1. When I see a representation of a magnetic field, I see the lines of force, but lines of force aren't real, just a visual aid.
Is it true that magnetic fields are made of photons? Do photons travel along the lines of force?

2.

3. Originally Posted by polygon6
When I see a representation of a magnetic field, I see the lines of force, but lines of force aren't real, just a visual aid.
Is it true that magnetic fields are made of photons? Do photons travel along the lines of force?
I asked a similar question on another thread. I think they might be. Are they very low energy ("virtual photons") ones? They seem to follow the curvature of those lines but the field is spread out, not just in lines, but continuous (if that is the right word)?

The magnetic field of the Sun is the biggest structure in the Solar System so these photons sure know how to get around. What determines the shape of the field?
NASA's Cosmicopia -- Sun -- Sun's Magnetic Field

4. Originally Posted by polygon6
When I see a representation of a magnetic field, I see the lines of force, but lines of force aren't real, just a visual aid.
Is it true that magnetic fields are made of photons? Do photons travel along the lines of force?
The way I understand it, electric charges in relative motion have dimensions that appear different from the respective frames of reference of the charges involved. This affects the electrostatic interaction between them in such a way that what we call a "magnetic" force is created. So electric and magnetic fields are closely interrelated. In QED the electromagnetic force is said to be mediated by "virtual" photons. But these are not to be confused with the real photons that make up beams of light. A real physicist can explain more - and correct anything I've got wrong.

5. Hey. Nono, fields are not made of photons. Field is just field, if that field is interacting with another charge than that interaction can be described using virtual photons BUT THIS IS JUST MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENT. I cant stress this enough, virtual photons are nothing more than certain mathematical functions that appear in calculations of physical effects. Take a look at this, its raelly good channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0. Also exchemist is right that magnetism is just an effect of different inertial frames.

6. Originally Posted by Gere
Hey. Nono, fields are not made of photons. Field is just field, if that field is interacting with another charge than that interaction can be described using virtual photons BUT THIS IS JUST MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENT. I cant stress this enough, virtual photons are nothing more than certain mathematical functions that appear in calculations of physical effects. Take a look at this, its raelly good channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0. Also exchemist is right that magnetism is just an effect of different inertial frames.
Were you able to find a peer reviewed paper that says the same?

7. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Were you able to find a peer reviewed paper that says the same?
Once again, if you were to ever actually pay any attention to context and environment, then in this case you would understand that you are in no way qualified to call Gere on anything at all ever. As his physics knowledge is blatantly obviously superior to your own mismosh of misapprehensions. Duh, just watch the video.
And this; Relativistic electromagnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Originally Posted by The Wiki
Relativistic electromagnetism is a modern teaching strategy for developing electromagnetic field theory from Coulomb's law and Lorentz transformations. Though Coulomb's law expresses action at a distance, it is an easily understood electric force principle. The more sophisticated view of electromagnetism expressed by electromagnetic fields in spacetime can be approached by applying spacetime symmetries. In certain special configurations it is possible to exhibit magnetic effects due to relative charge density in various simultaneous hyperplanes. This approach to physics education and the education and training of electrical and electronics engineers can be seen in the Encyclopædia Britannica (1956), The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1964), Edward M. Purcell (1965), Jack R. Tessman (1966), W.G.V. Rosser (1968), Anthony French (1968), and Dale R. Corson & Paul Lorrain (1970). This approach provides some preparation for understanding of magnetic forces involved in the Biot–Savart law, Ampère's law, and Maxwell's equations.

8. Originally Posted by polygon6
When I see a representation of a magnetic field, I see the lines of force, but lines of force aren't real, just a visual aid.
Is it true that magnetic fields are made of photons? Do photons travel along the lines of force?
You can trust anything that exchemist says, With equal and sad reliability, you can generally dismiss anything that robittybob says about science.

At one level, you may treat "lines of force" as the paths along which an infinitesimal and hypothetical monopolar magnetic "test charge" would move, thanks to the action of the magnetic force.

