🚀 go-pugleaf

p.kinsler.news@ic.ac.uk wrote in message news:<ecarc1-7t5.ln1@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk>...
> Greg Neill <gneillREM@ove.netcom.ca> wrote:
> >> Are Maxwell's equations compatible with virtual photons?
>  
> > Maxwell's equations comprise a classical theory.
> > Virtual photons are part of a quantum theory.
>  
> > Maxwell's equations do not specify the composition or
> > mechanism of the underlying electromagnetic field, but
> > describe the field's properties and behavior in the
> > classical limit.
> 
> 
> Most quantum opticans use photons constructed by quantising 
> the vector potential inside a field mode. Each field mode 
> is one of a set of orthonormal solutions to (classical)
> Maxwell's equations.  So, I would say yes -- the virtual 
> photons ``live inside'' solutions of Maxwell's equations.

Dear Paul,

Surely, Blackett Laboratory is a solid argument in discussions ;-),
but in this case I have to disagree with your claim. To "live" in
Maxwell's theory, photon conception has to be non-contradictive within
itself. Many times I showed and proved this, in that number to Franz
and Bilge, they multiply flew from threads or began muddling things,
as Bilge likes much. Photon cannot correspond to any mode of classical
wave by a simple reason - it is not monochromatic. While mode is
monochromatic by its definition. Furthermore, photon conception, or
rather Bose - Einstein statistics, is unable to describe the
interference of light, because it is based on additive summation of
photon energies. While interference is known to be corresponding to
geometrical addition of vectors of E-field strengths. Etc, etc, etc...
A very long talk, no one supporter of QM, QED and QFT stands up for
this. And basically, it has not a direct concern to Leo's question and
my respond. Here things are simpler. Indeed, the conservation
divergence theorem that I have proven is incompatible with Maxwell's
equation, but I would like to draw your attention that in my respond
to Leo I changed the expression for E-field strength on the basis of
STANDARD formulas, only by-passing curl filters. And the result has
fully satisfied my theorem, not the prediction of conservation laws in
Maxwell's system. I would like also to draw your attention that my
conservation law is 4D without any additional premises or unchecked
admissions, as Einstein did. It is understandable that with this
theorem (and a series of such theorems which we sequentially present)
Einstein's transformation becomes senseless, while Maxwell's system
will smoothly transform to its right appearance. This is just what
supporters of relativism so much fear - they understand well what will
happen with all their fantasies sucked from a pen. And this will be
just so as they understand. They would first correctly approach the
issues, doing not flying away from problems, doing not making dogmata
of knowledge, doing not substituting scientific discussions with
swearing jargon, and only after this we can expect to see their
premises corresponding to research results. So it is, dear Paul.

Sergey.