*

MORE RECENT CONFUSIONS

Arthur M. Young

In part II on Maxwell, I questioned the term electromagnetic force. There are two distinct forces: electrostatic, exemplified when we rub a comb with a silk handkerchief and have it pick up several bits of paper, and magnetic, when with a magnet we pick up iron filings.

A very important application of electrostatic force is made in the photocopier. The surface of the blank paper is charged, then the image of the paper to be copied is projected on the charged surface of the blank paper and the light discharges the charge except where there is black ink. Then the paper, now charged only where there was ink on the original, is brought in contact with powdered ink, which it picks up and retains as a duplicate of the original.

The magnetic force is used to turn electric motors; it is also the basis of both audio and video tape recorders. Magnetic imprinting is used to identify checks, credit cards and supermarket items. The two forces are different, and I don't see how the term electromagnetic force is justified. The electrostatic force is due to concentration of electrons, and the magnetic force is due to motion of electrons in a closed circuit, as in the coil of a magnet. Neither force alone can radiate energy.

The radiation of energy (electromagnetic energy), as I said in part II, requires the rapid reversal of a magnetic field - oscillation of the electrons, reversal of their motion. This reversal produces photons or quanta of action, which convey this energy at the speed of light over great distances - "action at a distance." Action at a distance has always been an enigma, explained at one time as due to vibrations in a medium (the wave theory of light). This medium was called the ether, but the fact that its properties had to be so outrageous - it could have no mass, yet must possess a rigidity a million times that of steel - as well as the fact that motion through the ether could not be detected, led physicists to abandon the concept.

 

Particles to Explain Forces 

But giving up one thing may mean giving in to another, and the difficulty of explaining force, which also acts at a distance, may account for the quite unjustified notion that since the photon conveys energy it could also be said to carry force. If you wanted to break a window you could do it with a hammer, thus producing a force. In fact the notion of air pressure was first explained by saying that the molecules of air are in constant motion, and their confinement by the walls of a container, as in a tire, caused pressure. But as more was learned and it became evident that the atom was 99.99 percent pure space (actually only one-trillionth solid), it was realized that the air pressure was due to the force fields of the molecules of air interacting with the force fields of the molecules in the wall of the container, not to particles hitting one another.

Photons do exert this kind of force in the phenomenon known as light pressure, exemplified by the fact that the "tail" of a comet, as it leaves the sun, goes ahead of the comet, not behind, and is therefore called a beard. In other words, when the sunlight hits the dust particles that surround a comet it pushes them away from the sun. But this pressure of light has nothing to do with the electromagnetic energy of the light. The light by which we can see this dust is reflected back to earth and only then gives up this energy to the photographic plate or to the eye. Besides, the light pressure pushes the dust, whereas the electrical or magnetic force to be explained is an attraction or a repulsion.

Let me illustrate the difference between light pressure of the photon and its electromagnetic energy by an example. You go to the store and buy a battery for your flashlight. You carry it home and put it in the flashlight, where it does its job. You could also throw the battery at the window and create a force which would break the window. But this would not discharge the electromagnetic energy of the battery, which would still be available. Such is the case with the photon; like the battery it conveys energy. It can also, like the battery, cause a mechanical force on an object it hits. Scientists, by saying the photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force, wrongly interpret the phenomenon - first, in lumping together the two electrical forces; second, in confusing them with light pressure; and third, in making this misconception a basis for the hypothetical graviton. And if the graviton were like the photon, where would it get the energy? We would have to say that a particle of matter radiates its energy (mass) and eventually disappears. All of this to explain force as due to particles!

What do we gain by this comedy of errors? It seems as if the success of the idea that matter consists ultimately of particles (the "atom" of Democritus) had become an obsession. It is true that all matter is made of molecules, and it is true that molecules are made up of atoms. Thus the atomic theory has been one of the greatest and most elegant accomplishments of science, accounting for the properties of 100-odd different kinds of atom as due only to the number of proton-electron pairs, from one to 100.

But as we leave atoms and come to protons and electrons, the notion of a particle becomes inappropriate. The electron dissolves into a probability fog. Both proton and electron have no identity; in one respect they behave as waves. Moreover, they are poles of a force, 10 to the 39th times gravity. If we were to illustrate the size of this number we would have to compare the size of the smallest particle in the universe, , with the diameter of the universe, itself, . In other words, the concept of the universe made up of concrete things works well up to a point. Matter is composed of molecules, and molecules of atoms, but when we go further we get into forces. Are forces matter? They are certainly not due to particles, because particles are ultimately force fields.

Perhaps I should not presume to tell science how to run its business or to make what are essentially value judgments. It is enough to point out the absurdity of saying the photon carries the electromagnetic force when

1. There is no electromagnetic force; there is the electrostatic force and the magnetic force, neither of which is carried or produced by photons.

2. The photon conveys (electromagnetic) energy. To convey something is to take it from one point to another, much as a letter conveys a message. True, a bullet conveys momentum and when brought to a stop the abrupt change in momentum creates a force, but since this force acts over a distance, and since force times distance equals energy, the bullet, like the photon, actually conveys energy.

So why not let it go at that? I cannot because there is more to tell - involving the usual difficulty conceptualizing force. The conceptualization of force, like the spatialization of time, deprives force of its essential character. It requires a different faculty than the mind to appreciate its nature. We must experience it, feel it. Whitehead spoke of "misplaced concreteness." We should also recognize that there is misplaced objectivity.

 

Gravitons

I mentioned that the photon is made the precedent for predicting the graviton. The graviton is a hypothetical particle that would convey the gravitational force as the photon the electrical force. Meanwhile in another part of the forest, the proponents of relativity explain the gravitational force as the curvature of space-time.

But to stay with the graviton favored by particle physicists: because the precedent for the graviton is the photon, it must be radiated from every massive body including the especially massive black hole. But a black hole is so massive that light cannot escape it (hence the name), and if light cannot radiate from it how can gravitons do so? And if they could not radiate, how could the black hole continue to attract matter into it?  

 

Virtual Photons

It is now recognized that whenever particles such as electrons pass another particle, proton or electron, a photon is exchanged. This photon causes the paths of the two particles to curve so that they shoot off in different directions. This is shown in a Feynmann diagram as two solid curves representing the particles joined by a wavy line, representing the photon.

As this implies the spontaneous creation of photons, and physicists don't permit spontaneous creation, they answer that the photons are not created. They claim each particle carries a cloud of "virtual" photons with it, awaiting such encounters.

The question comes up, do these virtual photons possess the energy they are to convey? If they do, they would add so much inertia (or mass) to the particle that carries them that the particle would behave quite differently from what its known mass would predict. So the virtual photon could not have any energy. Now what is a photon shorn of its energy? It is nothing. That is the unique feature of the photon; it is an atom of energy of a certain frequency - strictly, an atom of action, nothing else. To suggest that an electron is carrying an unlimited assortment of virtual photons about with it is like saying that a baseball player, who might carry his own baseball glove and his favorite bat, would also carry an unlimited quantity of virtual home runs in his suitcase.

This inability to appreciate that the universe includes activity as well as particles, motion as well as matter, creativity as well as cause and effect, is a defect in understanding, a failure to appreciate the non-material aspect of the universe.

 

Mathematics, Physics & Reality

 

Mindfire