As to what actually exerts the force, QED introduces the notion of virtual photons as force carriers for electromagnetism. But, as Gere correctly emphasises, these are indeed virtual, not real, photons. They are more properly the particle-equivalent description of excitations in the field. Going much further than that requires familiarity with more of QFT than can fit in a post, but I think a reasonable set of faqs, with answers, is found here: Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles.

And it is indeed true that the electric and magnetic force are frame-dependent quantities. Magnetism can be treated as a relativistic consequence of electrostatic forces, for instance.

9. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by polygon6
When I see a representation of a magnetic field, I see the lines of force, but lines of force aren't real, just a visual aid.
Is it true that magnetic fields are made of photons? Do photons travel along the lines of force?
You can trust anything that exchemist says, With equal and sad reliability, you can generally dismiss anything that robittybob says about science.

At one level, you may treat "lines of force" as the paths along which an infinitesimal and hypothetical monopolar magnetic "test charge" would move, thanks to the action of the magnetic force.

As to what actually exerts the force, QED introduces the notion of virtual photons as force carriers for electromagnetism. But, as Gere correctly emphasises, these are indeed virtual, not real, photons. They are more properly the particle-equivalent description of excitations in the field. Going much further than that requires familiarity with more of QFT than can fit in a post, but I think a reasonable set of faqs, with answers, is found here: Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles.

And it is indeed true that the electric and magnetic force are frame-dependent quantities. Magnetism can be treated as a relativistic consequence of electrostatic forces, for instance.
I'm going to look into this further, but not right now as I have other things to do. But the explanation that it is relativity that does it still relies on opposite charges attracting each other, so I thought it was this electrostatic attraction force that needs explaining as well.

10. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I'm going to look into this further, but not right now as I have other things to do. But the explanation that it is relativity that does it still relies on opposite charges attracting each other, so I thought it was this electrostatic attraction force that needs explaining as well.

You continue to exhibit deep reading comprehension problems. I suggest that you get professionally evaluated. It's that serious. Your post seems to have almost nothing at all to do with the post of mine that you are quoting. This is a bad habit of yours.

11. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I'm going to look into this further, but not right now as I have other things to do. But the explanation that it is relativity that does it still relies on opposite charges attracting each other, so I thought it was this electrostatic attraction force that needs explaining as well.

You continue to exhibit deep reading comprehension problems. I suggest that you get professionally evaluated. It's that serious. Your post seems to have almost nothing at all to do with the post of mine that you are quoting. This is a bad habit of yours.
As I said I'm going to look into what you have said in your post. Could you not see that is what I implied?

12. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by polygon6
When I see a representation of a magnetic field, I see the lines of force, but lines of force aren't real, just a visual aid.
Is it true that magnetic fields are made of photons? Do photons travel along the lines of force?
You can trust anything that exchemist says, With equal and sad reliability, you can generally dismiss anything that robittybob says about science.

At one level, you may treat "lines of force" as the paths along which an infinitesimal and hypothetical monopolar magnetic "test charge" would move, thanks to the action of the magnetic force.

As to what actually exerts the force, QED introduces the notion of virtual photons as force carriers for electromagnetism. But, as Gere correctly emphasises, these are indeed virtual, not real, photons. They are more properly the particle-equivalent description of excitations in the field. Going much further than that requires familiarity with more of QFT than can fit in a post, but I think a reasonable set of faqs, with answers, is found here: Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles.

And it is indeed true that the electric and magnetic force are frame-dependent quantities. Magnetism can be treated as a relativistic consequence of electrostatic forces, for instance.
I'm going to look into this further, but not right now as I have other things to do. But the explanation that it is relativity that does it still relies on opposite charges attracting each other, so I thought it was this electrostatic attraction force that needs explaining as well.
I may be wrong here, but it appears that Relativity is responsible for breaking the charge symmetries, and that field theory and its attendant "virtual particles" are still necessary to account for the actions of forces.

13. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by polygon6
When I see a representation of a magnetic field, I see the lines of force, but lines of force aren't real, just a visual aid.
Is it true that magnetic fields are made of photons? Do photons travel along the lines of force?
You can trust anything that exchemist says, With equal and sad reliability, you can generally dismiss anything that robittybob says about science.

At one level, you may treat "lines of force" as the paths along which an infinitesimal and hypothetical monopolar magnetic "test charge" would move, thanks to the action of the magnetic force.

As to what actually exerts the force, QED introduces the notion of virtual photons as force carriers for electromagnetism. But, as Gere correctly emphasises, these are indeed virtual, not real, photons. They are more properly the particle-equivalent description of excitations in the field. Going much further than that requires familiarity with more of QFT than can fit in a post, but I think a reasonable set of faqs, with answers, is found here: Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles.

And it is indeed true that the electric and magnetic force are frame-dependent quantities. Magnetism can be treated as a relativistic consequence of electrostatic forces, for instance.
I'm going to look into this further, but not right now as I have other things to do. But the explanation that it is relativity that does it still relies on opposite charges attracting each other, so I thought it was this electrostatic attraction force that needs explaining as well.
I may be wrong here, but it appears that Relativity is responsible for breaking the charge symmetries, and that field theory and its attendant "virtual particles" are still necessary to account for the actions of forces.
Thank you GE for expressing the issue in a more specific scientific jargon. Thank you.

14. Thank you GE for expressing the issue in a more specific scientific jargon. Thank you.
Hmm... Symmetry has some very specific meanings depending on the context in which it is used. It's entirely possible I have used it incorrectly here.

15. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Gere
Hey. Nono, fields are not made of photons. Field is just field, if that field is interacting with another charge than that interaction can be described using virtual photons BUT THIS IS JUST MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENT. I cant stress this enough, virtual photons are nothing more than certain mathematical functions that appear in calculations of physical effects. Take a look at this, its raelly good channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0. Also exchemist is right that magnetism is just an effect of different inertial frames.
Were you able to find a peer reviewed paper that says the same?
This remark suggests you consider Gere's understanding of QED to be on a par with, say, Le Repeteux's understanding of physics. If I were Gere, I would find that insulting.

Others have provided some further explanation, but here is another nice and simple one that I found, after about 30secs search on the internet (a feat that is seemingly beyond you): Virtual Particles: What are they? | Of Particular Significance

You will note, if you manage to read that far, that in the sixth para the writer mentions that the term "virtual particle" (which you will see he regards to some extent as an unfortunate misnomer) corresponds to doing a calculation.

This I think makes Gere's point nicely. If you object that this is not a quotation from a peer reviewed journal I'll have to admit you are right. But I invite you to examine the credentials of the writer (visiting prof at Harvard amongst other things).

16. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
I may be wrong here, but it appears that Relativity is responsible for breaking the charge symmetries, and that field theory and its attendant "virtual particles" are still necessary to account for the actions of forces.

Ad 2, virtual particles are just results of perturbance treatment of S-matrix. You can in theory (and in fact in presence of very strong fields) solve S-matrix precisely. Then you will have no virtual partices and no feynman diagramms. I do not understand your question on charge symmetry, could you clarify? If I recall correctly QED doesnt violate C-parity.

Edit: Oh and btw thanks exchemist and Giantevil

17. Originally Posted by Gere
Originally Posted by GiantEvil
I may be wrong here, but it appears that Relativity is responsible for breaking the charge symmetries, and that field theory and its attendant "virtual particles" are still necessary to account for the actions of forces.

Ad 2, virtual particles are just results of perturbance treatment of S-matrix. You can in theory (and in fact in presence of very strong fields) solve S-matrix precisely. Then you will have no virtual partices and no feynman diagramms. I do not understand your question on charge symmetry, could you clarify? If I recall correctly QED doesnt violate C-parity.

