Understanding EM Photon Deflection: Equation and Terminology

[Orion1]

I am inquiring if anyone knows the equation for how a photon is deflected by an electromagnetic field?

What is the official physical phenomenological terminology for this effect?

Can a pure strong magnetic field alone deflect a photon?

What is the equation that describes this effect?

 

[ZapperZ]

I am inquiring if anyone knows the equation for how a photon is deflected by an electromagnetic field?

What is the official physical phenomenological terminology for this effect?

Can a pure strong magnetic field alone deflect a photon?

What is the equation that describes this effect?

Where EXACTLY did you get the idea that a photon can be deflected by an electromagnetic field? Did you not know that "photons" themselves ARE the "electromagnetic field"? Did you not know that photons have no charge, and that charged entities are the ones that we can deflect in an electromagnetic field?

If you read this somewhere, or got this from some quackery website, it would help if you cite a specific source.

Zz.

 

[joecoss]

I believe that photons do have charge (~11.7e) and are absolutely deflected by magnetic fields. I also believe that the photons are not the field, because particles are not waves. I would suggest not condemning new ideas as quackery so hastily because as Science inevitably progresses, it the the old ideas that most people quote repeatedly, that are eventually supplanted by discoveries brought about by new and creative thought.

 

[ZapperZ]

I believe that photons do have charge (~11.7e) and are absolutely deflected by magnetic fields. I also believe that the photons are not the field, because particles are not waves. I would suggest not condemning new ideas as quackery so hastily because as Science inevitably progresses, it the the old ideas that most people quote repeatedly, that are eventually supplanted by discoveries brought about by new and creative thought.

Well, since you are such an expert as scientific progress, since when has science progressed simply via "beliefs" without any physical justification? You cited your beliefs without pointing out any kind of experimental impetus or evidence that they might be justifiable. Since when are ideas accepted blindly?

New ideas and thoughts in physics that eventually become part of accepted physics were NEVER born out of ignorance of the subject matter and never without experimental verifications. Quackeries are not new ideas. Quackeries are ideas born out of ignorance.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Zz.

 

[joecoss]

Zz

Zz
I never claimed to be an expert at scientific progress, I was just commenting on the value of being open to new ideas. A theoretical postulate which is not derived from an experiment is always a belief first before it could ever become an accepted element of Scientific knowledge because it needs to be presented to the Scientific Community to be scrutinized as you mentioned. I also don't expect anyone to accept an idea of mine blindly, though it came from mathematics not from ignorance. I had seen the quack website previously and am not opposed to what you are saying because your position is understandable. Since Orion1 had answered two of my questions in great detail previously, I only want to reciprocate and am not interested in arguing about untested ideas of mine. You are right that they are currently untested and I will refrain from presenting new results of mine in a forum such as this. I will take your advice but please remain open to the possibility that what I presented might be correct.
joecoss

 

[Arctic Fox]

A PDF link for ZapperZ:

deflection of photoelectron
trajectories in elliptically polarized laser fields[/url]

 

[joecoss]

Photon Deflection

Orion1
Here is my answer to your inquiry which I hope will help with your work. Assume the appropriate disclaimer that this is not currently accepted Physics.
A photon is neutral overall, but consists of two charged particles with an approximate charge of 1.875 x 10^-18 C. They will only deflect in the EM Field if you separate them which you can do with say a Proton. When you do so, the values of the particles mass and charge will change as all particles do depending on their particular parameters. This process is currently known as Quantum Mechanics.
joecoss

 

[ZapperZ]

A PDF link for ZapperZ:

deflection of photoelectron
trajectories in elliptically polarized laser fields[/url]

