[General] Nature of Light and Particles

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Martin,

see comments below

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:

>  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.
>

I have one other conference to get out of the way before I have any free
time to concentrate on the San DIego papers. I certainly hope to be able to
read all of the papers on the photonic-electron before starting mine.

>
>
> [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 1/2 objects will always show an absolute magnitude of
> angular momentum of 1/2 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.
>

 It really amazes me that no one mentions that the electron can be a
'special' body with perhaps millions of ang momentum vectors that can sum
to values from zero to that of the 1/2 the source photon. They would rather
accept a point source (with special properties), which is an absurdity. The
fact that photons can effectively move thru each other is accepted. That is
a unique property that should be studied.

After 50 years, theoreticians agreed that electron mass is 100% EM and yet
they can't figure out that the photon, being covariant, would allow the
resulting electron to be so, to the degree necessary, as well.

>
>
> [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 1/2 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 1/2 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 may differ in details; but, not in the broad picture. To the inquiring
mind, the concept should be obviously worth exploring in depth.

>
>
> 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.
>

I consider the universe to be full of Maxwellian non-photonic radiation
(the dark energy) that provides the basis for stochastic electrodynamics.
All that energy must give some special properties to space. While I accept
the emitter/absorber picture as a possibility, I consider the photon as a
soliton, and therefore a resonance. The energies possible are continuous;
but, every energy has its unique self-confining properties.

>
>
> So Andrew the concepts have been addressed and it would be great to talk
> about this further, perhaps on Skype.
>

I'll want to read all of the papers and draft ours before I settle into any
serious discussions. We might think about setting up some sort of live
broadcast of the conference to those of us that are unable to make it.


>  Congratulations with expecting twins!!!! I understand that you are
> surely not coming to the conference?
>

We had it all planned that (with one baby) we would be able to get to the
conference and then be able to get back home to India with time to spare.
Things might still change, but we won't be able to call it until the last
moment.

Best to all,

Andrew

>   ___________________________-
>
> 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+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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150404/1e6c83f7/attachment-0001.htm>