Edit: Oh and btw thanks exchemist and Giantevil
I always cringe when I see the complex maths that you guys use to explain physics. I am tending the view physical things don't need the math. So saying a virtual photon is a matter of doing a calculation is against my current thinking, but as you rightly point out I'm hardly a professor.
Originally Posted by Gere
I cant stress this enough, virtual photons are nothing more than certain mathematical functions that appear in calculations of physical effects.
Originally Posted by exchemist
This I think makes Gere's point nicely. If you object that this is not a quotation from a peer reviewed journal I'll have to admit you are right. But I invite you to examine the credentials of the writer (visiting prof at Harvard amongst other things).

18. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Gere
Originally Posted by GiantEvil
I may be wrong here, but it appears that Relativity is responsible for breaking the charge symmetries, and that field theory and its attendant "virtual particles" are still necessary to account for the actions of forces.

Ad 2, virtual particles are just results of perturbance treatment of S-matrix. You can in theory (and in fact in presence of very strong fields) solve S-matrix precisely. Then you will have no virtual partices and no feynman diagramms. I do not understand your question on charge symmetry, could you clarify? If I recall correctly QED doesnt violate C-parity.

Edit: Oh and btw thanks exchemist and Giantevil
I always cringe when I see the complex maths that you guys use to explain physics. I am tending the view physical things don't need the math. So saying a virtual photon is a matter of doing a calculation is against my current thinking, but as you rightly point out I'm hardly a professor.
Originally Posted by Gere
I cant stress this enough, virtual photons are nothing more than certain mathematical functions that appear in calculations of physical effects.
Originally Posted by exchemist
This I think makes Gere's point nicely. If you object that this is not a quotation from a peer reviewed journal I'll have to admit you are right. But I invite you to examine the credentials of the writer (visiting prof at Harvard amongst other things).
Robbitybob1, have you now read the article I referred you to? What did you think of it? Did it make sense to you?

19. Come on be reasonable, you should know by now Bob doesn't read (or if he does he doesn't understand) provided links. If you post a YouTube video you might get a response...

20. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Come on be reasonable, you should know by now Bob doesn't read (or if he does he doesn't understand) provided links. If you post a YouTube video you might get a response...
That's why I am asking him. There is no excuse: it is written with commendable clarity and simplicity and there is no off-putting maths at all. In fact, it is by far the clearest explanation of what is really meant by "virtual particles" I have ever seen and is almost worth a thread in its own right on this forum, for that alone. (unless some real physicist takes exception, I suppose.)

21. The internet has been down and is still intermittent. I'll get around to reading it when it improves.

22. First reading has left me feeling let down, for the writer still seemed to be ambivalent as to the reality of virtual photons. I'll try again later and see if it changes.

23. What does he say about virtual particles and virtual photons?
A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

But if two electrons pass near each other, as in Figure 1, they will, because of their electric charge, disturb the electromagnetic field, sometimes called the photon field because its ripples are photons.
It is better, I think, for the layperson to understand that the electromagnetic field is disturbed in some way, ignore the term “virtual photons” which actually is more confusing than enlightening, and trust that a calculation has to be done to figure out how the disturbance produced by the two electrons leads to their being repelled from one another, while the disturbance between an electron and a positron is different enough to cause attraction.
He seems to suggest that they are actual events, but it is best to ignore them. The electromagnetic field ripples are photons (that was news to me).
We can understand it by doing a calculation but the electrons themselves don't do calculations do they.

24. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
What does he say about virtual particles and virtual photons?
A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

But if two electrons pass near each other, as in Figure 1, they will, because of their electric charge, disturb the electromagnetic field, sometimes called the photon field because its ripples are photons.
It is better, I think, for the layperson to understand that the electromagnetic field is disturbed in some way, ignore the term “virtual photons” which actually is more confusing than enlightening, and trust that a calculation has to be done to figure out how the disturbance produced by the two electrons leads to their being repelled from one another, while the disturbance between an electron and a positron is different enough to cause attraction.
He seems to suggest that they are actual events, but it is best to ignore them. The electromagnetic field ripples are photons (that was news to me).
We can understand it by doing a calculation but the electrons themselves don't do calculations do they.
Good show. Though I think you are still a bit off the mark in your interpretation. The way I read it, he is saying that what have come to be known as "virtual photons" are really disturbances in the EM field that are treated mathematically in QED as "virtual particles", for the purposes of calculating how they behave.