May I ask why you are giving me this link? What does deflection of a photoelectron in an EM field have anything to do with deflection of PHOTONS in an EM field?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz
I never claimed to be an expert at scientific progress, I was just commenting on the value of being open to new ideas. A theoretical postulate which is not derived from an experiment is always a belief first before it could ever become an accepted element of Scientific knowledge because it needs to be presented to the Scientific Community to be scrutinized as you mentioned. I also don't expect anyone to accept an idea of mine blindly, though it came from mathematics not from ignorance. I had seen the quack website previously and am not opposed to what you are saying because your position is understandable. Since Orion1 had answered two of my questions in great detail previously, I only want to reciprocate and am not interested in arguing about untested ideas of mine. You are right that they are currently untested and I will refrain from presenting new results of mine in a forum such as this. I will take your advice but please remain open to the possibility that what I presented might be correct.
joecoss

Then I will request that you look back at the history of physics within the past century and tell me the number of occurences in which a theoretical idea born out of incomplete existing knowledge of physics at that time HAVE turned out to be "correct" or made any significant contributions to the physics body of knowledge. Once you have figured that one out, evaluate the probability that you are correct.

Zz.

 

[joecoss]

Zz
A few examples:
1905 and 1916-Einstein
1925-DeBroglie
Whether or not I am right has nothing to do with the probability of other Scientists' Papers being right last century. Review of my work will probably be done by August because Physics Journals typically take 3-6 months to publish after the Referees are finished with you. That should be by September for me so let's wait until then to evaluate your probability because I can't write out a 12 page Paper on Physics Forums website. I don't see that the purpose of this forum is to just reprint formulas that are in all of our textbooks and see who else already read them. I know I have. If you are sure that I don't know what I am talking about, then I am sure that you are definitely guessing about that.
jc

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz
A few examples:
1905 and 1916-Einstein
1925-DeBroglie
Whether or not I am right has nothing to do with the probability of other Scientists' Papers being right last century. Review of my work will probably be done by August because Physics Journals typically take 3-6 months to publish after the Referees are finished with you. That should be by September for me so let's wait until then to evaluate your probability because I can't write out a 12 page Paper on Physics Forums website. I don't see that the purpose of this forum is to just reprint formulas that are in all of our textbooks and see who else already read them. I know I have. If you are sure that I don't know what I am talking about, then I am sure that you are definitely guessing about that.
jc

I asked you to "..tell me the number of occurences in which a theoretical idea born out of incomplete existing knowledge of physics at that time HAVE turned out to be "correct" or made any significant contributions to the physics body of knowledge."

Both Einstein and Planck did NOT make wild speculations out of their incomplete knowledge of existing physics during their times. In fact, one has to know INTIMATELY the physics at that time to know that something isn't just quite right. You have to FIRST know what Maxwell equations are, what galilean transformation are, why it should be covariant, and what does it mean that Maxwell equations aren't. These are the things that Einstein understood. His theory of Special Relativity was born out of the intimate knowledge of physics at that time, not out of ignorance. The same can be said about Planck.

In both cases, there were legitimate impetus for them to formulate a new idea. Planck in fact based his solely on the experimental observation of the Blackbody radiation. In your case, you even admitted that there are no physical/experimental basis for your speculation. So I don't see how you could even equate your situation with both Planck and Einstein.

I'm not asking you for a 12-page write up. I'm asking for either (i) legitimate impetus for such an idea and/or (ii) experimental indications that such idea MIGHT even be a valid consideration. You offered NONE. If such a thing is also missing in your paper, I would be very surprised if this is not apparent to the referees also, especially if this thing went to PRL, PR's, etc.

Zz.

 

[joecoss]

