[General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request - The nature of a spacetime point.

[Mark, Martin van der]

Hi Chip,
I use a 16x16 matrix to do a few things with Cl(1,3) in Mathematica.
Over the years John and I have collected a lot of background on our own calculations, physics and mathematics in what we call “The Appendices”.
It is just a set of notes, and no more, to remind ourselves what we have done. I will share this particular one with you (and leave the table of contents as a teaser).
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 Chip Akins
Sent: donderdag 9 april 2015 16:36
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request - The nature of a spacetime point.

Hi John
Thank you for pointing out the required options for building a useful geometric algebra library which we can use for experimentation.
I will begin implementing these switches for our future convenience.
So far the project is pretty basic, with simple rotation and translation available in limited forms, still a lot of work to do coding and testing.
Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 10:26 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request - The nature of a spacetime point.

Hello Chip,

Good to hear that you are getting to grips with building a Clifford MATLAB library. The last time I looked this was sadly lacking. Stephen has developed an excellent suite of programs in PYTHON for some aspects of this. It may be a very good idea to talk to him as well.

If you are putting such a thing together crucial and interesting switches are the possibilities of switching the metric (from the (+ - - -) of Dirac and Einstein to the  (- + + +) of Misner Thorne and Wheeler) and switching the handedness of products. This needs to be done carefully, so that it feeds automatically through the whole system you develop.  I think we had better have a serious conversation on Skype as soon as possible. Maybe, working together, we can get to the stage where there are simulation results worth showing in SD. That would be really something.

Coming back to the point. You are right that things can be understood provided they are properly explained. I will try ...

You are confusing yourself, I think, in your use of language. The problem is largely the word "point" and the meaning which you assign to it. This is a common problem. It is difficult to talk about concepts one does not have a word for. Your concept of "point" seems to me the common one of a "place with zero extent". This is the definition of a "mathematical point" you will get if you look at Wikipedia.

This is a pretty useless concept. It is a place which is a close as you like to not there at all. A place is better represented by a co-ordinate - represented by a vector with respect to some useful origin. Let us call this a "place" to distinguish it. Likewise a space-time point is anything but a point. It extends over a lightcone, backwards to the beginning of time (and space) and forwards to its end. Not very point-like then (and point-like is yet another concept again). It is, indeed, impossible to conceive of a wave at a single place. That is just silly. Do not even try!

Now consider a single photon event. The maths is such that all points along an element of the photon path occur at the same co-ordinate in space time for one particular frame (and not for any other - and this is crucial). That "event" (and we could better use the word "event" instead of "point" - though a third word would be better (Bell uses be-able but I do not like this - transaction is also possible but has extra connotations). Lets just invent a word ... no I'll use the word con-junction. Ok consider a con-junction between two distinct spatial points at two distinct times as measured in two distinct frames, through a third object (an exchange photon). This travels FROM one TO the other. This is CAUSALITY. The emitter loses and the absorber gains energy. This is the arrow of time. Forget thermodynamics. It is that simple.

Consider what the absorber "sees". It sees a photon coming in form its past. It has been acted upon by an object. That object usually had higher energy (this is thermodynamics). This  object is ALWAYS in its past.

Now think about the exchange photon itself. It has a certain number of cycles. For the sake of argument let us imagine it is a right circularly polarised photon, carrying one unit of angular momentum and that it looks like a flying corkscrew (Cheers Martin) of electromagnetic field precisely a thousand "turns" long (this is a pretty short photon). In the emitter frame it is a thousand turns long. In the absorber frame it is a thousand turns long. In the centre of mass frame it is a thousand turns long. In any inertial frame it is a thousand turns long. In no frame is it anything other than a thousand turns long. There is no frame where it is at a single place. In all frames it is a thousand turn wave (ok - I know an abrupt transition is unphysical at the ends, but you get what I mean). Now, if one travels at the front of it, at the speed of light, the phase front remains at a fixed phase. This is not the same as saying that it is a "point". Your friend, travelling one wavelength behind, is indeed at a slightly different spatial and temporal position. How different this is depends on which frame you view it from. The thing is you, at this speed, "see" the emitter just behind you- a moment ago, and the absorber just ahead. So does your friend. You have a thousand friends. They all see this. The time as measured for emission depends on the frequency in that frame. A thousand counts. Likewise for absorption (still a thousand but this may be red or blueshifted, so time will be different in general).

