Creation of Photons

[Mike C]

Photons, that are a form of light energy, are created when an electron returns to its original orbital state after being 'bumped' to a higher (outer orbit) state by another photon.

The return of the photon to its original state is called the 'emission' state . In this way, it acts as a relay for transmission of light from the central region of the stars to the outer regions of space, since it absorbs a photon before it emits one.

 

So, how do these photons develop?

Well, it is the 'magnetic field' component of the EM radiations that creates the photons.

 

The electric component is 'omni-directional' in the sense that it radiates its force equally in all directions that reduces in strength according to the inverse square law, relative to the distance from the particle. So, it is not directional. It is also, a non-variable force that never changes its magnitude but remains constant. It only acts as a 'carrier' of the photon pulses, so in this sense, it does not transmit any intelligence as the magnetic component does.

The magnetic component is 'directional' and varies from zero to maximum, relative to the observer and the velocities of the electrons. Naturally, the electrons are always in constant motions, so a magnetic force will always be present.

 

When the electrons make a transition back to their original energy level, these variations in velocity and curvature from a slower velocity to a higher one and from a larger orbit to a smaller one, creates the photon pulse. This type of transition creates a 'black body' type of pulse because of the variations in the electrons increasing velocity and reducing orbital curvature.

In this case, the omni-directional electric field varies very little in strength relative to the surrounding space while the magnetic field undergoes a large change during these transitions.

 

The MF also radiates in 'one' direction only to an observer because of the changing electrons movement and direction relative to the observer. The magnetic component is zero relative to the observer when the electron is approaching or receding in the opposite direction away from the observer. The radiation from the MF is at maximum to the observer when the electron is moving laterally to the observer.

 

So, these changes in the MF affect the surrounding electric field particles known as 'virtual charged particles'. Although these particles are called 'virtual', they are real because these surrounding fields are 'real'. This is proven because of their 'action at a distance'. The MF's are also real as everyone should know because of the magnets that are common to everyone’s knowledge.

 

So, what happens to the electric VCP's that constitute and surround the EF's when an electron makes its transition and the MF influences these 'VCP's to become photons?

 

The MF causes these VCP's to CLUMP or condense together to form a congregate of 'compressed virtual charged particles' that transmit their momentum by pushing against the virtual particles in front of them. They then transmit this condensed momentum through the EF as a line of standing dominos will transmit its falls to the next dominoes in front of them. In other words, these VCP's will 'wobble' but remain in their positions rather than moving through the field as individual particles.

Of course, this momentum will be transmitted at the 'velocity of light'.

This is how I visualize the creation of light as a photon.

 

Originally, light was presumed to be continuous waves but the Planck research and formula has changed it to a 'pulse' known as a photon.

However, in the ‘ground’ state, the HA radiates a continuous EF sign wave with a wavelength of about ‘one’ angstrom known as a ‘standing’ wave. Due to the uniform electron velocity around the proton, the MF also is constant in magnitude with a sign wave pattern.

 

NS

 

To All

Rather than reviewing the entire thread, one can just click on the bottom of the last page to see a version of one current view by an established college and its students. Thank you.

 

Mike C

[Tormod]

Can you please provide some sources for this?

 

I am at a loss as to what you are communicating. Is this a topic for debate or is it an attempt at a theory?

[CraigD]

Photons, that are a form of light energy, …

I would write “that are the form of light energy, or “the bosons that carry light energy”, or better, replace the word “light” with “electromagnetic”. “A form of” implies that there is a form of light energy that is not carried by photons.

… are created when an electron returns to its original orbital state after being 'bumped' to a higher (outer orbit) state by another photon.…

an accurate summary, I think.

So, how do these photons develop?

Well, it is the 'magnetic field' component of the EM radiations that creates the photons.

