And this field with all its properties mathematicaly follows from equation describing electric field of stationary charge - when you make a charge to move with acceleration and use special relativity to describe what should non-moving observer detect. Same as magnetic field "emerges" simply as a relativistic part of electric field when electric charge moves by observer with constant velocity (without acceleration).

There is no faith needed to detect electric or magnetic field, or a photon - any proper device can measure it.

In contrast to physical phenomena, god is undetectable, unmeasurable, uninfluencing anything, unpredictable, undescribable, even undefinable. It does not turn a needle of a compass as magnetic field does, or leaves a bunch of dark Ag atoms where it hits a photographic plate (as a photon does).

• Strike One - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 04:24 UTC
  • Is that right? - bruce - October 30, 2001 - 04:45 UTC
    • Detection theory - yanniru - October 30, 2001 - 15:11 UTC
      • Richard, you should take QED equation of charge. - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 16:33 UTC
        • Lorentz Transformations??? - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 22:52 UTC
    • Not even close. - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 22:47 UTC
      • The post above this one is for Bruce's Photoelectric response - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 23:03 UTC
  • Luis, long ago in college we did "counting photons" lab. - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 16:29 UTC
    • STRIKE TWO! - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 22:59 UTC
      • So, what knocks electron out of an atom when light hits it? - alexander - October 31, 2001 - 02:28 UTC
        • The atoms are quantized to begin with - yanniru - October 31, 2001 - 15:41 UTC
          • E/m field is quantizied (=photon exists in a vacuum too). - alexander - October 31, 2001 - 19:47 UTC
            • Strike Три !!! - luis_hamburgh - October 31, 2001 - 23:59 UTC
              • Luis! - harvey1 - November 1, 2001 - 15:16 UTC
                • Racial slur? - luis_hamburgh - November 2, 2001 - 01:03 UTC
                  • I thought about it later - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 03:00 UTC
              • Luis, I am really very sorry - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 18:49 UTC
                • Go back to the dugout - luis_hamburgh - November 2, 2001 - 22:33 UTC
                  • What then "interferes" in Michelson interferometer? - alexander - November 3, 2001 - 17:57 UTC
          • Thank you Richard - luis_hamburgh - October 31, 2001 - 23:45 UTC
            • Background - yanniru - November 1, 2001 - 15:18 UTC
              • Anticlimax - luis_hamburgh - November 2, 2001 - 01:09 UTC
                • Luis, lack of arguments? - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 19:26 UTC
                  • Alex, is it possible... - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 19:56 UTC
                    • Harv, this guy is no professor - luis_hamburgh - November 2, 2001 - 22:48 UTC
                      • I don't that's the case - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 23:15 UTC
                        • s/b: I don't think that it is the case (nt) - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 23:16 UTC
                        • He can't even explain... - luis_hamburgh - November 3, 2001 - 15:19 UTC
                          • Luis, one should be as dumb as only you can be - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 09:19 UTC
                            • It is all elementary - yanniru - November 5, 2001 - 15:22 UTC
              • richard, PhD in e/magn should know how light (and brain) works. - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 19:10 UTC
                • Sante Fe Institute - yanniru - November 3, 2001 - 17:45 UTC
                  • This would explain a lot - luis_hamburgh - November 4, 2001 - 16:17 UTC
                    • Luis, according to you replies you still live in dark ages. - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 10:08 UTC
                  • Richard, wake up - quantum electrodynamics is 50 years old. - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 09:59 UTC