There is a very complicated extension of your discussion that is very topical right this minute. I am not sure how much you will get but it is interesting.

Gavin Salam gave a talk which Tommaso Dorigo has done a write up on called strangely "How Much Light Does A Proton Contain"
http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/how_much_light_does_a_proton_contain-176396

It's topical because it runs around what we were discussing of charge + motion = em emission.

Quote:
Of course, the proton contains photons, as in its interior there are moving electric charges (the valence and sea quarks), and the acceleration of electric charges always involves photon emission.

Do you see what they are saying there must be what we would called photons internal to the proton ... which is rather weird to think about. We don't often think about photons being inside things, especially things like protons.

In the discussion he calculated the amount of photon energy in the proton and it won't come outside the proton which will get complicated to explain but the amount is not insignificant.
Quote:
So now we know with very good accuracy how much light do protons contain! If you think about it, it's awesome: we are made of protons, and protons are, in some part, made of light... And now we know how much of it.

See the physics is consistent ... charge + movement = EM emission ... even inside a proton smile

I probably should rephrase movement to acceleration but I will ignore that detail for now.

Even stranger think about how many protons are in your body and therefore how many photons you have inside you. Now I bags not breaking the news to the orbital believers ... nah they won't get it anyhow laugh

First principles is always fun and throws up things that will catch even seasoned scientists out because it is a different way of looking at a problem. That one will catch most average scientists out and I suspect there will be a few jokes created around it.

Last edited by Orac; 07/16/16 06:27 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.