[General] Photon: Particle or Wave?

[John Macken]

Chip,

 

I am very happy to hear that you are reading the work carefully.  I can assure you that all the equations in the technical paper have been checked many times by others and no mistakes have been found.  As one physics professor from Caltech said, “Once the assumption of dipole waves in spacetime is accepted, everything else is a logical extension.”

 

I will paraphrase your question before attempting to answer it. Are photons quantized because the emitters have a specific resonant frequency of emission? … Is quantization an inherent property of photons, or is quantization imposed on them by the emitters? I have examined this question and concluded beyond all doubt that everything in the “observable” universe (including photons) possesses quantized angular momentum (ħ or ½ ħ).  The energy of photons is not inherently quantized – only angular momentum is quantized.  The properties of atoms and molecule determine energy levels. However, this is resonance, not quantization. Once a photon is propagating in a vacuum it can be observed to have any energy (any frequency) if it is observed from different frames of reference.  If energy was quantized, then there would be only discrete energies (discrete frequencies) that photons could possess.  No matter what frame of reference a photon is observed, the angular momentum is always the same.  That is what is quantized. 

 

For a big picture example, general relativity (GR) and cosmological observation says that the energy density of the universe is about 10-9 J/m3 but quantum mechanics (QM), field theory and zero point energy say that the energy density is about 10113 J/m3.  This is the famous 10120 difference between QM and GR.  It is often referred to as the biggest numerical discrepancy in all of physics. I say that the two different numbers are understandable when it is realized that everything observable possesses quantized angular momentum and the vacuum energy (∿10113 J/m3) does not possess angular momentum.    These “dipole waves in spacetime” which lack angular momentum give spacetime its physical properties of c, εo, µo, ħ, G, and impedance of spacetime Zs = c3/G.  This is the homogeneous energy density that is being ignored when some equations are “renormalized”.  This is the homogeneous energy density that is being distorted when we say that a mass has caused “curves spacetime”.  

 

This homogeneous energy density of the vacuum is also exerting a tremendous pressure that is analyzed in the papers.  We are like the fish that live at the bottom of the ocean and do not realize that there is any pressure, but a pressure difference on an object causes a mysterious force. The key to deriving the curvature of spacetime produced by particles was to understand the homogeneous energy density of the vacuum. Perhaps I appear to have strayed from spin, but angular momentum is key to all these effects.

 

John M.

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 1:55 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Photon: Particle or Wave?

 

Hi John M.

 

A question for you.  Regarding the example of the rubidium atom you gave which has about an 8 meter long “photon”. With a wavelength of 795 nm that seems to be about 9804533 wavelengths in the photon.   In your mind does this indicate that photons are quantized because the emitters have a specific resonant frequency of emission and can only emit a certain quantity of energy to achieve their new resonant state at a lower energy?  In other words, do you feel that quantization is not an inherent property of photons, but is imposed on them by the emitters? Do you see any evidence that should cause us to assume that the engines of quantization the spin ½ fermions?

 

Reading your work is very compelling.  Can’t put it down, but it may take many days to digest most of the important points. What takes the most time is running the math and testing it in various scenarios to make sure I understand the implications.

 

I want to thank you for your contributions to this discussion.

 

Chip

 

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 1:40 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] Photon: Particle or Wave?

 

Hello Everyone,

 

I want to address the question: Does a photon contain a particle-like nugget of energy? I believe that all the experiments are compatible with a photon being a wave distributed in length and width. A photon’s energy is not quantized – its angular momentum is quantized.  The photon’s quantized angular momentum gives the appearance of a particle with quantized energy.  For example, the energy of a photon depends on the frame of reference of observation (Doppler shift). If a photon is reflected off a moving mirror, its energy appears to be changed (not quantized) but its angular momentum is constant (quantized). 

 

It is often said that a photon possesses “wave – particle duality”.  I am saying there is only the appearance of a particle-like property because the wave possesses quantized angular momentum. Even electrons are quantized waves.  The standard model says that all particles are merely “excitations” of the more fundamental fields.  I explain exactly the wave-based mechanism of this excitation. Yesterday I sent two technical articles which clearly describe the quantum mechanical properties of the energetic vacuum.  The articles quantify zero point energy, wave amplitudes, impedance of spacetime, and energy density of spacetime.  They show how the wave structure of spacetime can exhibit superfluid properties which isolates angular momentum into quantized units of ħ and ½ ħ. Therefore, if you have read the articles you will understand when I say that the photon does not contain a particle-like nugget of energy.  All the energy is in the photon’s distributed wave.  It only appears to possess a particle-like nugget of energy because spacetime is imposing quantization on its angular momentum.  

 

There are many experiments which support the contention that a photon does not possess a particle-like nugget of energy.  First, all the double slit experiments are indicating that the photon propagates through both slits simultaneously.  Imagine a double slit experiment conducted with two slits that are separated by 5 meters. If the light source is a distant star and the double slits are placed so that both slits are in the aperture of a 10 meter telescope, then the classical double slit interference pattern would appear in the focal plane of the telescope (assumes some wavelength selection). This interference pattern appears even if only one photon per second makes it to the focal plane.  There is no particle-based explanation of this effect. 

 

There are numerous experiments which show that the emission of a photon happens over a time period corresponding to the inverse if the emission bandwidth. The following articles have numerous references which support this:

http://www3.uji.es/~planelle/APUNTS/ESPECTROS/jce/JCEphoto.html

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/photon/photon.html

For example, a rubidium atom has a spectral line called the D1 transition.  When a rubidium atom goes through this transition, it emits a photon over about 26 ns.  This implies that this photon has a wave train that extends over a distance of about 8 meters.  Furthermore, the spectral line width of this rubidium transition has a bandwidth that also implies a wave packet with this physical length using a Fourier transform.  This is not just an 8 meter uncertainty in the location of the photon’s energy packet; it is an actual wave train that is 8 meters long at a wavelength of about 795 nm.  The waves are also extended in width. The waves have a physical shape that can be shown to possess ħ of angular momentum.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150408/23f230b3/attachment-0001.htm>