According to conventional theory, EM radiation does not have a “’magnetic field’ component”. Electric and magnetic fields are associated with charged particles. EM radiation consists entirely of photons. Photons have no charge. Rather, electromagnetic fields consists of photons. Although “real”, because these photons are observed only through their interaction with charged particles (eg: as depicted in this Feynman diagram), so are called “virtual photons” to distinguish them from photons that interact on larger scales, such as those absorbed and emitted by the electrons of atoms.

It [the “electic component”] only acts as a 'carrier' of the photon pulses, so in this sense, it does not transmit any intelligence as the magnetic component does.

This seems to imply a carrier particle for interactions between photons and other particles, but photons are carrier particles (bosons). According to conventional theory, no more fundamental particle mediates their interaction with any other particle.

 

These criticisms aside, I think the statement “magnetic fields create photons” is an accurate summary of a more complicated one like “photons emitted by electrons are ‘created’ by the electrons photon-mediated magnetic interaction with particles in the atomic nucleus”.

When the electrons make a transition back to their original energy level, these variations in velocity and curvature from a slower velocity to a higher one and from a larger orbit to a smaller one, creates the photon pulse. …

Though accurate, when applied to EM radiation, the term “pulse” usually refers to a very short duration emission of many photons, not a single one (eg: ”femtosecond pulse”). Though a single emitted photon can be considered an “ultra-ultra-short pulse”, such a usage is slightly confusing.

So, these changes in the MF affect the surrounding electric field particles known as 'virtual charged particles'

…

So, what happens to the electric VCP's that constitute and surround the EF's when an electron makes its transition and the MF influences these 'VCP's to become photons?

The “VCPs” New Science describes appear to be same as the virtual photons described in conventional literature – though, importantly, photons, “virtual” or not are not charged particles, and don’t interact with one another via virtual photons the way other particles, such as protons and electrons, do. The rest of this section of NS’s discussion appears to depend on this, so, I think, doesn’t hold up.

…This is how I visualize the creation of light as a photon.

In short, this visualization strikes me as somewhat, but as notes above, not entirely accurate. I can see no compelling reason to hypothesis the existence of its VCPs.

[Mike C]

Can you please provide some sources for this?

 

I am at a loss as to what you are communicating. Is this a topic for debate or is it an attempt at a theory?

 

This is an elaboratation of Bohr's theory of the hydrogen atom and how it creates a photon. Bohrs theory exlained how the HA radiates a photon at the different 'energy levels'. It pertains to just the HA. Schroedingers equations than expanded on the larger elements and molecules to replace Bohrs work but it does not explain how the photons are created except by math only.

 

I supplied a 'word picture' as to how the photons are created.

As far as I know, there is NO explanation of how these photons are created other than what I have just posted.

It is not a theory but just an explanation of how the HA functions since it is the basic component of matter and constitutes about 80% of the matter in the universe.

 

NS

[Tormod]

It is not a theory but just an explanation of how the HA functions since it is the basic component of matter and constitutes about 80% of the matter in the universe.

 

I think CraigD's reply above is pretty good.

 

Hydrogen is not the basic component of matter, it is merely the lightest of the elements. It consists of a proton and an electron and as such is a complex unit and not fundamental.

[Mike C]

Craig #3

 

I would write “that are the form of light energy, or “the boson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/boson>s that carry light energy”, or better, replace the word “light” with “electromagnetic”. “A form of” implies that there is a form of light energy that is not carried by photons.

:

 

All light energy photons are generated by the electron transitions betweem orbits.

But only one is visible to the eye and that is the Balmer series.

The others from the ultra violet to the radio waves are not visible except to the proper equipment. Of course the UV is visible when you see the effects of exposure to the Sun that burns your skin. Ha ha.

 

X-rays and ganna rays result from nuclear activity. I am not concerned with these.

 

I am not concerned with all those exotic particles created in the nuclear accelerators. All do not exist in a free state. They are not natural.

Only the hydrogen atom is real and is the basic component of matter.

