[General] Photons

[Chip Akins]

Hi Vivian

 

A few days ago you suggested we need to know more about the photon.

 

I agree that we need to understand the photon in order to use it in a model of an electron. We need to do this because we cannot create an accurate model without an accurate foundation. Accuracy is one of our most important goals because we must be at least as accurate as quantum physics, and then add full breadth, remove ambiguities, and show a wider, more tenable application of the new theory, than that of current quantum physics.

 

Photon modeling is an interesting subject.  We have to wade through all the current interpretations of experiment, look for evidence, and construct a plausible, and then testable model.

 

The form and structure of the photon may, and probably does change significantly when confined in an electron. It occurs to me that a photon may be multiple wavelengths in free space but when wound around the double loop of the electron, it would still, in many respects, look like it is one wavelength in the electron, with constructive interference of the fields adding together in a circular, double loop, and a one wavelength structure. So it may be that a photon can be any of several different configurations. This may be part of the problem in solving the puzzle regarding photons.

 

However it is more difficult to model the forces and understand frequency-to-energy relationships if the photon is more than one wavelength. Extending the photon beyond one wavelength seems to reduce the local energy density, which would seem to change the frequency in some forms of a causal model. For that reason I currently think that photons, as they appear when confined as electrons, are probably one wavelength.  When we envision a circular oscillation, emitting a photon, and giving up all of its energy, as in electron-positron annihilation, it seems the process will be one wavelength in duration. This is another reason that I feel that it is safe to use a one wavelength photon for the electron model. However, “photons” emitted during other, more prolonged reactions may be many wavelengths.

 

If all photons had measureable spin 1, and planar polarization did not exist, it would be much easier to nail down and envision a photon model. But photons exhibit the ability to be plane polarized, or circularly polarized. Waves can pass through one another so it may be feasible to construct a model of a plane polarized photon from two oppositely rotating transverse fields.

 

It has been suggested in this forum, that photons can be observed with any spin value up to the limit of +/- hbar.  I would like to see some references to experiment which also draws this conclusion. Does anyone in the group have such references?

 

How do we fashion an experiment which can accurately measure the length of a photon? Since the emitters and absorbers are quantized in their ability to emit and absorb energy, we are not able to detect the photon until its energy is absorbed, which hides length information from us in the usual quantized emission, absorption process.  Emission process lengths for some photons, seem to be quite long, and indicates that the number of wavelengths in a “photon” is dependent on the emitter and the emission process.

 

Of course there is the possibility that photons are created as packets of energy due to the quantized nature of the emitters and absorbers, and that in all other respects they are just EM waves. But the quantization effects, forces due to fields, may indicate some level of quantization even within the photon. The property of spin angular momentum implies a sustained configuration for the photon.  The existence of sustained and conserved spin angular momentum in a photon has some implications regarding the nature of fields and forces.

 

In electrical engineering there is an observable phenomenon which shows that in general, a resonant EM system has the magnetic energy 90 degrees displaced from (in advance of) the electrical energy. If we have a double looped photon, confined in an electron, and this EM resonant condition is met, the magnetic portion of the confined wave is on exactly the opposite side of the electron related to the electric portion, at any instant.  This spin configuration is significantly different from that of the imagined photon.  Such a condition makes a clear delineation between spin ½ particles and photons, and may have a bearing on the specific nature of quantization in mass carrying particles.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 4:14 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Spacetime-based Model of the Universe

 

Dear All,

 

The themes of this discussion group are the "Nature of Light and Particles .." and "electrons as oscillating photons .." or otherwise. It arose from John W and others considering the possibility that electrons can be explained as "double hooped electromagnetic oscillations", "rotating" or "toroidal" photons" or similar descriptions. We should all be aware that attempts to attribute a structure to electrons immediately takes us out of the realm of quantum mechanics with its uncertainty principle limitation. As quantum mechanics is one of the pillars of modern physics, it sets up a "collision course" with "standard model" physicists. Taking on the "establishment" is not an easy task. (It is also well outside the theme of this discussion group.) But neither is it an impossible task. In the final analysis, experimental observation is reality and even accepted "standard models" will eventually give way to experimental reality. Only by coming up with experimentally verified data that is predicted by a non standard model theory can we hope to make any progress. 

 

The various models for the electron are said to come from properties of a photon making two revolutions within its wavelength. This gives individual electrons their spin of half hbar as well as the reason for E = mc**2, E being the photon travelling in a straight line at c and m being the same photon travelling at c in a circle of radius hbar/2mc. Of course these depend upon the nature of the photon, which is the basis of this discussion.

