[General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Fri Apr 3 14:11:14 PDT 2015

Hi Andrew

Thank you for those references.

For a few reasons I had temporarily ruled out the notion that photon spin
can be in any axis other than around the longitudinal.  One reason is that
if spin is parallel to the plane of the longitudinal axis it requires the
field velocity for half the cycle to be twice the speed c and for the other
half cycle to reach zero.  Neither of which seem reasonable.

Due to the wide use of down-converting crystals to create a pair of
“entangled” photons, at half the frequency (energy) of the original
incident photon, for photon polarization “entanglement” experiments, I am
similarly temporarily setting aside the notion that polarization is a
multiple photon effect. For if it required more than one photon to
constructively interfere to pass through a polarizer, those experiments
would be much less informative than they are currently believed to be by
most physicists.  The nature of those experiments indicates the belief that
photon polarization is a single photon phenomena.

One popular interpretation of experiment uses the quantum notion of
superposition of spin states to explain polarization.  But this seems to be
an unphysical explanation to me, so I am looking at possible alternates,
with a more causal and classical description.

One of those alternates is described as follows… It may be that a photon
can have any spin value up to the limit +/- ħ. If I remember correctly
Chandra and John W. have commented on this and may have more information.
If this is the case then a single photon may be able to consist of more
than one set of fields. The frequency and confinement (quantization) we
have discussed, will still work in that scenario, because it is the energy
density in that volume of space which causes the total EM forces which also
would produce quantization, (frequency, and confinement).  It seems that a
single photon is always monochromatic, so the frequency and wavelength
would be the same for each set of fields (waves).  However if one set of
fields is “pulling left” and the other set is “pulling right” then the
composite set of fields displays a lower spin angular momentum value, and
even a zero spin angular momentum value, for a plane polarized photon with
balanced and equal sets of fields spinning opposite directions. Of course
we know, and can demonstrate easily, that EM waves can pass through one
another and coexist, so it is not difficult to imagine these photon fields
behaving in such a manner.  Quantum physics posits the superposition of two
spin states with an entangled wave function collapse at the measurement of
one of the entangled particles. Joy Christian’s work shows how two non-
commuting spin operators, as local variables, satisfy the same Bell’s
inequalities. Both explanations (quantum and non-commuting local variable)
can be realized by a classical, causal based physical topology, with two
sets of fields, each exhibiting spin, but in opposite directions. If this
scenario is accurate it would imply that plane polarized photons would
behave slightly differently in some diffraction experiments, than
circularly polarized photons. Such an effect has already been shown in
experiment, using the polarization dependence of Fraunhofer diffraction and
a metallic grating. 

Thoughts?

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 12:27 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg;
Jean-Luc Pierre P.
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Dear Chip,

Since I have been having this discussion with someone (Jean-Luc Paillet) in
a different context, I thought that I would take the time to try and find a
paper that contained a statement that I had interpreted to mean that a
linear-polarized photon still had a spin of 1. 

I found what I think may be what I had seen (attached). However, now that I
look more closely, I am not sure that it is referring to a photon or a
collection. Perhaps someone more mathematically sophisticated can look at
sections 6.7 (for circular-polarization) and 6.8 (for linear-polarization)
of the attached and let me know if it can refer to single photons as well
as collections. "We recover the classical result derived in Section 6.7:
the spin is in the direction of propagation of the wave."

Jean-Luc referred to the 3rd from last paragraph of
http://mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm , which states that linear-polarized
light is only balanced circular-polarized light. However, it further states
that individual photons will register as +/- hbar. Thus, it is a
superposition of 2 states, rather than a 3rd state. If this is the case,
does the E = n h nu relation come into play? If so, then I assume that
spectrometers could respond differently to  linear- and circular-polarized
light of the same energy (with n = 2 and 1 respectively). On the other
hand, since w = w1+/- w2, a spectrometer might see only the sum of the two
coherent photons (a thermally stable BEC?). It is an interesting problem
that I see no convincing solution to.

Andrew

______________________--

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi John W

The intent of this line of discussion is to probe more deeply into the
structure of the photon and to address polarization entanglement
experiments.

A thought and some questions for you John.

First some background.  As I understand it Quantum physics posits a
superposition of spin states as a cause for planar polarization. In order
to reach a more causal explanation, can we then envision two fields within
the photon, spinning opposite directions, and constructively interfering
only in a plane, which is dependent on their spin phase? 

Are you familiar with Joy Christian’s work?  He writes that two non-
commuting rotations (spin operators) as local variables, exactly duplicate
the predictions of Quantum mechanics and satisfy Bell’s inequalities in
precisely the same way. I have checked some of the math and so far it seems
to be quite accurate. In both of these approaches, two oppositely rotating
fields would apparently satisfy these physical aspects of the theories… ???

Christian uses a Clifford algebra to illustrate his theory.  Have you had
the chance to compare that with the work you are doing using Clifford
algebra to in your new theory of light and matter?  Specifically have you
had any opportunity to check to see if two opposite, (non-commuting local)
spins caused by your framework would also satisfy Bell’s inequalities? Or
CHSH inequalities?

Of course you can see the underlying reasons for these questions.  One
underlying reason is to discover if two equal and oppositely spinning
fields, confined within the photon, can explain polarization.  In both,
quantum physics, and Christian’s theories, it seems that two opposite
spins are required, hinting that we would need those two opposite physical
spins to be possible in a physical model of the photon.

The other underlying reason is to discover if non-commuting (rotation)
local variables can potentially be the cause for the appearance of
entanglement.

Thoughts?

Chip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150403/0e62abc6/attachment.htm>