Jamie Morken said:
I was watching a video of Richard Feynman:
"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009"
and he told of how his dad had asked him to explain where the photon
comes from when an electron in an atom drops its orbital energy state
down, and Feynman said that he couldn't really explain where the photon
comes from that made sense in a way of thinking of the photon as a
particle. This seems really basic to me as I don't think of photons as
particles, and so when the moving charge (electron) changes it orbital
state, this is a movement of charge which will create an electromagnetic
field, and because the amount of charge movement is quantized by the
allowable states of the electron orbits around an atom, it will emit a
characteristic amount of electromagnetic energy. Labeling an amount or
frequency of electromagnetic energy to be a photon particle makes no
sense to me. I think a photon is really only a definition of magnitude,
not an actual particle.
cheers,
Jamie
Photons, EM fields, Electrons, Temperature Gradients, Laplacian, Vector
Fields, etc... have nothing to do with nature. Nature was here long before
man and is not constrained by how man interprets the world and defines
things. Definitions are always circular, Systems can never be completely
understood, etc...
The fact of the mater is that EM fields and photons are just our way of
making something simple out of something that is infintely complex. Its
your choice to choose which one you want to use to try and understand
something or you can even try and come up with another model. Obviously
though what we have today in science is a set of models that have worked
very well... they could be totally off and just by chance we are able to get
something out of them(well, the scientific method is what makes the
difference between science and non-science).
One might define all things in the world as phenomena then find ways to
"understand" that phenomena. The whole point is to predict future outcomes
of similar phenomena so one can use that to there advantage. Quantum
mechanics is based in the realm of probability theory(ofcours along with the
theories it builds off of which involv other branches of math) applied to
real world. Its a model one uses to help predict things.... does it say that
it knows what reality is? It shoudln't. If it does then it is jumping into
the world of philosophy or metaphysics. Its whole purpose is to explain
phenomena. Classical mechanics uses calculus(although a bit of other
branches of mathematics here and there) to explain the world. Both do a
good job but neither has been perfect. As we learn more about the structure
of representation(= math) we can then apply it to the real world(science).
The main thing I'm trying to get across is that all these theories are just
models and try and explain how things work but cannot ever explain how
things really are. We has humans have limited knowledge and are trying to
make sense of the world in whatever way we can.... simplifications make this
possible. If you are working on the theory of elasticity then it doesn't
matter what a real photon is(if you could even know that). If its a small
elf like creature then your crude approximation that it is a spherical
massless particle might be good enough. Ofcourse it a photon could be
totally different but the approximations we give it happen, for some unknown
reason, to work. No one, EVER, will be able to definitively define what
anything is. Some people act like they have a monopoly on intelligence and
in those cases you gotta be careful about what they say. I studied physics
for 4 years and I always thought that what I read and was told was how the
world really was.... I could never except the quantum mechanical based
reality(for obvious reasons because it is based on probability which by its
nature allows is uncertain). When I took quantum mechanics I learned how
probability theory was applied but I still had problems believing that was
how reality really played its game. I finally learned through a prof that
its just a model and they are not claiming that it is really what nature
does(which I always believe but I never heard anyone else say).
So, if you didn't read all that the conclusion is that its up to you to
choose which model you want to use to try and understand things better. The
field interpretation may or may not work better than the discrete element
method. You might even have to come up with your own definitions of things
to get somewhere. In 99% of the cases you will be able to use the
established theories to do what you need. You can rest comfortably knowing
that millions of humans have worked over many centuries to build up these
theories and test there validity. While I personally don't believe in
quantum mechanics being a good approximation to reality I think it is a
natural method to probe deeper into the universe(in the sense that we will
be able to have better predictors).
i.e., LEARN BOTH DEFINITIONS!!!!
Jon