Now let us look from the point of view of the emitter. Does it "see" the future? No - it sees nothing. It has shucked off some energy. It is gone. In the next instant that energy is outside its lightcone. It is no longer part of its observable universe. Lets imagine it is an intelligent emitter (which can do maths). It may calculate that there is a theoretical possibility of an advanced wave solution that is tachyonic (travelling faster than light) arising from the absorber. Fine. In its frame this constitutes a negative energy solution travelling backwards in time. This is exactly the same solution as the positive energy solution travelling forwards in time. It has to be. It is the same photon. In both cases the event is causal in terms of the flow of time for each observer.

In fact the process is causal whichever frame one looks from. The cause arises from the object with the initial energy, the effect is that of the reception of that energy packet. All observers agree where the energy came from and where it went to. That is all there is to an inter-action.

There is nothing spooky. No action at a distance. It is just not so that there is just the one location. For each event there are (at least) three: emitter, absorber and exchange. There are as many locations as there are in the combinatoric interactions of all of the particles in the universe. That combinatorics is so big a number that there are not enough atoms in the universe to provide the ink to even write down the number as an exponential. This makes John M's 122 orders of magnitude seem merely piffling.

Ok that is that (hopefully). Unfortunately that is not the hard part. The hard part is understanding how a whole, complicated, field pattern can be quantum-collapsed to a single point-like emitter or absorber. That is what I am going to try to address (amongst other things), in the paper I'll try to have a go at next. That will have to be a paper though ... I am running out of energy for all these emails!

Please let me know if this has helped,

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:06 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
Hi John W

Sounds like you are working on some exciting stuff.
I am building, expanding, and testing, a Clifford Algebra library for MATLAB so that we can test some of the proposed geometric algebras more quickly and thoroughly.

Over the years, and in the last few weeks, I have looked at the transactional interpretation of photon exchange, and studied the single point in spacetime approach, from various authors.
I still have two questions.
The theory seems to address the appearance of “entanglement” but leaves open some questions.
I have posed these questions but gotten no answers so far which really address the questions and put them to rest in a solid and logical manner.
The first question has to do with the effect on the rest of the universe if photons are considered to exist in a single point in spacetime.  Let us consider that an hour from now, billions of billions of photons will strike the earth.  Some of these photons will be absorbed by living things, including humans. Some of these photons originated millions of years ago, in our frame of reference, and they traveled in “straight” lines, in our frame of reference, to a destination here. That implies that our exact future was determined, in our reference frame, millions of years ago. And this conclusion is required if we wish to view a photon as a single point in spacetime. Because if a photon’s single point in spacetime spans millions of our years, in our reference frame, it has the direct effect of establishing a non-variable future in our reference frame.  In our reference frame, we could not move the absorber to a location different than the one determined by the photon, which, in our reference frame, was emitted millions of years ago. So the question… How can the single point in spacetime approach avoid predetermined events? So far I cannot see a way this can be avoided.
The second question has to do with the photon, emitter, and absorber.
If the photon exists at a single point in spacetime, then in its reference frame, the emitter and absorber occupy the same location.  Literally, the exact same location. So that the photon has no longitudinal spatial extent at all, in that reference frame. Since the photon has no longitudinal spatial extent in that reference frame, but in the inertial frames of the emitter and absorber, it has clear properties like wavelength, frequency, etc., it seems there must be something wrong with the approach?? In the external observer’s reference frame the photon makes billions of oscillations between emitter and absorber, but in the photon’s reference frame, no opportunity to have a structure to appear to oscillate in another reference frame at all. If we apply relativistic transformations to photons, in the same manner we apply those transformations to particles with rest mass, then we wind up with a problem, but if we change the way we apply transformations to photons, like we do with the single point in spacetime approach, we must give a reason why, we must show such transformations to be accurate and justifiable, by some means other than just giving us one answer we are looking for, because we might not be looking for the correct solution, and just desperately grasping for something to try to explain things we don’t yet  understand.
The photon in the “single point in spacetime” would have infinite frequency, not finite and large, but infinite, making its frequency in the inertial frames of the emitter and absorber infinite, because any scaling of infinite is clearly also infinite. Trying to get around this by saying the photon does not actually travel the speed of light, when experiment says it does travel exactly the speed of light, but saying it travels ever so slightly slower, which is extremely difficult to prove or to refute, seems to be arbitrarily applying a “fix” to an already broken theory. Desperately grasping for a prop to hold up the framework.
Martin, please don’t take this the wrong way.  I know your conviction in this regard but am just making observations and asking questions.
So the question…  Using the “single point in spacetime approach”, how can the huge physical differences in the photon properties, and oscillatory behavior, in the different frames of reference possibly be correlated in any way?