 

:

According to conventional theory, EM radiation does not have a “’magnetic field’ component”. Electric and magnetic fields are associated with charged particles. EM radiation consists entirely of photons. Photons have no charge. Rather, electromagnetic fields consists of photons. Although “real”, because these photons are observed only through their interaction with charged particles (eg: as depicted in this Feynman diagram <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle>), so are called “virtual photons” to distinguish them from photons that interact on larger scales, such as those absorbed and emitted by the electrons of atoms.

This seems to imply a carrier particle for interactions between photons and other particles, but photons are carrier particles (bosons). According to conventional theory, no more fundamental particle mediates their interaction with any other particle.

 

Virtual photons do not exist. Feynmans VP are just magnetic interactions between charged components.

As I have said above, only real photons exist because the fields that surround the electrons are real. These fields are composed of these virtual (real) particles and their densities reduce around the electrons according to the inverse square law.

They carry small charges and distribute themselves through mutual repulsion with the greatest densities being around the electrons.

I said in my article that the photons are 'codensed congregates' of these field particles and they do have charge besides their momentum because of their 'condensed' nature.

Otherwise, they could not bump an electron into an outer orbit.

 

These criticisms aside, I think the statement “magnetic fields create photons” is an accurate summary of a more complicated one like “photons emitted by electrons are ‘created’ by the electrons photon-mediated magnetic interaction with particles in the atomic nucleus”.

 

What particles in the atomic nucleus? There is only one particle in the nucleus of the HA and that is the proton. The only part it plays in this scenario is the coulomb force draws the electron back into its original orbit because its orbital momentum has slowed in its outer orbit.

 

when applied to EM radiation, the term “pulse” usually refers to a very short duration emission of many photons, not a single one (eg: ”femtosecond pulse” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtosecond_pulse_shaping>). Though a single emitted photon can be considered an “ultra-ultra-short pulse”, such a usage is slightly confusing.

 

The electron does no keep 'bouncing' back and forth to emit many photons.

Are you implying that a wave of photons are created?

The 'one' photon moves in a straight line because its momentum is tranferred in only one direction.

 

The “VCPs” New Science describes appear to be same as the virtual photons described in conventional literature - though, importantly, photons, “virtual” or not are not charged particles, and don’t interact with one another via virtual photons the way other particles, such as protons and electrons, do. The rest of this section of NS’s discussion appears to depend on this, so, I think, doesn’t hold up.

 

If they carry no charge, then how do you explain the fact that photons can bump an electron or any othe charged particles such as space particles known as the Compton effect?

 

NS

[Tormod]

Only the hydrogen atom is real and is the basic component of matter.

 

NS, I refuted this above, and I'm surprised that you repeat it without backing up this claim. Where did you learn that the hydrogen atom is the basic component of matter? It is incorrect, and I don't understand how it applies to the rest of this topic.

 

Please enlighten me (pun intended ).

[freeztar]

To add to what Tormod said...

Common table salt is matter I'm sure you'd agree (NaCl). No HA's there!

[CraigD]

All light energy photons are generated by the electron transitions betweem orbits.

Conventional theory predicts and strong experimental evidence supports that photons can be generated. In addition to high-energy photon emission due to such events as electron-positron annihilation, it’s been demonstrated that plasma’s continue to glow in a continuous spectrum (vs. the more discrete spectrum characteristic of orbit-changing emission by electron is atoms) even when that plasma is so highly ionized as to consist exclusively of electrons due to “braking radiation”. Were this not the case, ionized plasmas would not glow.

But only one is visible to the eye and that is the Balmer series.

While New Science is correct that only the 4 distinct and 1 indistinct lines of the Balmer series of emission spectra of the hydrogen atom are in the visible range of roughly [math]4 \cdot 10^{-7}[/math] m to [math]7 \cdot 10^{-7}[/math] m, it’s important to note that the emission spectra of many other atoms are also in this range (see the spectrograms and tables at Spectra of Gas Discharges).

The others from the ultra violet to the radio waves are not visible except to the proper equipment.