Zz

You are giving me the chance to explain so I will do my best. First, could you clarify exactly what you mean or put in analogous terms your statement about a theoretical idea being born out of "incomplete" existing knowledge. Of course I will not be able to cite the "number of occurences" that certain "types" of ideas turned out to be correct. You seem to know the history of Physics so I have observed that "most" every new idea that was espoused was met with major resistance by the community until experiments begin to support the new idea as you said and I agree. You are right that "most" new Theories come from unexplained experimental results like Planck's idea to explain the UltraViolet Catastrophe in 1900, but not all. DeBroglies Wavelength came from a pure speculation about the Symmetry of Wave-Particle Duality. Einstein was definitely thinking about the null result of velocity difference of Light measured by Michelson and Morley's Interferometer with respect to the then postulated luminiferous Ether. We can't imagine exactly what was accepted in 1905 now, but I can give you plenty of examples of your "legitimate impetus" and "experimental indications" that led me to my results today. I am actually surprised that you are seemingly making the point that Physics today has the answers when it does not at all. Whether a scientist today leans more philosophically toward Relativity (Deterministic) or Quantum Mechanics (Statistical) or even the typical healthy mix of both, you must realize the multitude of acausal explanations we have both read about from numerous perspectives, so I will list some well known mysteries. Unification of the Four Forces, the unsolved Many-Body Problem, the Mass defect of nuclei upon binding, the higher than expected tangential velocity of Spiral Galaxies, the true meaning of Wave-Particle Duality, the behavior of Electrons between Quantized Energy Levels or Eigenvalue Solutions of the Schrodinger Equation, the Mathematical link between Lorentz Transformations and the Dirac Equation, the exact source of Planetary Magnetic Fields, and on and on... That is the legitimate impetus. Experimental indications will come later to test if someone offers a solution to any of these issues which all actually came from experiments in the past. I never admitted or even hinted that one wouldn't have to know all the existing body of information in Physics, of course they would need all that. Don't say I offer none, and I don't suggest guessing that my Paper doesn't give all the Math to support any of my claims to the PRD Referees because of course I know that it will be apparent to them if I offer nothing substantial in support of any new claim. Once again, I understand your skepticism and it is expected, but you did suggest that I was a quack early on and you put a lot of weight into the "probability" that I have nothing when I know I have a lot. Let's do this, wait until September and let the PRD decide, then we'll continue discussing Physics in the Fall of 2004, and if you never hear any of this new Physics News, then please feel free to go off on me at that time. We simply have different perspectives about the function of the Forum because beginner's and novices with questions don't bother me at all and I don't really see the Forum as the place to squash free thinking by quoting the Textbooks. You did send me to the quacksite via a link and I think you got the wrong person to brand a quack. Trust me that Orion 1 also knows the deal in my opinion, which led to all of this in the first place, and my trust in Orion 1 led me to take the initial question seriously. I am not totally knocking your skepticism, but I am to some extent in defense of myself. I know Physics too, because I can tell that you do, it's obvious that you also know the deal. I wish I could tell you what I think now but you must understand that I must wait for PRD. Like I said, let's continue this in September 2004.
jc

 

[Orion1]

Photon Deflection...

Q: Can a magnetic field interrupt the path of a laser? Can a magnet bend light?

Electromagnetic (EM) waves cannot interact directly with light photons since photons have no charge.

Actually, electromagnetic waves can bend light through an indirect, quantum effect, but to such a tiny degree that we cannot measure it. This quantum effect (called Delbrück scattering) "is a process where, for a short time, the photon disintegrates into an electron and positron pair," says Norbert Dragon, physicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Hanover, Germany. The charged pair interacts with an EM wave and then recombines into the photon with a changed direction. Thus, the EM wave bends the light.

A positron (an anti-electron) has the same mass and charge magnitude as an electron of ordinary matter but the anti-electron has a positive charge. It quickly reacts with an electron. The two annihilate each other and produce two or more photons in the observed cases.

Reference:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/wonderquest/2003-03-21-wonderquest_x.htm

 

[joecoss]

Delbruck Sacattering

Any idea of the magnitude of the Frequency of the Coherent Light from the Laser used to observe Delbruck Scattering in the Norbert Dragon article ? In general, what is the frequency of the Gamma Radiation, when Electron-Positron pairs are produced. When the pair meets and annihilates do the outgoing photons have a higher frequency when three Gamma Photons are produced than the frequency when only two Gamma Photons are produced ?

 

[Olias]

I am inquiring if anyone knows the equation for how a photon is deflected by an electromagnetic field?

What is the official physical phenomenological terminology for this effect?

Can a pure strong magnetic field alone deflect a photon?

What is the equation that describes this effect?