Now if “we live in a non-commuting universe” and Bell’s theorem is based on commuting variables, and let’s suppose that nature is better represented by these non-commuting rotations, would that not potentially yield a causal, deterministic solution which would do away with any need for a “spooky action at a distance”? Would it not show that instantaneous entanglement has been an illusion caused by our lack of understanding?
So that we don’t not misunderstand each other, I am willing to accept whatever we find to be accurate. I am not willing, nor do I think the rest of us are, to accept something just because a bunch of other, even if renowned, physicists accept it.  In framing our questions, we all (especially me) need to let nature frame them for us as much as we can. And be willing to explore as many different avenues and frames of thought as it takes, until we have a grasp on what is likely to be an accurate representation of nature.
In my opinion, in the early 1900’s we took a bit of a detour in our path to understanding the universe, in part due to the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum, and in part due to some missing, underlying structure of space, fields and particles. It seems physics became enamored with the fantastic and the “spooky” aspects of experiment. I think we missed a few causal and practical components along the way.  It takes some effort to “unthink” an error and rethink a new foundation, because the implications are so pervasive.
In the part of the universe we understand, including everything except quantum physics, we see simplicity, elegance, and beautiful perfect balance.  We see causality and determinism. What if the non-deterministic and “spooky” nature of quantum physics is simply a lack of understanding of some of the operators?
Martin and John W.  As I have stated before, your work has been some of the most inspiring I have had the pleasure to read and study. I do not want to upset anyone.  But don’t underestimate the capacity of any in the group, for most of us are able to understand most anything posed in this forum. We each have our own set of sharpest skills and areas of concentrated effort, but there is nothing about the single point in spacetime approach to photon exchange which is beyond our ability to comprehend.  Physical principals are built on simple laws of nature. (Even if we don’t yet know all those laws.) Events become increasingly more complex as several physical laws merge to create one result. In many cases there are several possible explanations for observed phenomena. But the reason for the forum, and for the discussion, is to present views, ask questions, and yes have our minds changed and sharpened in the process.
We have all been working on this quest for decades, and I am very thankful for this forum, because I think it provides us each with the ability to more thoroughly analyze and understand, than we can accomplish without such collaboration.
Thank you all for your patience, your thoughts, and your comments.
Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 12:10 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Hello Everyone,

Apologies, firstly, for the relative quiet from me over the last few days. Easter is a family time and my two young kids (five and six) have been keeping me very busy during the daylight hours. At the same time, I have been thinking about another thread with another group (including Nick Martin and Tony) which raises a similarly (if not even more) challenging set of questions than does this one.

This is really a (partial) reply to Chip's question a few posts down about the work of Christian, polarisation and the photon spin. A simple question, but spanning a huge and current discussion in a vast area of science. Not easy to address in a quick email then. Indeed I had an attempt a few mornings ago – but gave up at the enormity of the task after a few pages worth.

A fuller reply is also part of a considerable body of rapidly developing work on questions inspired by this very group. This includes me starting work on a complete new paper on some aspects of the underlying problems within the framework of my development of the classical theory of electromagnetism, I have been accepted to talk about the underlying nature of the photon in one and the electron in the other but could roll these into one. This would lose some detail of the new theory, but will make space for a paper addressing some of the central issues remaining in the transactional view of interaction events (for which there is a whole literature) – and with which many of you seem unfamiliar.

Martin and I discussed this too. After he had tried to explain certain aspects of it himself and several of you had expressed your feelings strongly – sending Martin ballistic. I argued we needed to try to address this – his opinion at the time was that there was “geen beginnen aan”.  Sorry guys, most of our work takes place in Dutch and this brings in quite a lot that can get “lost in translation”. I will do my best though that particular phrase is a bit hard to translate to English (even Google translate goes on “tilt”) but it means something like “The whole problem (my dear chap) is that there is absolutely no way to even start explaining that because it is just too difficult”. Quite a lot of meaning in just three words – only really possible because the Dutch are not just quite as polite as are the British. This means that Dutch is a good language for thinking in – it has a sort of automatic bullshit filter. I can recommend it if any of you are thinking of picking up another language!


The paper I hope to write will try to address the problems of the space-time point (which was the point where Chip’s mind exploded into complete incomprehension – “a point cannot express a wave”. That depends on the point and the definition of a “point”. That IS the point.) and to explain how and why one can (and should in my view) consider both the advanced and retarded solutions of the main equations at the basis of all of physics (Maxwell, Relativity and QED). This is notwithstanding John D’s (don’t go there – everyone will really think you mad if you do (thanks for the warning and trying to protect us John!)). Chandra was right that this standpoint should not be dismissed out of hand: the fact that it was precisely the final view of Einstein, Feynmann and Carver Mead in his KEYNOTE talk at the last Chandra conference should be a clue that that is EXACTLY (at least one of the areas) where one needs to go. I still really (really) want to talk to Carver Mead. Can someone put me in touch?
The view of the majority may be that it is crazy – but just look at the company one is in as one tries to take it on board. Who would you bet on to be right in the end here?

