The nature of force

In order to avoid being mystical, then, one must believe the universe is other-than-physical.

However, if one does believe the universe is physical (rendering the thinker mystical), then imagining something makes it real.

Have I got that right?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In order to avoid being mystical, then, one must believe the universe is other-than-physical.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would be correct.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">However, if one does believe the universe is physical (rendering the thinker mystical), then imagining something makes it real.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would be correct also. You can't avoid reality no matter what you think, be it physical or what not, because your reality is entirely thought based, as is every individual entity in the universe. And every individual entity acts in accordance with physical laws, although I would prefer to call them conceptual laws. This does not change your reality - It can change your understanding of it however. Rather than thinking of material forms that take up space - You have forms that are space composed of - you guessed it........... nothing at all. Keep in mind that all forms can share the space. Hence we could have a black hole with scores the foci of these entities in the size of a peanut butter jar.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
I have been asking you for specifics on how anything can possibly, even in principle, act on a body if it is not ultimately composed of "particles" (in the general sense of the word wherein all bodies are particles on some scale) that collide and transfer momentum.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As mentioned before, you would not have any collisions and momentum transfer if you don't have an interaction force that is not, at some level, an uncomposed force. Otherwise you would be in a circular argument here (and there would not be any 'ultimate cause').
As indicated above, evidence speaks clearly against the view that light is composed of particles. You can call it mystical but this is only so from the viewpoint of Classical Mechanics and is by no means a logical problem (a logical problem would be to consider a physical entity, like QM does, both as a particle and wave).


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is the electron's momentum created from nothing? (Remember, momentum has size and <i>direction</i>.) Or is it brought by the lightwave? The picture you describe seems to have a problem either way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The electron's momentum is irrelevant unless it encounters other particles and interacts with these via elastic collisions (i.e. according to the laws of Classical Mechanics). Of course this momentum is brought by the lightwave, but the assumption that the lightwave also has momentum is merely enforced by (wrongly) considering light to have particle properties as well.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />you would not have any collisions and momentum transfer if you don't have an interaction force that is not, at some level, an uncomposed force. Otherwise you would be in a circular argument here (and there would not be any 'ultimate cause').<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no circularity to the ideas that force is the time rate of change of momentum, that all momentum is carried by particles (including orginized motions of particles called "waves"), and that momentum can be exchanged only via contact or collision, which then generates the appearance of a force acting. It is simply a question of what is cause and what is effect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">evidence speaks clearly against the view that light is composed of particles. You can call it mystical but this is only so from the viewpoint of Classical Mechanics and is by no means a logical problem (a logical problem would be to consider a physical entity, like QM does, both as a particle and wave).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Perhaps language has failed us here. Let me clarify.

** We are in full agreement that light is a pure wave and not a particle phenomenon.
** I did not call the idea that light is a pure wave "mystical".
** We are in full agreement that dual wave-particles do not exist.
** "Photons" are a mathematical convenience, but not a reality.

Where we part company over how waves carry momentum. Water waves and sound waves are also pure wave phenomena. For example, there is no such thing as a quantum of sound, although one can arrange for only a singlet sound wave to be received. However, it would be absurd to suggest that these waves were not part of a medium composed of particle-like entities -- water and air molecules, respectively. The existence of air molecules composing the medium of sound does not make sound a dual wave-particle entity. Sound is still a pure wave.

Likewise, although light is also a pure wave and photons do not exist, it must have an inderlying "light-carrying medium" that does the waving. And that medium must be composed of entities. These are named "elysons" because the medium is named "elysium" (which sounds like LCM, the initials of "light-carrying medium"). Elysons are not yet an observable phenomenon and must not be confused with photons. They are merely the wave momentum carriers, just as air molecules are the momentum carriers for sound waves -- i.e., the particles that produce the force when sound waves cause a solid object to reverberate. Air molecules existed, and we could reason to the need for their existence, long before they were actually discovered. The same appears true for elysons.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Of course this momentum is brought by the lightwave, but the assumption that the lightwave also has momentum is merely enforced by (wrongly) considering light to have particle properties as well.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This sentence appears to contradict itself. Does light have momentum (in your opinion) or not? You can't have it both ways, especially in the same sentence. [}] -|Tom|-

If photons don't exist what do you call measured amounts of energy? The common use of the term is in references to electromagnetic force so what do you want to call the units? I can't follow the dialog if the terms are being tossed out and or changed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />If photons don't exist what do you call measured amounts of energy? The common use of the term is in references to electromagnetic force so what do you want to call the units?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is still convenient to use the term "photon" for the minimum detectable unit of an electromagnetic wave, namely, a singlet wave. Light cannot arrive in packets less than a single wave. The same is true for sound and other wave types.

The evidence that it is a singlet wavefront arriving and not just an isolated "photon" is that detectors all along the wavefront see the same wavefront arriving at a consistent time. We take advantage of this in the field of interferometry. If the same wavefronts could not be identified over large distances, interferometry (e.g., VLBI) would not be possible. -|Tom|-