[General] Nature of Light and Particles

Sat Apr 4 02:15:00 PDT 2015

Dear John M.,

You have posed an interesting problem that requires some deep thinking. A
possibility that comes to mind is the dilemma I faced in a QM class. Spin
is only 'up' and 'down'. However, up & down are orthogonal, not
'physically' anti-parallel, states. (How is anti-parallel defined then?)
Perhaps if we fully understand this (it may be coupled to the spin 1/2
concepts), then we can get a handle on the issue. Is it related to the
'twist' in a photon needed to produce an electron/positron pair?

Andrew

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 4:19 AM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Chip,
>
>
>
> I am responding to your questions about the spin of a linearly polarized
> photon because I intend to include this subject in my paper if my abstract
> is approved for inclusion in the Nature of Light conference.  I am going to
> first present a thought experiment.
>
>
>
> Suppose that we have a rotating electrical dipole which physically
> consists of two opposite polarity electrical charges at opposite ends of a
> rotating rod.  The rotation is around the center of the rod and the
> rotation axis is perpendicular to the rod length dimension.  The rotating
> dipole will emit electromagnetic radiation into a classical rotating dipole
> emission pattern.  The photons emitted along the axis of rotation will be
> circularly polarized with the rotation direction the same as the rotation
> direction of the rod.  If the rotating dipole is visualized in a vacuum and
> an inertial frame of reference, then it can be shown that the angular
> momentum being carried away by the circularly polarized photons emitted
> along the axis slows down the rotation speed of the dipole by the exact
> amount that corresponds to  the energy being carried away by the circularly
> polarized photons.  So far there are no surprises.
>
>
>
> Now suppose that we look at the photons being emitted in the equatorial
> plane of the rotation.  The well-known emission pattern of a rotating
> dipole emits linearly polarized photons in this plane.  If these photons
> are carrying away equal amounts of the two opposite spin rotational
> directions, then the rotating dipole is experiencing no net loss of angular
> momentum which implies that the rotating dipole does not lose any energy
> when it emits equal amounts of photons with opposite spins.  A perpetual
> motion machine could be made if a special reflector was made which only
> allowed light emitted in the equatorial plane escape.
>
>
>
> This obviously must be wrong.  The implication is that linearly polarized
> light is carrying away angular momentum also and the angular momentum
> always is such that it slows down the rotating dipole.  The proposed answer
> is that linearly polarized photons are carrying away orbital angular
> momentum (my laser background)  and the rotation axis is perpendicular to
> the photon's propagation direction.  This should be experimentally
> provable, but a practical experiment will be difficult devise.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+john=
> macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2015 10:27 AM
> *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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150404/52dcbdc5/attachment-0001.htm>