Yes it will be hard. This is very very hard – just about as hard as it gets. Carver Mead’s answer to the last question in his set was “yes a lot of people have a problem with that”. He was right, as is proven by the reaction within this group. It is said that “fortune favors the brave”.  I certainly hope so – as that is exactly where I hope to go…

I wrote a long email in the early hours of yesterday morning, but decided not to send it as it contained several faults of my own that I was branding in others. That happens quite a lot, regrettably.

The bottom line is that the answer to your main question, Chip,  remains "mu" (unask the question). Sorry.  It will have to wait for the proper theoretical basis which makes the question moot in that it BOTH lays bare the underlying process (unhides the “hidden” variables then) AND derives the staring point of quantum mechanics from relativity. That is exactly the central point what I am trying to do – and have been trying to do for a few decades. There is no point in stepping into an argument where the premises (pre mise in French are the pre taken positions) already preclude a proper answer to the questions posed.

To properly answer the questions within the parameters you set (the standard view of QM) I would need to step onto another mans ground and tell them what they think and why they are wrong. In this it would be I who was wrong, because in the framework of the way that it is thought the thinking is quite correct. Any framework (mathematical or otherwise) may promote thinking or limit it to within its own parameters (Wittgenstein, though often attributed to Godel).  I cannot do this I’m afraid. It hurts too much!

Yes I am (very) familiar with Christian's work (and Worsley, quintessence and all that). Firstly, I think Christian is fundamentally correct and that Bell's "proof" applies only to commuting systems. Manifestly the real world is non-commutative. Also I follow this a bit, and so am well aware of the astonishing vitriol heaped upon him by the community – particularly remarkable as his is merely a theoretical development. I’m also well aware that the vitriol heaped upon him will be as nothing compared to that which awaits me if some of my present thinking begins to gain traction.  His work undermines only a small part of the current canon of conventional physics. Mine will hit it all (while, perversely, conserving nearly all of it). Can’t wait!

Bell himself said something really quite different to the interpretation that is often made of his work (see the article posted by John D earlier). This was from a historical perspective and the article, in fact, says pretty much the opposite of what John D thought it supported - if you read it carefully). Bell was really arguing for the present incompleteness of the theory of QM (hence the unask the question part above). He is now conveniently dead - so cannot refute anything attributed to him very effectively.

Firstly, the polarization is equally well-described by up-down or a left-right basis. This is just a degree of freedom of the field which can take any value of linear circular or elliptical polarisation ( I guess you could choose a couple of ellipticals with perpendicular major axes as well- but this would be really weird). Secondly, photons "carry" angular momentum in atomic transitions. The strongest lines carry one unit of angular momentum. Any amount, however, may be carried - with "electric quadrupole carrying 2, octupole 3 and so one (as far as I understand it which is not very far). This extra angular momentum is not thought to be intrinsic, by workers in the field, but related to the moment of the photon about the atom itself (orbital rather than intrinsic). Ok ... there is a whole rabbit-hole here (insert here a textbook on physical chemistry). Anything further from me here will anyway be bullshit as this really strays far from anything I know anything about. In HEP, where I am a far more secure, the assignment of integral spin for the photon comes from looking at allowed interactions and decays - where the photon carries one unit (hbar) of angular momentum.

Coming back to my own perspective I think the discussion is anyway sterile: because the whole argument of entanglement fails to understand properly the concepts of locality and causality. The talk is always of photons leaving, then being "measured" somewhere and somewhen else by a polariser and this (almost magically) transmitting to some other experiment otherwhere and otherwhen. The problem lies in the mode of thinking. Nature does at it does (and entanglement is very very real experimentally – as Martin commented). The interpretation, with all the Alices and Bobs is, in my view, just plain poor thinking and lack of imagination (as Bell said –many times). I think the whole (theoretical) field is simply misguided (and these are some of the guys who try to dis poor old Christians work). It is no good entering into the discussion on these grounds, however. This is proven by the reaction to Christian's work.  To make proper progress one needs a theory which does it correctly, being consistent with relativity, with causality and with quantum mechanics, all at the same time. That is the only way to put the matter to rest. Get it out there. Let natural selection do the rest.
Anyway here is the alternative abstract I put in …


Abstract

In special relativity space and time are fluid and merge into one another subject to the deeper constraints of conservation of energy and the constancy of the speed of light. In a photon exchange event the invariant interval is such that, at light speed, emission and absorption occur at the same point in space-time. Such events may be separated by millions of years and inconceivable vastnesses of space. The resolution of apparent issues of causality reveals an underlying reality more complex and more beautiful than simply three- or four-dimensional. This impacts on the patterns of observed particles and fields.
Keywords: electron, photon, zitterbewegung, classical quantisation.







