one photon out, the same photon back, a minute amount of momentum exchanged that cancels out. how is that creating extra energy?EM fields?
please be careful when editing my quotes. in context it is obvious that "em fields?" is a reference to the next question of yours that I was responding to
Because the light source would absorb it and the light would therfore re emitt it which would have the light necessarily emitting more light than it could produce from its energy source. That can't happen Ian. The law of conservation of energy prevents it. Energy can't be reused unless some work is performed in order to get that energy back into the system. You might look here:
Second Law of Thermodynamics
there is work being done, entropy is increasing. there is no reason why the photon released and reflected cannot return to the filament, or even the fantastically remote chance of returning to the exact atom that released it, if that atom was in a state that capable of absorbing it
Clip: Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.
sure I think you can calculate the electric or magnetic force exerted on a particle of MATTER in the field.
What "matter" in the field are you talking about?
photons only interact with matter, this is such a basic concept I cant understand why you argue about it.
So are you saying that one EM field can't interfere with, diminish, or cancel out another EM field? This is a simple yes or no question Ian, appeals to complexity don't alter the answer.
we add up the matrix values of the fields and calculate the residual effect. that does not mean the individual photons from the different fields have disappeared
Nothing esoteric about it. You can see it happen nearly anytime you like. I understand your reluctance to answer the question since you have been so obtuse in your unwillingness to accept what is happening in EM fields and I am sorry that I had to lead you here, but I didn't see any other way to get you to this point.
Really? It takes all that? What if I say that you can see light waves cancel each other out with a child's soap bubble?
soap bubbles are not matter?
Bubble Colors
I am not dabbling in esoteric quantum mechanics Ian and I would wager that seeing light waves cancel each other out on a child's soap bubble relates very well to reality.
Just trying to speak in terms that everyone reading will understand. It doesn't do any good to talk over peoples heads if you want them to actually understand what you are saying. If, you acknowledge that an EM field can dimish over distance, what happens to the photons that make up the fied if, as you say, photons just go on forever till they hit some matter.
the force diminishes according to distance squared. it is easy to visualize this. a piece of paper blocks out a large angle of light close to the light source than it would further away, or conversely you would need a piece of paper four times as large to block out the same angle at twice the distance. perhaps it is the fact that fields are made up of quantums that is confusing you. at some point (related to Planck's distance) you cannot fill in between anymore because there is no available quantum state.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the pretty explicit definitions of quantum, photon, and electromagnetic radiation that I have provided you with. Why might that be?
I have no problems with the definitions, but they dont support some of the specific things that you are claiming
we can calculate the residual effects of EM fields but do you have some reference that says the photons of the field are actually destroyed somewhere in the absence of matter?
I have been trying to avoid going here, because you are confused enough already but you don't seem to quite understand or be aware of the fact that photons are theoretical particles. We don't even know for sure that they exist. When dealing with electromagnetisim, sometimes calculations require that you treat EM energy as particles (photons) in order for the calculation to make sense with observable phenomena, and sometimes calculations for the same EM energy must treat the EM energy as a wave in order to make sense with observations. Sometimes it doesn't matter which form you give the energy and sometimes you must treat it as both particle and wave. None of these may be correct but it is just what has to be done in an effort to make the calculations make sense in the real world.
please re-read Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. photons just probabilities until they are 'put to the test' by a particle of matter.
You speak of photons as if we have looked at them under a microscope and know for sure that they exist and are sure of exactly how they behave. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not true.
In the calculations showing the diminishment of an EM field over distance, the EM energy must be assumed to be a wave because if it s particles then diminishment over distance, which we know to be true via observation doesn't make sense with what we think we know about photons if they exist.
just because we know the direction of the enegy in the combined fields that doesnt mean we know how MANY photons it took to achieve it. two opposite pushes cancel out, why are you sure they disappeared before they interacted with matter?
The bottom line Ian, is that we don't even know IF it took any photons to achieve it.
If the waves are cancelled out in the absence of matter, where are the photons. When we measure an EM field, theoretically we are measuring photons since theoretically, photons are what the field is made of. When we measure two EM fields cancelling each other out, that is a real phenomenon, it is happening, but if they are cancelled out, and haven't encountered some object, where are the photons?
still there until they interact with matter
As I said, sometimes you have to assume the energy is a wave in order for what you are observing to make sense and sometimes you have to assume it is particles in order for it to make sense. Neither or both may be correct. But you know that if the EM field covers enough distance its strength will diminish. Are you saying that the field is photons which must interact with matter in order to be destroyed in the atmosphere and then changes to a wave which can diminish over distance with photons apparently winking out without hitting some solid object once it leaves the atmosphere? What about EM fields that we see diminishing over distance within the atmosphere?
I am not here to argue complex field equations. I am here to point out that you are confused about the basic first principles
You have this image in your mind Ian that doesn't jibe with the laws of physics, particularly the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. The physical laws are the primary determinant of whether the EM energy is treated as a wave or as particles because it doesn't make sense to do a calculation that results in a violation of the laws of physics.