I’m unsure why this is an important point. NS, are you suggesting that photons of, say [math]3 \cdot 10^{-7}[/math] m, or [math]10^{-6}[/math] m, are qualitatively different from those that coincide with the range to which the eyes of a particular terrestrial primate – man – are sensitive?

X-rays and ganna rays result from nuclear activity. I am not concerned with these.

Again, why not?

I am not concerned with all those exotic particles created in the nuclear accelerators. All do not exist in a free state. They are not natural.

Photons in the gamma range ([math]10^{-11}[/math] m to [math]10^{-14}[/math] m) though much less common than lower-energy photons, still exist freely in nature, from the decay of terrestrial and extraterrestrial radioactive elements, solar flares, and even, surprisingly, thunderstorms.

Only the hydrogen atom is real and is the basic component of matter.

I believe others have commented sufficiently on this claim.

What particles in the atomic nucleus? There is only one particle in the nucleus of the HA and that is the proton.

According to modern particle physics, the proton is not a fundamental particle, but is composed of 2 up and 1 down quarks, and a constantly changing “sea” of virtual gluons. Although very short-lived outside of composite particles such a protons and neutrons, there’s strong experimental evidence that quarks are “real” particles, not merely a mathematical physics metaphor.

If they [photons] carry no charge, then how do you explain the fact that photons can bump an electron or any othe charged particles such as space particles known as the Compton effect?

By being “absorbed” by these charged (or uncharged) fermions, and increasing their energy, which is measurable as a change in apparent classical kinetic energy.

 

I’d like to turn this question around. How, if photons do have a charge, are they not at all affected when they pass through a magnetic field? For over a century, not being deflected by a magnetic field has been one of the preliminary tests in determining if a particle is a photon, or something else.

 

New Science raises several other questions in his post, but I believe this reply is approaching an impractical length. In summary, I get the impression that NS is proposing a very radical and extensive departure from conventional particle physics. Although I’m unaware of NS or anyone having described this alternate theory in detail, or having made any testable predictions distinct from conventional theory’s, I believe that I and others have inferred some such predictions, and found them to be incorrect.

[Mike C]

NS, I refuted this above, and I'm surprised that you repeat it without backing up this claim. Where did you learn that the hydrogen atom is the basic component of matter? It is incorrect, and I don't understand how it applies to the rest of this topic.

 

Please enlighten me (pun intended :shrug: ).

 

In the stars, hydrogen is converted into helium nuclei. Than the HN appear to be the 'building' blocks of the more complex matter such as carbon (3 HN), oxygen (4 HN) and etc up to the level of iron.

 

To add to what Tormod said...

Common table salt is matter I'm sure you'd agree (NaCl). No HA's there!

 

See reply to Tormod post #10.

 

Craig

 

Due to the length of this post, will reply tomorrow.

 

NS

[Mike C]

(#9 edited for brevity)

Conventional theory predicts and strong experimental evidence supports that photons can be generated. In addition to high-energy photon emission due to such events as electron-positron annihilation, it’s been demonstrated that plasma’s continue to glow in a continuous spectrum (vs. the more discrete spectrum characteristic of orbit-changing emission by electron is atoms) even when that plasma is so highly ionized as to consist exclusively of electrons due to “braking radiation <Brake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia radiation>”. Were this not the case, ionized plasmas would not glow.

 

I am not concerbed about experimental details but only what constitutes the most prevalent data.

Plasma may glow because in the plasmas, the electrons still radiate photon pulses, but these are 'open' orbital pulses where the electrons pass by the protons. These can also have various wavelengths depending on how close the electron passes the proton.

 

An example of these exclusive 'electron clouds' is in the galactic clusters where the free electrons are 'interacting' between themselves through repulsion to generate x-rays.

This is what I refer to as the 'dark matter' that Fritz Zwicky has detected by velocity enhancements of gravity in the clusters. While a lot of these electrons escape, that central cloud is continually being fed more electrons to sustain the numbers. The ECs being attracted back to the galaxies is what causes the increase of the gravitational effect to make it appear that there is more mass present. But there is 'no' added mass or DM.