Abstract for: SPIE Optics + Photonics, 9-13 August 2015,

Paper No: [OP301-42]

The Nature of Light: What are Photons? VI<http://spie.org/app/program/index.cfm?fuseaction=conferencedetail&export_id=x13090&ID=x7777&redir=x7777.xml&conference_id=2065041&event_id=2064300%20%20%20%20%20%20&programtrack_id=2066039>



OP15O SPIE OPTICAL ENGINEERING + APPLICATIONS





*john.williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:*john.williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>; phone +44 141 330 4923





250 word Abstract

In special relativity both space and time are fluid, subject to the deeper constraints of conservation of energy and the observation that the speed of light is constant in vacuum. In a photon exchange event, as one approaches the limit of lightspeed, the invariant interval between emission and absorption approaches zero. Mathematically, at the precise (on shell) limit, emission and absorption occur at the same point in space-time. Given that, for us, such events may be separated by millions of years and inconceivable vastnesses of space, how can this be? Even if this view is supported by the overwhelming weight of experiment, this raises questions of causality, does it not? The answer is no. Emission involves the creation of some complex field, absorption involves its cancellation. The direction of that process fixes the arrow of time, and is the reason that everything we observe is in our past. The space we observe around us, painted by such events, is manifestly three-dimensional, yet we know that the underlying nature of reality is, more properly, four-dimensional. A rigorous expansion of space and time and the relationships between them reveals that the underlying pattern is, in reality, more complex and more beautiful than simply three- or four-dimensional. This impacts on the nature of  and patterns between observed particles and fields. A mathematics capable of paralleling some aspects of this beauty will be presented. It is hoped that this process is a step along the path to the eventual resolution of Hilbert’s sixth problem.
I think this fits in with Chandra’s theme – in that it looks at deriving the nature of both electrons and photons from the local nature of space and time. This takes place in three localities – that of the emitter, the absorber and the intermediating photon. There is a simple scaling between these three localities such that the laws of physics remain the same, but the local “rulers” and “clocks” scale in a way consistent with the frames in which the three actors find themselves.

I would have thought that in the Thursday discussion session we now have room for the two main themes implicit in the question: one based on deriving both photons and electrons from the underlying nature of space and time in such things as this, Chandra’s CTF and John M’s theory, the other based on the electron as localized photon models.

What does everyone think?

Regards,

John Williamson.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 4:40 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
Hi Richard

I appreciate the way you have done the work to tie so many things together in your papers.  Some really good stuff in there.

It occurs to me that is certain ways we may be saying the same thing, just in different words.  Your explanation the energy quantum (TEQ) is not a point particle, leads me to believe that the “energy quantum” could be defined as a quantized set of fields, with spin, and forward motion.  John W’s twist or pivot term applies to fields as well. It applies to photons, electrons, and all EM fields and is intended to define the behavior of fields in general, but incidentally also describes how the photon can become an electron. So in that sense the introduction of a twist term in field equations completes a definition for quantization and would then lead to an “energy quantum” definition.
But I still prefer to refer to the energy quantum by its constituent parts, fields, forces, motion of fields, to provide a definition for the creation of the energy quantum, and the particles it creates. It seems to me this approach keeps all the advantages of the higher level “energy quantum” approach, but provides a more complete definition.

Of course I have read and reread your papers referenced below, and they have been a great inspiration and helped tremendously.  If the others in the group have not read them then I would highly recommend it.

On Another note, I am not yet happy with my electron model.  While studying the planar monochromatic model several very important issues were discovered, but it still fails to appropriately address spin ½ in the z axis.
This is an odd looking spin mode, because it requires (in my model) that the fields themselves have very little spin, remaining oriented with the positive end pointing toward the center of rotation, while they exhibit a spin-like momentum (or motion) creating a toroidal shape when viewed in reasonable precession.



