sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 28, 5:03 am, shsfowcn...@mailinator.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to ask for an explanation on the relationship between photons
> and electrons when it comes to visible light and electromagnetic
> radiation.

OK, Generally speaking it is accepted that the acceleration of an
electron produces photon or electromagnetic radiation. It's a very
"hot" topic in physics and beaucoup papers are out there on the
subject. They range from the highly mathematical and imaginative
(using mythical point charges etc.) to the practical. Not a lot of
conclusions, however. Note for example that an "orbital" of an
electron about an atom represents constant acceleration (as it's
moving in a circle) but somehow does not produce radiation causing the
atom to "decay". And as noted by others, when an orbital DOES produce
radiation, it is in a very short time-frame "pulse", rather than by
the Maxwell theory.

> I read that light is electromagnetic radiation and also that it is
> made out of photons.

That is the dogma although, I know of no proof that it is true at low
frequencies. Exactly how coils of wire produce "photons" remains to be
seen. In fact I've even not seen any positive proof that low frequency
radio waves are transverse polarized!
At microwave and up to light they clearly are, but it's the low
frequencies that are the question. Tesla was convinced low radio waves
were longitudinal. Therefore, until someone hauls a couple of large
dipoles into space and does the definitive experiment, it remains an
unknown. If VLF "waves" are indeed longitudinal, then that kind of
puts the lie to the electromagnetic "photon" theory doesn't it?

> If both of these is true, is electromagnetic radiation a photon (or
> photons) moving across space?

Obviously BOTH electromagnetic and photon models permit the moving of
energy across space. Maxwell noted that there are really only TWO ways
to move energy across space. 1. by waves which is the electromagnetic
theory. 2. by particles which is the kinetic "photon" theory. The
problem is that waves require a MEDIUM to transmit energy. Particles
do not. Modern physics dogma asserts that there is NO medium in "empty
space". Therefore one would have to assume that the Maxwell theory is
totally "debunked" and rejected at this point. Only it isn't
rejected! It's just swept under the rug and nobody talks about these
problems (except for questions on usenet).

> And why are the photons we receive in our eyes called electromagnetic
> radiation?

Well, there is a REASON that Maxwell is not "debunked" and still taken
as valid. And the reason is as follows: At LIGHT frequencies, it can
easily be shown that as originally thought, namely that light is
merely a very high frequency "radio wave", isn't true! If you take a
laser beam, for example, and do experiments like diffraction, or
focusing or reflecting or filtering (multilayer dielectric filters ,
OK?) The gross behavior follows the maxwell theory to a T! You find
diffraction patterns and other phenomena that strongly support the
electromagnetic nature of light and suggest it is merely a "very high
frequency radio wave".

But then comes along some other effects. For example light when
striking a photo cathode kicks out electrons. And whats more it does
it WAY too fast to be based on electromagnetic theory. And it gets
worse. Take a laser beam and shine it on a double slit. Farther away
you detect the well-known double slit diffraction pattern. Now reduce
the intensity of the light. Then reduce it some more, in fact reduce
it so low that only SINGLE ENERGY PACKETS (which are termed "photons"
are coming down the path. So the laser ejects one photon, it goes
down the path. it falls on only ONE of the two slits (as can be shown
by putting detectors behind each slit to see if somehow it
"divides" ... it does not.). And then it goes to a detector where you
see a single "flash" as it hits.

Now here's the tricky part. If you send enough single "photons" down
the chute one at a time. and you record all the "flashes" that each
individually makes, you see that the summation of all these flashes
begin to build up not a SINGLE slit pattern but a DOUBLE slit pattern!
In other words each single photon only goes through ONE of the two
slits and yet somehow "knows" that the other slit is there! And
furthermore, each single photon produces a pattern as if it were
interfering with other photons, but it clearly is NOT. Each one is
doing this all by itself!

About this time physicists SHOULD be scratching their heads and
casting about for a new theory to explain all this. But of course
they aren't. Pretty much the whole business is "explained" as it
always is... with lots of hand-waving and detailed arguments over
mathematical fine points which are always easier to "explain" than
real facts.

Good questions. You have obviously found a place where some of the
dead bodies are buried in physics!