 

Are you suggesting that photons of, say m, or m, are qualitatively different from those that coincide with the range to which the eyes of a particular terrestrial primate - man - are sensitive?

 

Yes. Their wavelengths. That is the diference.

 

X-rays and ganna rays result from nuclear activity. I am not concerned with these. Again, why not?[/Quote]

 

They do not have a major role in the universe.

 

Photons in the gamma range ( m to m) though much less common than lower-energy photons, still exist freely in nature, from the decay of terrestrial and extraterrestrial radioactive elements, solar flares, and even, surprisingly, thunderstorms <http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16795>.

 

What relevancy do these reactions have to the universe?

 

<Particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia physics>, the proton <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/proton> is not a fundamental particle, but is composed of 2 up and 1 down quarks, and a constantly changing “sea” of virtual gluons. Although very short-lived outside of composite particles such a protons and neutrons, there’s strong experimental evidence that quarks are “real” particles, not merely a mathematical physics metaphor.

 

As I said on other posts, if they do not exist in a free state, they are not real.

 

I think the quark theory had to be 'something' to justify this research

that I consider a waste of dollars. Are they looking for the 'god' particle that created the BB?

 

It would be better if they put all that money into 'cold fusion' research that would be practical and usable in space flight.

 

By being “absorbed” by these charged (or uncharged) fermions, and increasing their energy, which is measurable as a change in apparent classical kinetic energy.

 

I’d like to turn this question around. How, if photons do have a charge, are they not at all affected when they pass through a magnetic field? For over a century, not being deflected by a magnetic field has been one of the preliminary tests in determining if a particle is a photon, or something else

 

All you are saying here is what is already known. But the photons do not have mass, so they cannot bump an electron unless they have charge.

 

Regarding the question of bending by magnetic fields, these photons are not actually moving but just 'wobbling' field particles. So such small dimensional measures are not seen.

On larger scales though, there is the 'gravitational lensing' that is detected. And this is caused by gravity that I consider to be EM in nature.

I do not believe in the curvature of space as the cause.

I am a proponent of the SSU.

 

NS

[Qfwfq]

Schroedingers equations than expanded on the larger elements and molecules to replace Bohrs work but it does not explain how the photons are created except by math only.

 

I supplied a 'word picture' as to how the photons are created.

As far as I know, there is NO explanation of how these photons are created other than what I have just posted.

Schrödinger's equation explains how the transition between two orbitals acts as an oscillating electric dipole moment. It even predicts this will be weak or strong, according to the selection rules. Where does the Bohr model predict how the emission or absorption occurs?

 

But the photons do not have mass, so they cannot bump an electron unless they have charge.

But they do have momentum and kinetic energy.

[Mike C]

Schrödinger's equation explains how the transition between two orbitals acts as an oscillating electric dipole moment. It even predicts this will be weak or strong, according to the selection rules. Where does the Bohr model predict how the emission or absorption occurs?

 

But they do have momentum and kinetic energy.

 

Bohr was promoting the Hydrogen Atom as a 'planetary model' with the electron occupying various orbital energy levels. Bohrs formulas were right because Schroedingers energy levels confirmed Bohrs model regarding the HA energy levels.

All physics books explain the Bohr HA planetary model.

Besides, I prefer pictures to math. Math is nothing but a language.

Pictures are worth a thousand words as the saying goes.

 

Momentum of what? No mass or charge means nothing.

 

NS

[CraigD]

Schrödinger's equation explains how the transition between two orbitals acts as an oscillating electric dipole moment. It even predicts this will be weak or strong, according to the selection rules. Where does the Bohr model predict how the emission or absorption occurs?

 

But they do have momentum and kinetic energy.

Bohr was promoting the Hydrogen Atom as a 'planetary model' with the electron occupying various orbital energy levels. Bohrs formulas were right because Schroedingers energy levels confirmed Bohrs model regarding the HA energy levels.

