[General] Nature of Light and Particles

Sat Apr 4 05:19:29 PDT 2015

Dear Andrew,
your questions on spin  and on topological charge were already answered by John W and myself in the paper "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?", as a matter of fact this really the central idea the paper is about.

[from Andrew] 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?
About spin direction: the direction of rotation of energy flow around the eye of the torus with respect to the propagation direction around the center is either right or left handed, hence has intrinsic spin properties independent of the orientation of the object as a whole. This is a requirement for making the distinction between spin up and spin down.
Note also that spin ½ objects will always show an absolute magnitude of angular momentum of ½ hbar ,independent of any direction you measure it in! This cannot be true for rigid body rotation (as first analyzed by H.Casimir in his thesis), hence the real electron is not a rigid body.

[from Andrew] Re your notes to John M and Richard:  You have raised the question of "topological origin of charge." I believe that this is a very important concept that has been ignored. Bob Hudgins' thoughts, developed in the analysis of standing waves, have led to a paper on the topic to be presented in San Diego. If Bob is not feeling up to presenting up to presenting a second (or third) paper at the conference and our other coauthor, Ralph Penland, is not able to attend, we might ask you or someone else in the group to present it for us. [My wife is expecting twins in September and that has screwed up our plans to attend the conference and then fly back to India, which were made when we were expecting only a single baby.]
About topological charge. First of all there is an ambiguity in language here. Topologists use the term charge as well, and it is related to a winding number. In our model, John and I talk about real charge that emerges as a consequence of two things: first, the electromagnetic field of the electromagnetic wave going round and round. Second, the field configuration is  modified due to the non-simply connected flow AND double loop of that flow, this gives rise to both topological charge and real charge. The double loop must be there  so that the periodic boundary condition of one single wavelength (in order to have constructive interference) is effectively ½ wavelength in the structure as it emerges: the other dimensions available take up rotation.
Now we have two rotations so that the object as a whole is spinning in multiple directions at the same time. It is not a rigid body, and this is also an absolute requirement for spin ½ objects. If you hold one axis fixed by applying a very strong magnetic field, for example,  this will not stop the flow and only part of the rotation will be pinned to that direction, half of it to be precise.

We have used the term "photon" in our model to bring in hbar and show the numerical validity of the approach. Presently we would be hesitant to call the electron a topological photon or such. I think that both John and I are in favor of continuous electromagnetism where the quantization is caused by emitter and absorber. The same being true for the vacuum fluctuations, by the way. The vacuum is not nothing, but not as full as some believe. However, wherever you probe it, you will find as much energy as you would expect  due to the stick you are probing with! But that is a discussion I should have with John M, I suppose.

So Andrew the concepts have been addressed and it would be great to talk about this further, perhaps on Skype.
Congratulations with expecting twins!!!! I understand that you are surely not coming to the conference?

Cheers, Martin

Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: zaterdag 4 april 2015 11:15
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles

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<mailto: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<mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohn>=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<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

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com<mailto: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>

________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150404/60ad5125/attachment-0001.htm>