Alex,

You have said that a photon is an "electric field of accelerated charge." Apply this definition to your reponse here, and we get, "why should magnetic (or electric) field affect a magnetic (or electric) field?"

Your line of thinking represents the very definition of absurdity. Sadly, it is the same line of thinking some physicists still employ.

The inference that the ghostly photon has no charge is the result of scientists performing the very experiment I've spelled out, and saying to themselves, "well, how in the world are we ever going to explain this?"

It is this type of poor logic that allows the creationist dumbkopfs to say "Scientists are just as religious as we are." Stop giving these people a reason to question the scientific method.

Again, I reiterate: you cannot produce any direct evidence for the existence of the photon. Period. We either have to find a better model, or we have to live with a convoluted trail of 'logic' and no genuine empirical evidence, and continue to buy into Gilbert Lewis' ineffectual definition of 1925.

This is not just some whim of mine, it is a well-known dilemma among today's physicists. Maybe I should specify today's modern (i.e., not Russian) physicists.

-LH

• Strike ZERO ! - alexander - November 4, 2001 - 21:45 UTC
  • Alex's Razor (strike two) - luis_hamburgh - November 4, 2001 - 22:01 UTC
    • Variable electric field does not require presence of charge. - alexander - November 4, 2001 - 23:20 UTC
      • Ball? - luis_hamburgh - November 4, 2001 - 23:35 UTC
        • Forgot to ask... - luis_hamburgh - November 4, 2001 - 23:36 UTC
          • Next possible level down? - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 00:36 UTC
            • Two squared questions - luis_hamburgh - November 6, 2001 - 00:00 UTC
              • Some string models predict graviton to be 5 dimensional. - alexander - November 6, 2001 - 02:07 UTC
      • Alex: Do you think Ditchburn's book is good? - dolphin - November 7, 2001 - 07:07 UTC