All physics books explain the Bohr HA planetary model.

As I understand the history of it, Boltzman can be credited with proposing that energy comes in discrete “quanta” (1877), Plank with theorizing and demonstrating the idea more compellingly (1900), Einstein with taking the ideas further (1905), Bohr with applying it to the structure of atoms (1913), De Broglie with proposing electons (and other particles) have a wave-like nature (1923), and Schrödinger formalizing this nature into its present day mathematical form, thus mathematically explaining Bohr and earlier theorists’ empirical theories (1926). The big theoretical developments that give us modern particle physics happened mostly in the 1960s, and involved so many people it’s hard to pick a few “big names”, though Gell-Mann and Feynman would be high on the list.

All physics books explain the Bohr HA planetary model.

Besides, I prefer pictures to math. Math is nothing but a language.

Pictures are worth a thousand words as the saying goes.

There’s another famous saying that goes “math is the language God used to write the universe” (sometimes incorrectly attributed to Einstein, and used by him on occasion, but certainly far predating him, and, to the best of my knowledge, of unknown origin).

 

I think Math (a kind of communication theorists call “serial”) and pictures (which communication theorists call “gestalt”) complement each other well, paralleling the high quality of human visual and acoustic perception. When Math seems too complicated to be complimented by pictures, I usually take that as a sign of a mathematician lacking drafting skills or the will to communicate.

Momentum of what? No mass or charge [of a photon] means nothing.

But having rest mass and moving at the speed of light means, per superbly verified theory, having infinite mass, which is difficult to take seriously.

 

Although math purists may criticize me for using “infinitesimal flavors of zero”, we can roughly say:

[math]m_{\mbox{photon}} = \frac{0_{photon rest mass}}{\sqrt{1-1^2}} = \frac{E}{c^2} = \frac{h f}{c^2}[/math],

Where: [math]E= h f[/math] is the energy of the photon;

[math]h \dot= 6.626 \times 10^{-34} \mbox{J} \cdot \mbox{s}[/math];

[math]f[/math] is frequency of the photon;

and [math]c[/math] is the speed of light.

[LaurieAG]

Bohr was promoting the Hydrogen Atom as a 'planetary model' with the electron occupying various orbital energy levels. Bohrs formulas were right because Schroedingers energy levels confirmed Bohrs model regarding the HA energy levels.

All physics books explain the Bohr HA planetary model.

Besides, I prefer pictures to math. Math is nothing but a language.

Pictures are worth a thousand words as the saying goes.

 

Momentum of what? No mass or charge means nothing.

 

NS

 

Hello New Science,

 

You can probably extend Bohr's planetary model even further than the planetary to galactic and even universal themes. But the other side of the creation of photons is their death, and not just when they are blocked.

 

i.e. if a photon had a universal path that didn't cause its demise, would it go around and around on a larger scale, or would it block itself or just crossover its historic path?

[Mike C]

Craig

 

Since the photon at rest does not exist, I would have to consider the closest thing to a photon at rest would be the surrounding electric field that surrounds the electron. Since this field is composed of 'virtual (although real) charged particles', and is the source of the photons that magnetic forces condense into congregates, than you would have to give me some data on the charges and masses of these individual VCP's. Currently, I think it is beyond the capability of science.

 

NS

[Mike C]

Hello New Science,

 

You can probably extend Bohr's planetary model even further than the planetary to galactic and even universal themes. But the other side of the creation of photons is their death, and not just when they are blocked.

 

i.e. if a photon had a universal path that didn't cause its demise, would it go around and around on a larger scale, or would it block itself or just crossover its historic path?

 

Since I posted the nature of a SSU and refute the BBU, the photon would continue in a straight line until it expanded into infinite widths and simply blend in with the present electric field particles.

That is, if they are not diffused or absorbed by other particles and electrons in its paths.

These photon endings are replaced with new photons in new star formations for a continuing process.

 

NS