Light some interesting questions and an observation

[trogan]

If you are talking about the "closing speed" then yes, it is not limited by c. The closing speed is not the speed of any object or particle. Similarly you can get shadows or dots or "points" that move faster than c without the speed of any particle exceeding c.

so information can be transmitted at 2C ? Is this consistent with relativity ?

 

[Dale]

No, information is not transmitted at the closing speed in any frame. Similarly with dots or shadows or points, none of them can be used to transmit information at greater than c in any frame.

 

[Born2bwire]

thx Warren. I am after the simulation of an electromagnetic wave by a traveling electron. With source code, so I can understand what is going on. And with the results 3D animated. Can you assist ?

The radiation from a moving charge is given by the Lienard-Wiechert formulas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liénard–Wiechert_potential

EDIT: Crappy article, why the hell don't they bother to work out the fields? Anyway, if you're lazy and do not want to work out the fields yourself, Jackson's Electrodynamics text has the full formulas I believe.

 

[trogan]

I am getting the feeling that no animation of an electron generating an electromagnetic wave exists. I am also discovering that no visualisation of a photon is available in physics (ie 3d shape(s), size etc.). It seems to me that the two facts are related !

 

[Integral]

Not sure why, if you want to model "reality", what ever that may be, you would be spending so much time on Quantum effects. We do not live in a quantum world we live in the world of classical physics. While quantum physics can explain why something is the color it is or explain the chemical reactions which effect our existence, awareness and knowledge of these effects have little to do with our day to day lives.

At any rate, your goal to "model" reality seems undoable at the very best. Each to his own.

 

[trogan]

Not sure why, if you want to model "reality", what ever that may be, you would be spending so much time on Quantum effects. We do not live in a quantum world we live in the world of classical physics. While quantum physics can explain why something is the color it is or explain the chemical reactions which effect our existence, awareness and knowledge of these effects have little to do with our day to day lives.

At any rate, your goal to "model" reality seems undoable at the very best. Each to his own.

I don't want to model "reality". I want an animation. I want it so that I can better understand quantum physics. As a side effect if you like, if something is animated then a computer program will have generated it. I can read computer programs better than I can do maths. In any case I find maths is very limited in what it can describe.

My ultimate aim is to transfer ideas in quantum physics to state machines in computers. For example there are "events" in state machines that closely correspond to bosons in physics. This morning I discovered that virtual photons can "tunnel". So I will consider using virtual events in state machines in cases where no time is involved (ie in state "leaps").

 

[ZapperZ]

I am getting the feeling that no animation of an electron generating an electromagnetic wave exists. I am also discovering that no visualisation of a photon is available in physics (ie 3d shape(s), size etc.). It seems to me that the two facts are related !

Ah, so then those people who designed the undulator and wigglers in synchrotron light sources were doing it blindly. It's amazing how often they got so lucky, especially at the LCLS, considering that they had tolerances on the order of microns!

And your question on the visualization of a photon is strange, considering that a photon is define as a quanta of energy, and NOT as a clump of stuff in space like a ping pong ball. You might as well ask for a visualization of pain.

This whole thread appears to be built on quite a bit of ignorance on what is meant by modeling and "visualization" in physics. You appear to want certain things on your own terms, and when you don't find it, you draw up the conclusion that such a thing isn't done in physics, or that "math is very limited", forgetting the fact that there has been nothing that has been shown to describe physics better than mathematics, or that the computer you're using is described using math! You use the word "boson" without realizing that it isn't some handwaving entity, but something that is clearly described in physics using mathematics! If you have something, and it doesn't behave exactly as described in physics, then it isn't a boson!

I think we have given this thread a very long leash, and it is appropriate at this time to remind you of the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" that you had agreed to. Pay particular attention to our policy on speculative, unverified posts. At some point, this has turned from wanting to learn about something (which we encourage) to promoting some strange and unverified idea. Unless the direction changes, this thread will end very soon.

Zz.

 

[trogan]

Ah, so then those people who designed the undulator and wigglers in synchrotron light sources were doing it blindly. It's amazing how often they got so lucky, especially at the LCLS, considering that they had tolerances on the order of microns!

And your question on the visualization of a photon is strange, considering that a photon is define as a quanta of energy, and NOT as a clump of stuff in space like a ping pong ball. You might as well ask for a visualization of pain.

This whole thread appears to be built on quite a bit of ignorance on what is meant by modeling and "visualization" in physics. You appear to want certain things on your own terms, and when you don't find it, you draw up the conclusion that such a thing isn't done in physics, or that "math is very limited", forgetting the fact that there has been nothing that has been shown to describe physics better than mathematics, or that the computer you're using is described using math! You use the word "boson" without realizing that it isn't some handwaving entity, but something that is clearly described in physics using mathematics! If you have something, and it doesn't behave exactly as described in physics, then it isn't a boson!

I think we have given this thread a very long leash, and it is appropriate at this time to remind you of the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" that you had agreed to. Pay particular attention to our policy on speculative, unverified posts. At some point, this has turned from wanting to learn about something (which we encourage) to promoting some strange and unverified idea. Unless the direction changes, this thread will end very soon.