There are conditions that allow for the Photon to be confined by a Magnetic and Electric field, if one is talking about 'in and around' a BH, then:http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/agn/agn_quasartour.html

which relates to the fact that E-M waves are preceeding the speed of Photons by a certain factor, the ratio I believe is related to the fact that Photons (visable light) are slowed down by the Black Hole topology.

I may be incorrect as to the precise details, its been a while since I delved into Positron Emissions around certain Galactic Quasi-Stella-Objects

 

[Orion1]

Delbruck Scattering...


Any idea of the magnitude of the Frequency of the Coherent Light from the Laser used to observe Delbruck Scattering in the Norbert Dragon article ? In general, what is the frequency of the Gamma Radiation, when Electron-Positron pairs are produced. When the pair meets and annihilates do the outgoing photons have a higher frequency when three Gamma Photons are produced than the frequency when only two Gamma Photons are produced ?



I calculate the minumum threshold gamma frequency required for Delbruck Scattering as:

$$f_p = \frac{2m_e c^2}{h}$$
f_p = 2.471*10^20 Hz @ N_p = 1

Any laser frequency could theoretically be used, provided that the gamma frequency monitored by the laser is above this threshold.

I remember studying about progress on gamma ray lasers, however it is reasonable to presume that gamma ray lasers which operate above this frequency, also produce Delbruck Scattering.

When three photons are produced during -e,+e annihilation as opposed to one or two gamma rays, the resulting frequencis are always less due to conservation of energy, the total energy of the system is conserved and the energy is divided among the emitted gamma photons.

Given that the emitted frequencies are equivalent and $$N_p$$ is the number of emitted photons, the classical frequency equation is:

$$f_p = \frac{2m_e c^2}{N_p h}$$
f_p = 1.235*10^20 Hz @ N_p = 2
f_p = 8.237*10^19 Hz @ N_p = 3

It also seems plausible that BH event horizons are also vulnerable to Delbruck Scattering provided the scattering is at or near the event horizon or BH photosphere event.

If this is the case, it is plausible that a BH may emit more radiation than what is predicted by classical thermodynamics or 'Hawking Radiation'.

 

[Olias]

Any idea of the magnitude of the Frequency of the Coherent Light from the Laser used to observe Delbruck Scattering in the Norbert Dragon article ? In general, what is the frequency of the Gamma Radiation, when Electron-Positron pairs are produced. When the pair meets and annihilates do the outgoing photons have a higher frequency when three Gamma Photons are produced than the frequency when only two Gamma Photons are produced ?



I calculate the minumum threshold gamma frequency required for Delbruck Scattering as:

$$f_p = \frac{2m_e c^2}{h}$$
f_p = 2.471*10^20 Hz @ N_p = 1

Any laser frequency could theoretically be used, provided that the gamma frequency monitored by the laser is above this threshold.

I remember studying about progress on gamma ray lasers, however it is reasonable to presume that gamma ray lasers which operate above this frequency, also produce Delbruck Scattering.

When three photons are produced during -e,+e annihilation as opposed to one or two gamma rays, the resulting frequencis are always less due to conservation of energy, the total energy of the system is conserved and the energy is divided among the emitted gamma photons.

Given that the emitted frequencies are equivalent and $$N_p$$ is the number of emitted photons, the classical frequency equation is:

$$f_p = \frac{2m_e c^2}{N_p h}$$
f_p = 1.235*10^20 Hz @ N_p = 2
f_p = 8.237*10^19 Hz @ N_p = 3

It also seems plausible that BH event horizons are also vulnerable to Delbruck Scattering provided the scattering is at or near the event horizon or BH photosphere event.

If this is the case, it is plausible that a BH may emit more radiation than what is predicted by classical thermodynamics or 'Hawking Radiation'.

Way to go !

Gamma-Ray-Burst = Hawking Radiation escaping through 'Magnetic-Polar', or Mono-Pole 'confining' emmision?..any Glory Hunter worth his/her weight/mass in gold would actually do some real time calculations, just like you