the amount of a sinle photon 9
(the real single one)
is
h/c^2
with some formal unit adjsutments
but the figure is as i indicated
soof course
it is pur enonsens to talk about detaction
of a single photon energy
it can be done ONLY statistically
by tetecting a huge packet
of such single photons

Stupid. Single-photon detection is commonplace.


ATB
Y.Porat
----------

On Jun 25, 5:45 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
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.


Ok but first I'll put on my reading glasses. I can't see ....too much
blurry and interference, once seconde, ok now I got them in focus.
Because they are in focus of the same image therefore it is the same
photon coming from various directions = no

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.


hmmm if they are spread out and don't all reach the same absorbing
atom then that atom will be absorbing less thant a quanta = no


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


A laser beam

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 26, 4:42 am, " wrote:

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

S 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.

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.

Ok but first I'll put on my reading glasses. I can't see ....too much
blurry and interference, once seconde, ok now I got them in focus.
Because they are in focus of the same image therefore it is the same
photon coming from various directions = no

Getting loose with an already loose formalism, that is
correct. Light paths are reciprocal so we can as
well, consider that an atom views all paths

The watches on the photons coming from stray sources
will have a random relationship so will null each other
out, statistically. The watches from multiple paths
to the same source will have a fixed relationship
so will add constructivly or destructivly just as
the classical paths would predict. Paths whose
lengths differ by modulo 1/2 wavelength cancel out.
Paths whose lengths differ by modulo 1 will
reinforce each other.



"Apple for substitute teacher"
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.

hmmm if they are spread out and don't all reach the same absorbing
atom then that atom will be absorbing less thant a quanta = no

They all reach the same atom because the
formalism says they do:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...o ogle+Search

The formalism considers all paths from point E to point A.
It doesn't consider all possible paths to everywhere or
from everywhere. (See the Wiki diagram where three paths
are shown.)

Then a probabiliy amplitude is computed to determine
the likelyhood that a change in the energy of an atom
at point A is causally related to the loss in energy of
an atom at point E.


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...


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