Thus, they are not particles at all and should not be confused with them. He says the terminology "virtual particle" is in many ways unfortunate, as it has given rise to misunderstanding among non-specialists as to what is really being said.

The disturbances are actual events, sure, but they are not real particles. The only thing to ignore here is the idea of "particles" - think of disturbances in the field instead.

(I remain of course open to correction by a real physicist.)

I do not understand why you say electrons don't do calculations. That seems rather a silly remark, if I may say so. Planets do not do calculations when they follow Kepler's Laws either. So what's your point?

25. My point is not quite formulated yet, but we require the calculation but the planet does it naturally, somehow converting motion into gravitational potential energy and orbital energy.
So is there something similar when an electron (particle, planet ) orbits the nucleus (particle , The Sun), it has a certain amount of kinetic energy to divvy up. So I'm thinking gravity and the EM attraction (force) have a similar action, there are virtual photons (gravitons) being exchanged (whatever that means).
I nearly proposed a mechanism years back, and it had to do with the tendency of matter to follow a straight line, but if a planet was to go straight ahead it would fly off at a tangent, but then it would be increasing in GPE without losing velocity. Somehow that forms a virtual photon that when it forms fully it changes the position of the planet (inducing a saw tooth motion). The saw tooth motion would only be noticeable on the scale of electrons not at a planetary scale.
That was about as far as I got.

26. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
My point is not quite formulated yet, but we require the calculation but the planet does it naturally, somehow converting motion into gravitational potential energy and orbital energy.
So is there something similar when an electron (particle, planet ) orbits the nucleus (particle , The Sun), it has a certain amount of kinetic energy to divvy up. So I'm thinking gravity and the EM attraction (force) have a similar action, there are virtual photons (gravitons) being exchanged (whatever that means).
I nearly proposed a mechanism years back, and it had to do with the tendency of matter to follow a straight line, but if a planet was to go straight ahead it would fly off at a tangent, but then it would be increasing in GPE without losing velocity. Somehow that forms a virtual photon that when it forms fully it changes the position of the planet (inducing a saw tooth motion). The saw tooth motion would only be noticeable on the scale of electrons not at a planetary scale.
That was about as far as I got.
You are in a ghastly muddle, apparently. Planets do not somehow convert motion into potential and kinetic energy. There is no mystery here. Their motion implies kinetic energy. (KE = 1/2 mv², right?) And the elliptical path they follow implies gravitational attraction (F = GmM/r², right?), which in turn implies gravitational potential energy (integrate F(r) dr from infinity to the orbital radius, right?). The planets don't calculate this: we do, to model how they behave. Just as we do for electrons.

Yes the electron in an atom also has kinetic and electrostatic potential energy. However, being an atomic scale entity, its wavelike behaviour requires QM to model it, resulting in what we call the "orbital" it occupies.

Your sentence: "Somehow that forms a virtual photon that when it forms fully it changes the position of the planet (inducing a saw tooth motion)." is pure gibberish, of such an order that I start to wonder if you are sane. I'm not surprised you didn't get any further. If you try to use QED concepts, which are for modelling subatomic scale entities, for explaining motion of planets, you are off your head.

For God's sake, read some science and stop trying to invent daft alternatives until you have understood how science works.

27. Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
My point is not quite formulated yet, but we require the calculation but the planet does it naturally, somehow converting motion into gravitational potential energy and orbital energy.
So is there something similar when an electron (particle, planet ) orbits the nucleus (particle , The Sun), it has a certain amount of kinetic energy to divvy up. So I'm thinking gravity and the EM attraction (force) have a similar action, there are virtual photons (gravitons) being exchanged (whatever that means).
I nearly proposed a mechanism years back, and it had to do with the tendency of matter to follow a straight line, but if a planet was to go straight ahead it would fly off at a tangent, but then it would be increasing in GPE without losing velocity. Somehow that forms a virtual photon that when it forms fully it changes the position of the planet (inducing a saw tooth motion). The saw tooth motion would only be noticeable on the scale of electrons not at a planetary scale.
That was about as far as I got.
You are in a ghastly muddle, apparently. Planets do not somehow convert motion into potential and kinetic energy. There is no mystery here. Their motion implies kinetic energy. (KE = 1/2 mv², right?) And the elliptical path they follow implies gravitational attraction (F = GmM/r², right?), which in turn implies gravitational potential energy (integrate F(r) dr from infinity to the orbital radius, right?). The planets don't calculate this: we do, to model how they behave. Just as we do for electrons.

Yes the electron in an atom also has kinetic and electrostatic potential energy. However, being an atomic scale entity, its wavelike behaviour requires QM to model it, resulting in what we call the "orbital" it occupies.

Your sentence: "Somehow that forms a virtual photon that when it forms fully it changes the position of the planet (inducing a saw tooth motion)." is pure gibberish, of such an order that I start to wonder if you are sane. I'm not surprised you didn't get any further. If you try to use QED concepts, which are for modelling subatomic scale entities, for explaining motion of planets, you are off your head.

For God's sake, read some science and stop trying to invent daft alternatives until you have understood how science works.

I thought the idea of "saw tooth motion" would be too much for you. When you use the formula F=ma apply the force generated by 1 graviton to the mass of the Earth what sort of saw tooth motion would result? Even a single Planck length might be too great, but it is the idea of quantum action through virtual photons, that is generalized by Newtonian gravitation, that I was trying to express. This was years ago so don't get too upset.

28. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
My point is not quite formulated yet, but we require the calculation but the planet does it naturally, somehow converting motion into gravitational potential energy and orbital energy.
So is there something similar when an electron (particle, planet ) orbits the nucleus (particle , The Sun), it has a certain amount of kinetic energy to divvy up. So I'm thinking gravity and the EM attraction (force) have a similar action, there are virtual photons (gravitons) being exchanged (whatever that means).
I nearly proposed a mechanism years back, and it had to do with the tendency of matter to follow a straight line, but if a planet was to go straight ahead it would fly off at a tangent, but then it would be increasing in GPE without losing velocity. Somehow that forms a virtual photon that when it forms fully it changes the position of the planet (inducing a saw tooth motion). The saw tooth motion would only be noticeable on the scale of electrons not at a planetary scale.
That was about as far as I got.
You are in a ghastly muddle, apparently. Planets do not somehow convert motion into potential and kinetic energy. There is no mystery here. Their motion implies kinetic energy. (KE = 1/2 mv², right?) And the elliptical path they follow implies gravitational attraction (F = GmM/r², right?), which in turn implies gravitational potential energy (integrate F(r) dr from infinity to the orbital radius, right?). The planets don't calculate this: we do, to model how they behave. Just as we do for electrons.

Yes the electron in an atom also has kinetic and electrostatic potential energy. However, being an atomic scale entity, its wavelike behaviour requires QM to model it, resulting in what we call the "orbital" it occupies.

Your sentence: "Somehow that forms a virtual photon that when it forms fully it changes the position of the planet (inducing a saw tooth motion)." is pure gibberish, of such an order that I start to wonder if you are sane. I'm not surprised you didn't get any further. If you try to use QED concepts, which are for modelling subatomic scale entities, for explaining motion of planets, you are off your head.

For God's sake, read some science and stop trying to invent daft alternatives until you have understood how science works.