Warmest Regards
Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 9:44 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request


  Chip,
   I understand your reluctance to consider energy quanta as more fundamental than fields, and to appeal to Occam’s razor to stay with fields as fundamental unless convinced otherwise, and to consider fields as reactions of energy with space. But consider, do we really know what energy is? And what space is? John D. thinks that energy and space “cannot be distinguished” at a fundamental level, which is probably true, but it depends on how fundamental one goes — to the level that all is one (or not?) I think that these more and more fundamental levels can be approached in stages, in which space and energy can be differentiated to various degrees, and at one of these levels energy can react with space to create distortions which can be called fields.
  Consider some of the aspects of the energy quantum (and the charged photon model of the electron which can be modeled by the energy quantum) in possible support of the energy quantum’s more fundamental nature than fields.
1. The relation of energy to frequency is built into the energy quantum as E=hf.
2. The speed of light c is built into the energy quantum as the longitudinal speed of the helically moving energy quantum (in the photon and electron models.) The energy quantum may itself travel faster or slower than c along its helical trajectory — see "FTL quantum models of the photon and the electron”.
3. Wavelength (and therefore space) is built into the motion of the energy quantum as lambda = c/f. The charged photon model of the electron (which can be modeled by the energy quantum model) generates the photon's wavelength and the electron’s de Broglie wavelength respectively.
4. Electric charge can be generated by, or associated with, the motion of the energy quantum. Electric charge is not necessarily pointlike, nor is the energy quantum itself.
5. The spin 1 hbar of the photon and spin 1/2 hbar of the electron can be generated by energy quantum models of the photon and the electron respectively. spin right and spin left of a photon and spin up and spin down of an electron and  can be generated by the different motions of the uncharged photon and the charged photon (i.e. the electron), modeled by the energy quantum.
6. There is a close relationship of the energy quantum’a motion to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (see my article on transluminal energy quantum models of the electron and the photon.
7. There is a close relationship of the charged photon model of the electron (which can be based on the energy quantum) to the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation — see my article on this. Quantum matter-waves of an electron can be reinterpreted as charged photon waves in the longitudinal direction of motion of a charged photon (i.e. electron). Atoms may be populated by charged photons (i.e. electrons) with various total energies or energy levels (energy eigenvalues).
8. There is a close relationship of the charged photon model of the electron to the relativistic Dirac equation, including the electron’s low energy radius hbar/2mc , the electron’s zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h, the electron’s unobserved speed of light motion described by Dirac, and the electron’s sub-speed-of-light motion (observed).
9. The small size of the electron in very high energy electron scattering experiments can be partly explained by the charged photon model of the electron, whose radius reduces as 1/(gamma^2) combined with the energy quantum model of the charged photon, whose radius is proportional to 1/gamma.
10. Matter and antimatter can be related to the two helicities or chiralities of the energy quantum’s helical motion.
11. The electron’s magnetic moment can be partly explained by the motion of a charged energy quantum in the energy quantum model of the electron.
12. It should be easier to derive Maxwell’s equations from energy quantum models of the photon and the electron than to derive the energy quantum models from Maxwell’s equations (this needs to be demonstrated, but consider an alternative: John W.’s introduction of a pivot into EM theory to explain how the electron can be formed from a photon.)
13. The energy quantum model might be extended to other physical particles, such as modeling quarks as a charged gluons, or modeling neutrinos as circulating uncharged photons with low rest mass, or modeling a primordial cosmological particle and dark matter particles as closed uncharged photons — for the last, see my article on the transluminal energy quantum model of the cosmic quantum.

My articles related to energy quanta and the charged photon model of the electron are available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2   and https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier<http://academia.edu> .
       Richard



 In QED, each particle has its own field, and a particle is considered to be a
On Apr 4, 2015, at 10:07 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:

Chip:

Re my current view is that energy reacts with space, causing distortions, which are fields.

Think of space as a ghostly elastic jelly. Then imagine you insert a hypodermic and inject more jelly. This results in a distortion of the surrounding jelly, and a gravitational field. You effectively added energy, but the jelly is space. Ergo at the fundamental level, space and energy cannot be distinguished.

All:

There’s been some interesting emails, apologies that I’ve been busy and have not chipped in much. But if I can say this in brief:

IMHO if you grab hold of this ghostly elastic jelly with your right hand and twist, then reach round the side with your left hand and twist, the distortion you now have is an electromagnetic field. Only this analogy is somewhat back to front in that the tension needs to be replaced by pressure. A sinusoidal field variation going round and round a twisted double loop just right looks like a standing field. Experiment with sine-wave paper strips to grasp it. Electrons and positrons move linearly and rotationally like cyclones and anticyclones because they’re “dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space”. They aren’t spitting photons at one another. Hydrogen atoms do not twinkle, magnets don’t shine. However they exchange field in that the short-lived positronium atom doesn’t have much in the way of a field. The opposite twists tend to cancel, leaving only a pressure gradient. We call it a gravitational field.

