how many balls are in play?

[AntonioLao]

The subtlety of QED described the interactions of matter and energy at the quantum domain of reality, in particular, the interaction between two electrons by exchanging a single ball of messenger photons. QED does not give a good explanation which electron initiated the first toss (ignoring any implication from special relativity and EM symmetry). It also does not say where each electron gets this supply of photons. Does it just pull them out of its pockets? Since photons are their own antiparticles it would be pointless to investigate whether the messenger photon is real or virtual. Everyone agrees the photons are virtual particles except for their energy content. But energy differences are absolute values which go both ways. It is then logical that both electrons can make the first move initiating the exchange. Therefore, at the minimum, there should be two balls in play for every game of quantum sports.

Contrasting this to a game of tennis, a game of soccer or a game of basketball with two balls would be chaotically out of the question. But the quantum world is ruled by chaos supremacy. More balls can be played with no winner or loser and the games last forever and everyone plays including all the people watching the game. And there will be no periods of idleness or timeouts, halftimes, sitting in the benches, chewing gum in the dugouts, or spitting tobacco.

[Guille]

In class we have studied that when we make a transformer, the magnetic fields for each side can be made opposite, so they interact with each other. In that case, the national grid reduces the voltage so the electrons don't get saturated. If not, we are told that they would release heat. Well, my question is, what if we simply make a substitude: the electrons are not moving at a common current and interacting the magnetic fields, but interacting together, and the product is not temperature but light (a photon).

However, I can't explain anything else. It seems QED is too far away from the rest of theories. Do you know what does it say about magnetic fields?

[mkirkpatrick]

Maybe Antonio,that there are no balls at all in play,just a circular chain of thought.a merry go round of illusionist fantasy?

kind regards michael.

[baudrunner]

Once upon a time, long ago I had a theory that the evidence of light was not directly representative of any form of energy at all but a short glimpse into the domain of nothing. I thought that when an atom is agitated or excited enough to produce oscillations in the optical frequency range, which are actually a process of repeated cyclical distortions of its normal shape in the state of equilibrium, the hysteresis effect of the temporary lag of the spatial displacement produced by those distortions afforded the observer a momentary glimpse into nothing, that logical reasoning coming from the idea that light does not have mass therefore it cannot represent any form of energy on its own but can only be quantized as the energy required to distort the atom enough to produce that glimpse into nothing. This theory naturally requires acceptance of baudrunner's theory of light propagation as described in my TOE part six, on the nature of light propagation. I still think that the idea is not as crazy as it appears, because our appreciation of light is determined only by our relative place in the contextual framework of our own existence, and since the phenomenon of light is that which ultimately permits our relationship with reality we ascribe to it a great importance. I saw that as just another profound paradox.

[mkirkpatrick]

Once upon a time, long ago I had a theory that the evidence of light was not directly representative of any form of energy at all but a short glimpse into the domain of nothing. I thought that when an atom is agitated or excited enough to produce oscillations in the optical frequency range, which are actually a process of repeated cyclical distortions of its normal shape in the state of equilibrium, the hysteresis effect of the temporary lag of the spatial displacement produced by those distortions afforded the observer a momentary glimpse into nothing, that logical reasoning coming from the idea that light does not have mass therefore it cannot represent any form of energy on its own but can only be quantized as the energy required to distort the atom enough to produce that glimpse into nothing. This theory naturally requires acceptance of baudrunner's theory of light propagation as described in my TOE part six, on the nature of light propagation. I still think that the idea is not as crazy as it appears, because our appreciation of light is determined only by our relative place in the contextual framework of our own existence, and since the phenomenon of light is that which ultimately permits our relationship with reality we ascribe to it a great importance. I saw that as just another profound paradox.

Do you think that light could be an aspect of thought?
regards michael.

[harmonygirl]

I think that thought definitely produces energy. It may produce light just beyond the visible spectrum, although those that see 'auras' say beings produce light, not thought. Hmmm.....I wonder, if this was the case, and plants eat light, what the implications are?

[Guille]

In thought, electrons could interact constructivelly, destructivelly, and deconstructivelly. They would all produce light, the difference would be the type of spectrum it is.

[mkirkpatrick]

In thought, electrons could interact constructivelly, destructivelly, and deconstructivelly. They would all produce light, the difference would be the type of spectrum it is.

I think that you have
made an illumined point there Amigo.I must now consider the implications.

kind regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Do you know what does it say about magnetic fields?

QED predicted extremely accurate the magnetic moment of the electron. It matches 'exactly' the experimental value.

[mkirkpatrick]

I think that thought definitely produces energy. It may produce light just beyond the visible spectrum, although those that see 'auras' say beings produce light, not thought. Hmmm.....I wonder, if this was the case, and plants eat light, what the implications are?

Plants are known to give of ultra-violet light,and that insects can see this,and use it as a guide to
find nectar,
regards michael