 

Several presentations about the nature of photons have been forwarded. There seems to be general agreement that linear photons come from Maxwell's equations. They have energy equal to Planck's constant (h) multiplied by frequency (nu). In free space they travel at the velocity of light c, having wavelength lambda = c/nu. Their electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to each other and can rotate giving circularly polarised photons. Various suggestions are made about their measured spin 1 x (hbar) property. Some suggest spin is angular momentum and circularly polarised photons have spin 1 x hbar) while plane polarised photons do not have angular momentum. Even here there is disagreement. This brings the discussion back to the questions "What are photons" and "How do you describe them?" After all it is the properties of the photon that will determine some of the properties of electrons under this general discussion group. 

 

So, getting back to the discussion topic. Does anyone want to expand on the above description of the properties of photons? I would like to suggest this is done by describing the physical principle first. In describing the property, it would help to give experimental verification for the property attributed. For example, if a photon has n oscillations giving it spatial length of n x lambda, rather than a length of just 1 x lambda, please indicate the experimental evidence for it and why this is interpreted as n and  not some other number. 

 

As mentioned earlier, if we want to be taken seriously we need to make progress against the standard model. This group needs to suggest experiments that can be performed and will give different results from the standard model. Of all the ideas forwarded to date, only one experimentally measurable prediction has been suggested to this discussion group about the nature of the electron. That is, an electron is not a point particle, being instead a double hooped electromagnetic oscillation, rotating photon, or whatever. Calculations have been referenced to papers by several of us, which suggest that its rest radius is hbar/2mc, or 1.93 x 10**-13 m. This radius diminishes with increasing speed, being < 10**-18 m at TeV. There is some discussion as to whether the radius diminishes according to 1/gamma or 1/(gamma)**2, but that is something that can be checked experimentally. It has been suggested that experiments to carry this out could be performed for only a few million dollars and would give very significant results.

 

You need to look at this discussion group from the perspective of "standard model" physicists viewing all the correspondence. (Yes, spying on email does happen.) Any standard model physicist would see that Chandra has presented us with a wonderful opportunity to give our ideas, which are not considered mainstream, an exposure to some "mainstream" physicists for discussions on the nature of light and particles. Much of the discussion presented so far has been made without supporting measurements. More than one participant has chosen to introduce "pet theories" that have no direct link to the structure of photons or electrons. What do you think standard model physicists would think? A brief answer is that its participants can't keep to the topics and appear more interested ideas than facts. In short, a group that is not demonstrating any reason why it should be taken seriously. This is a discussion on the nature of light (photons) and particles, particularly the electron. Introducing concepts such as general relativity and gravity in discussions of the nature of light and particles (electrons) is not helpful. 

 

Gentlemen (and ladies if you have joined in), we are all experienced scientists. We all know this topic is a general discussion on the nature of light and electrons (other particles can be included where appropriate). Let us stick to those topics in a serious manner. A position paper should represent a position on the nature of light and particles. Describing a position on anything else is wasting time unless it is used directly to support the nature of light and electrons. As was mentioned earlier, if describing a property of a photon, please give a reason for it to have that property, physical reasons preferred. 

 

John M, you informed me you had a model of a photon that was better than the single linear electromagnetic oscillation you read in my original electron paper. This is what I and others want to know. The more information about the nature of the photon that is supported by observation the better position we will be in to determine "the nature of light and electrons". But please, support it with experimental observation or a suggested experiment that could verify your hypothesis. So far you have only stated you have ".. ideas (which you say) can be experimentally supported, ..". I and others look forward to reading the experimental support for 6). This is not the right forum to show experimental support for the other topics. 

 

John W and I have previously invited anyone who can make suggestions for other possible experiments that could also be used for determining the correctness of otherwise of their model. In order to achieve some useful outcome from this great opportunity Chandra has made available to us, we must remain focussed on the topic. For an alternative theory on anything to be accepted over the current "standard model" interpretation, it must make testable predictions. If anything useful is to come out of this great opportunity Chandra is presenting, it will be best measured by the number of testable predictions forwarded by this discussion group. The only way standard model physicists will take this seriously is when our predictions match observations that are not supported from "standard model" predictions. I would like to ask that the discussion keep to experimentally observed (preferably with a brief description or reference) or testable statements. 

 

You may take my request as my "Position Statement" for this discussion group.