Regards
John D


From: Chip Akins<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 3:12 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Hi Richard

An energy quantum as a foundation for particles is quite an interesting concept.
My current feeling, however is that there is a more direct solution which does not require this sub particle.  The energy quantum may actually be the solution, but it seems to me that a simple, more complete solution emerges from the concept of fields being fundamental.  Or in John Macken’s way of stating it, space is fundamental.  My current view is that energy reacts with space, causing distortions, which are fields, and these fields cause forces which in turn interact with the fields, causing, quantization, confinement, and therefore oscillation.

Of course I am not ruling out your concept of an energy quantum, just pursuing another possible solution which currently seems more plausible. The fields only approach, has been quite fruitful, so I am becoming more convinced.  The nice thing about such an approach is the ability of that approach to define charge topologically, and perhaps explain everything form the same topological framework.  Part of my motivation in pursuing the fields only approach is emotional as well.  I want to know the underlying reasons for how everything works. Introducing an energy quantum into the solutions just moves the problem for me to something even smaller and causes another level of definition to be required. So until something forces me to think otherwise I am want to pursue the Occam’s razor guided argument that fields are fundamental and are simply the interaction of energy with space.

I have noticed however that in almost every field based model, it is possible to insert an “energy quantum” as a generator of the field and still have principally the same model. But I still find it more comfortable to assume that fields are generated simply by the reaction of energy with space.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 2:00 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Chip,
  Since we are rightly looking for causes, I would say that neither charge nor field topology is fundamental, but that both are the effects of something more fundamental than either. An uncharged photon has topology but not charge. A charged photon has a different topology along with its charge, and has rest mass as well. But rest mass is confined energy and a cause must also be sought for this relative confinement of energy compared to that of an uncharged photon. I think an energy quantum (which comes in different varieties depending on the fundamental physical particle) is the cause of field topology, charge and rest mass, as well as other particle properties.
     Richard

On Apr 3, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi John Macken

It has been very interesting reading some of your work. It seems that each member of this discussion group brings a new perspective and therefore additional insight to the group.

One of the background experimental artifacts addressed in models of the electron comprised of a “photon” is of course the annihilation reaction where an electron and positron release two gamma ray photons. The notion that the photon and the electron are both oscillations of spacetime is consistent with that as well. In the confined photon electron models which display topological charge, the photon is changed in the spin trajectory and orientation of its fields, so calling it a photon still, is taking some creative license which we all recognize.  Your way of stating the electron structure may be more accurate. Several of us have described various aspects of the fields in the electron and how they differ from the fields in the photon.  However, not only is space oscillating in these particles, those oscillations, the reaction of energy and space, create fields, as you have also addressed.  I want to spend a significant bit more time studying your work.  Thank you.

Regarding the photon spin, orbital angular momentum, and polarization:  Do you have an idea of the photon’s internal field topology which can explain both spin and orbital angular momentum?

Hi Richard

As far as I can tell, one significant difference in your electron model and the models which display a charge due to the field topology of the confined photon, is the assumption that charge is elemental, versus the assumption that charge is topologically generated, otherwise the models a fairly similar.  I like the topologically generated view, because it not only yields a viable electron model, but it also posits a cause for charge. But until we can find a way to prove that concept with experiment it seems it remains a matter of personal preference? Do you have any thoughts about an experiment which might be able to prove or disprove the topological origin of charge?

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 5:35 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Martin,
    A charged photon would not be a massless object, so you would be right. A charged photon would have mass as an electron, a muon or a tau. But a charged photon would have spin 1/2 hbar and would be a fermion (since it is an electron.)
          Richard

On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:

Dear Richard,
It just struck me that if you want to hold on to a charged photon as a concept, it should actually be a W-boson, another very illusive thing to describe. What I am saying is, that in case I would be right that there cannot be such a thing as a charged photon as a massless object,  indeed there is a massive object that is a spin 1 boson with charge. It may not have some double loop though…
Well, just a thought to see if we can keep as much on board as possible…
Best, 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 Richard Gauthier
Sent: vrijdag 3 april 2015 18:48
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