Zz.

It is good to see you so “animated” in your defense of physics.

I find it difficult not to speculate a little and, indeed, it seems to me that so much of mainstream physics is speculation (eg the various interpretations of wave/particle duality). Being a software developer I tend to look at “reality” as an information processing system and this colours my view on quantum physics. I have been a developer for over 40 years and am really, really good at it. Any speculation I engage in will, I think, tend to be insightful and (possibly) helpful. In any case I am guessing that many people in these forums will be interested in a software developer’s views on physics. I know I would if the opposite were the case.

I am sure rampant speculation is not good for the forums. I have also been following another thread regarding the nature of the photon and it seems to be largely speculation. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104657". I found a lot of it it to be fascinating and helpful.

I am not saying that maths is inappropriate in describing physical phenomena and I use maths all the time when I program (I did maths at uni). I am of the opinion that state machines are the best way of describing reactive systems.

I agree with you that this thread has outlived its original purpose and intend that this is my last post. Thanks to all who contributed.

 

[Born2bwire]

It is good to see you so “animated” in your defense of physics.

I find it difficult not to speculate a little and, indeed, it seems to me that so much of mainstream physics is speculation (eg the various interpretations of wave/particle duality). Being a software developer I tend to look at “reality” as an information processing system and this colours my view on quantum physics. I have been a developer for over 40 years and am really, really good at it. Any speculation I engage in will, I think, tend to be insightful and (possibly) helpful. In any case I am guessing that many people in these forums will be interested in a software developer’s views on physics. I know I would if the opposite were the case.

I am sure rampant speculation is not good for the forums. I have also been following another thread regarding the nature of the photon and it seems to be largely speculation. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104657". I found a lot of it it to be fascinating and helpful.

I am not saying that maths is inappropriate in describing physical phenomena and I use maths all the time when I program (I did maths at uni). I am of the opinion that state machines are the best way of describing reactive systems.

I agree with you that this thread has outlived its original purpose and intend that this is my last post. Thanks to all who contributed.

Physics isn't about speculation. Nobody publishes or seriously proposes speculation. Physics requires that the theories and ideas put forth produce results in line with current and previous observations. Our "speculations" on the properties of a photon as you have put it have very precise consequences that result in theoretical results that match experimental results to a very high degree. Quantum field theory/Quantum electodynamics is one of the most successful and accurate theories to date.

You ask for visualizations yet I do not think you understand what you are asking for. You are suprised that there are no visualizations for the radiation of a charge, but I doubt you looked at the equations that I gave you because if you had done so you would have realized how fruitless such an idea is. The radiation is dependent upon the velocity, acceleration, and relativistic speed of the particle. It is a complicated task to just talk about specific types of trajectories but it is done in any graduate level electrodynamics text like Jackson's. We can talk about linearly accelerating charges and synchrotron radiation easily enough but to ask for a generalized description is pointless because it differs for each possible trajectory.

You ask for visualizations of quantum mechanics but you haven't asked for anything. What do you want to visualize and why? As it has been stated previously, quantum mechanics is not a direct describer of the macroscopic world. It describes, indirectly, the behavior in the microscopic, "quantum," world and only connects to our macroscopic world through observables and statistical measurements. We cannot give you a direct visualization of a physical process in quantum mechanics. So what is your goal with these visualizations? If we gave you plots of the wavefunction, do you understand what information would be implied by such plots?

 

[trogan]

Physics isn't about speculation.

Maybe “hypothesize” is a better word. Or possibility “Interpretation” (as in Copenhagen). I realize quantum physics has had great success in predicting physical phenomena. Yet there is much about it that defies explanation and as such it is tempting to speculate. For example many knowledgeable people would say that wave/particle duality and the collapse of the wave function is not a correct theory. An article in your forums proposing a new explanation of the double slit experiment (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=199598") suggests strongly that this is the case ... and my understanding is that this is the very basis of quantum physics.

You ask for visualizations yet I do not think you understand what you are asking for. You are suprised that there are no visualizations for the radiation of a charge, but I doubt you looked at the equations that I gave you because if you had done so you would have realized how fruitless such an idea is.

I am quite happy to accept (but surprised) that what I am asking to be visualised, namely a traveling electron generating an electromagnetic field, cannot be done. Unless I have misunderstood some previous replies this is the first time that anyone has admitted this.

If we gave you plots of the wavefunction, do you understand what information would be implied by such plots?

Yes, sort of.

 

[trogan]

For animations/simulations of electromagnetic fields you can try http://www.vectorfields.com/".

 

[trogan]

7. Where does it end up ?
Tony

It seems to me that, unless absorbed by a particle, light will end up at the edge of the universe. Could it then be converted to space thus causing the expansion of the universe ? (and incidentally indicating that space is base state energy). Thus the breakdown of matter would be fueling the expansion of the universe. Which would be increasing over time if the number of stars in the universe is increasing.

Actaully, it seems better to say that the light is converted into an expansion force that is applied to the edge of the universe and this is the way the universe expands.