 

Cheers,

 

Vivian Robinson

 

 

 

On 07/04/2015, at 6:09 AM, "John Macken" <john at macken.com <mailto:john at macken.com> > wrote:





Now that Chandra has given permission to propose new ideas which can be experimentally supported, I feel as if I can freely state my position.  The following is very condensed position statement.  A less condensed version of my ideas is the previously referenced 17 page article which has just been published today.  The complete unabridged explanation is a 370 page book which is currently undergoing revision, but the older revision is available at  <http://onlyspacetime.com/> http://onlyspacetime.com/

 

Position Statement

1)     The universe is only 4 dimensional spacetime.  All particles, fields and forces are made of the single building block that will be called “the spacetime field”.

2)     The spacetime field is a sea of small amplitude waves which modulate the distance between points by ± Planck length (Lp) and modulate the rate of time so that the difference between perfect clocks can equal ± Planck time (Tp). These “Planck amplitude” waves are primarily at Planck frequency but these effects occur at all frequencies below Planck frequency.

3)     Spacetime has impedance of Zs = c3/G = 4.4x1035 kg/s.  The strain amplitude of the small amplitude waves has dimensionless strain amplitude of:  As = Lp/λ = Tpω where lambda bar (λ) is λ/2π.  This amplitude combined with the impedance of spacetime can be shown to generate the characteristics of zero point energy.  In particular, the energy density is equal to Planck energy density Up ≈ 10113 J/m3. This is the source of vacuum energy, virtual particle pairs, quantum foam, etc.

4)     All the mysteries of quantum mechanics (QM) can be explained and conceptually understood when particles, fields and forces are characterized as the result of these small amplitude waves in spacetime.  General relativity (GR) deals with the macroscopic properties of the universe.  However, even GR supports the QM model of the vacuum being proposed because the energy density of the vacuum can be calculated from the impedance of spacetime obtained from GR.

5)     The Planck amplitude waves in spacetime lack angular momentum and are a perfect superfluid. Superfluids have the property of isolating angular momentum into quantized units of angular momentum (rotating vortices). Fermions are just ½ ħ of angular momentum causing a quantized rotation in a small portion of the spacetime field. 

6)     An electron is a Planck amplitude wave in spacetime possessing ½ ħ of angular momentum.  The wavelength of this wave is equal to the electron’s Compton wavelength and the structure is a rotating spacetime dipole that is one Compton wavelength in circumference.  This wave-based model of an electron which is a “single loop” with radius equal to the electron’s reduced Compton wavelength λc = ħ/mc. This rotating structure can be mathematically analyzed.  For example, the structure corresponds to the electron’s energy, inertia, relativistic effects, forces and approximate angular momentum. 

7)     The model predicts that the spacetime field has boundary conditions (maximum amplitude and frequency) which makes the spacetime field a nonlinear medium for waves in spacetime. Gravity is the result of this nonlinear effect. Therefore gravitational effects scale with wave amplitude squared (to a first approximation). This prediction is confirmed because it generates the gravitational curvature of spacetime produced by fundamental particles and the gravitational force between two fundamental particles.   

8)     If the fine structure constant is supplied, then the model also gives the correct electrostatic force between two electrons at arbitrary separation. Furthermore, it predicts a unification of the gravitational force and the electrostatic force. This prediction is verified to the extent that the Coulomb law equation and Newtonian gravitational equation can both be generated from wave equations where the only difference is that the electrostatic force scales with wave amplitude not squared and the gravitational force is generated when wave amplitude is squared.  Higher order terms have been ignored, so it is possible that the equations of general relativity can be generated with further analysis.

9)     If all fiends are also obtained from the QM properties of spacetime, then charge, electric fields and photons should all be quantifiable distortions of the spacetime field.  A new constant of nature is proposed which has units of meter/coulomb.  When this constant is used, the Coulomb force constant (1/4πεo) becomes Planck force c4/G. Also, the impedance of free space Zo ≈ 377 Ω becomes the impedance of spacetime Zs = c3/G.  This implies that photons propagate in the medium of the spacetime field, just like gravitational waves.  The spacetime field becomes the new aether.  The particle-like properties of photons are explained by photons possessing quantized angular momentum. Energy is not quantized; angular momentum is the source of all quantization.

10) The Big Bang and the expansion of the universe can be explained as a transformation of the properties of the spacetime field. 

 

John M.

 

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au> viv at etpsemra.com.au
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?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/20150421/c30bfc63/attachment-0001.htm>