John,
   I very much appreciate your welcoming and open approach to ideas that you may not agree with. You were very kind to include me in a group e-mail discussion last year about your recent article on the electron. This inspired me to study your and Martin’s 1997 electron model in more detail, and to review Vivian’s article as well as take a deeper look at Hestenes’ and Rivas' models of the electron as a helically moving light-speed electric charge, which came from their Dirac equation analyses. Then, in combination with rediscovering Dirac’s Nobel lecture quote about the electron moving at the speed of light but only being observable moving at less than the speed of light due to its small amplitude and high frequency motion, various ideas and results kind of synthesized and the relativistic charged photon model of the electron emerged. That would not have happened so soon (if at all) without my having had the opportunity to openly exchange views with you, Martin and Vivian and several of your other colleagues, which I am very grateful for. Chip’s work has also been very inspiring to me. I feel that we all may have found different pieces of, or at least clues to, the electron-photon puzzle.
     Richard

On Apr 2, 2015, at 8:41 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:

My dear Chip,

There is absolutely nothing to apologise about. I should apologise as well, if it comes to that, for singling that thing out (when there is much more in the general discussion we have all been having). It is only through discussion, and seeing what others make of an exposition, that one can find the flaws in ones own presentations. Provided the questioner is serious and thoughtful, and of good will, it is pretty much, for me, the most valuable thing there is!

So thank you for getting the wrong end of the stick there. This particular one (together with Richard going the same way) - has been very valuable to me. The fault lies, if any, in our poor explanation of just what we are talking about - a fault I will try to rectify in future work.

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:26 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
Hi John W and Martin

I would like to apologize for referring to your model form the 1997 paper as based on a “charge ribbon”.
That was clearly an erroneous oversimplification.  Will change the wording in my discussions and papers to try to avoid misrepresenting.

Your work has been a tremendous inspiration and I do not want to misrepresent it in any way.

Warmest Regards

Chip


From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:51 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Chip:

It is interesting, isn’t it? Here’s another one:

With a small correction factor Δ related to binding energy, we can say this:

<image001.gif>    = 1.60218  × 10-19 Coulombs



ε0 = 8.854187817 x 10-12

4π = 12.56637061

c3 = 26.94400241 x 1024

With no correction for binding energy we can calculate electron charge as:

√(ε0/4πc3) = √(8.854187817 × 10-12 / 338.5883200×1024)  =  √(2.6150304 × 10-38)  = 1.61710 × 10-19

This is within 1% of the measured value of 1.60218 × 10-19 Coulombs.


Regards
John D


From: Chip Akins<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:56 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Hi John D

Interesting stuff about Planck’s constant.

2.42631 × 10-12 m is the physical wavelength of the confined photon in my electron model.

Chip


From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 3:43 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

John:

The paper looks interesting. If you wish I’ll get back to you on it properly at a later date. Meanwhile take a look athttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610066 and at http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19084/ by a medical doctor called Andrew Worsley. He talks about “harmonic quintessence”, and stuff like this:

Planck units are based on the properties of space. The Planck length is 1.616199×10−35 metres. It’s defined using the speed of light, Planck’s constant of action h, and the gravitational constant G. It can be written (using the reduced Planck’s constant) as ℓP=√(ћG/c³). We can replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value with appropriate dimensionality. The expression 4πn/√c³ still yields the Planck length. But if we now set n to the value 1 whilst retaining its dimensionality, then with a very small correction factor δ related to binding energy, the result is a different length. It is however familiar:

<image002.gif>= 2.42631 × 10-12 metres


Regards
John D


From: Vivian Robinson<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:49 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

John,

You are in. I look forward to receiving your contributions to the structure of photons and electrons.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 01/04/2015, at 9:26 AM, "chandra" <chandra at phys.uconn.edu<mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>> wrote:

Welcome, John M.!
I am glad to see that you are “on board” finally!
Please, feel free to read up the “archived” discussions and present your views using brief quotations to remind the readers the connection to the earlier discussions.
Chandra.

Michael: Please, send out the instructions as to how to access the archived discussions.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:25 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Hello,

I would like to join the Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Group.  I am John Macken and I presented a paper titled “Spacetime-based model of EM radiation” at the Nature of Light V conference in 2013.  I have also submitted an abstract to make another presentation at the 2015 conference.

I am very interested models of the internal structure of an electron and other particles.  I have a paper that will be published next month which deals with particles, fields and forces. A preprint is available at:
http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf

I believe that I can make significant contributions to your discussion group.

Sincerely,


John Macken

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

________________________________
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atjohnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
________________________________
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atjohnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


________________________________
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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/20150409/7fc1e9ab/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MatrixCl13.tex
Type: application/x-tex
Size: 14732 bytes
Desc: MatrixCl13.tex
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150409/7fc1e9ab/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MatrixCl13.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 114142 bytes
Desc: MatrixCl13.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150409/7fc1e9ab/attachment-0001.pdf>