I thought the idea of "saw tooth motion" would be too much for you. When you use the formula F=ma apply the force generated by 1 graviton to the mass of the Earth what sort of saw tooth motion would result? Even a single Planck length might be too great, but it is the idea of quantum action through virtual photons, that is generalized by Newtonian gravitation, that I was trying to express. This was years ago so don't get too upset.
Well I'm not going to get drawn off-topic onto your eccentric theories of planetary motion.

But at least now you may perhaps have a better idea of what "virtual photons" are which, if true, would be progress.

I found it an eye-opening explanation myself, in fact, since QED did not feature in the molecular QM I studied at university.

29. Bob, I cannot understand why you feel the need to be so arrogant when you clearly don't understand what is being discussed. It's hugely disruptive and detracts from some of the helpful and thoughtful posts by the other members.

You're trying to impress someone with your new found scientific genius, but you're just embarrassing yourself.

This thread is essentially answered and complete after tk's last post and now it's going to degrade (in small part thanks to me) into bickering.

30. Bob is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, they explain the arrogance of idiots quite well...

31. Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Bob, I cannot understand why you feel the need to be so arrogant when you clearly don't understand what is being discussed. It's hugely disruptive and detracts from some of the helpful and thoughtful posts by the other members.

You're trying to impress someone with your new found scientific genius, but you're just embarrassing yourself.

This thread is essentially answered and complete after tk's last post and now it's going to degrade (in small part thanks to me) into bickering.
Exchemist and co wanted me to answer them and that is all I have done to the best of my limited ability.

32. Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
My point is not quite formulated yet, but we require the calculation but the planet does it naturally, somehow converting motion into gravitational potential energy and orbital energy.
So is there something similar when an electron (particle, planet ) orbits the nucleus (particle , The Sun), it has a certain amount of kinetic energy to divvy up. So I'm thinking gravity and the EM attraction (force) have a similar action, there are virtual photons (gravitons) being exchanged (whatever that means).
I nearly proposed a mechanism years back, and it had to do with the tendency of matter to follow a straight line, but if a planet was to go straight ahead it would fly off at a tangent, but then it would be increasing in GPE without losing velocity. Somehow that forms a virtual photon that when it forms fully it changes the position of the planet (inducing a saw tooth motion). The saw tooth motion would only be noticeable on the scale of electrons not at a planetary scale.
That was about as far as I got.
You are in a ghastly muddle, apparently. Planets do not somehow convert motion into potential and kinetic energy. There is no mystery here. Their motion implies kinetic energy. (KE = 1/2 mv², right?) And the elliptical path they follow implies gravitational attraction (F = GmM/r², right?), which in turn implies gravitational potential energy (integrate F(r) dr from infinity to the orbital radius, right?). The planets don't calculate this: we do, to model how they behave. Just as we do for electrons.

Yes the electron in an atom also has kinetic and electrostatic potential energy. However, being an atomic scale entity, its wavelike behaviour requires QM to model it, resulting in what we call the "orbital" it occupies.

Your sentence: "Somehow that forms a virtual photon that when it forms fully it changes the position of the planet (inducing a saw tooth motion)." is pure gibberish, of such an order that I start to wonder if you are sane. I'm not surprised you didn't get any further. If you try to use QED concepts, which are for modelling subatomic scale entities, for explaining motion of planets, you are off your head.

For God's sake, read some science and stop trying to invent daft alternatives until you have understood how science works.

I thought the idea of "saw tooth motion" would be too much for you. When you use the formula F=ma apply the force generated by 1 graviton to the mass of the Earth what sort of saw tooth motion would result? Even a single Planck length might be too great, but it is the idea of quantum action through virtual photons, that is generalized by Newtonian gravitation, that I was trying to express. This was years ago so don't get too upset.
Well I'm not going to get drawn off-topic onto your eccentric theories of planetary motion.

But at least now you may perhaps have a better idea of what "virtual photons" are which, if true, would be progress.

I found it an eye-opening explanation myself, in fact, since QED did not feature in the molecular QM I studied at university.