[General] Photon Spin

Sun Apr 26 05:21:18 PDT 2015

Dear Bob,
Welcome, see some answers below (in blue)

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 robert hudgins
Sent: zondag 26 april 2015 4:48
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Spin

Dear Friends of Light,
Pardon my intrusion on your discussion.  I have been warned that I will be excluded unless  I actively participate.

Chip's diagram's are beautiful!  His skill is enviable.  However, it provokes questions.  Why spin h and not 1/2?  Are colors charge related?
What this art means is for Chip to answer, of course.
But I can try to have a go at it, just for a laugh later on when you may see how stupid I am. I see something intriguing, the spiral may indicate this is a circularly polarized photon traveling away/towards us, the blue lines being E field going in, the red E fields going out. So it looks like a traveling wave to me which, then, should have spin h.
The photon may be a useful abstraction for expressing the way light energy is packaged, rather than a stable, traceable entity. After the photon energy has been assembled it may travel as a loosely entangled assembly of EM waves that may follow unpredictable paths-- until they are condensed  and captured by a resonator.   Though the electron is clearly more discreet, it might also travel as an assembly of waves that pass through both openings of a double slit while engaging in constructive or destructive interference.
Yes the wave must go through both slits, note the following: A French team of scientists, led by Physicists Yves Couder and Emmanuel Fort have done something amazing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_analogs_in_quantum_mechanics
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-fluid-dynamics-mimic-quantum-mechanics.html
I believe they have done the double slit experiment too, the silicone droplet goes through one slit only, but the waves through both slits.
I am having conceptual difficulty imagining a topological twist that totally conceals only the positive charge of a photon.
So have I. Nonetheless we can only know by setting up a complete theory. The topology will be required, but it may not be enough. Negative refractive index may be required, making the electron a "meta-material entity".

Is an EM wave having only negative polarity a plausible construct?  Are electrons without a positive partners being created with any frequency today?
No, charge appears very rigorously conserved.

Thanks for your patience,
Bob
________________________________
From: chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:59:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson
Hi All

Just finished computing a possible field topology for a photon with spin h.
Viewed from the longitudinal axis:
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D08029.B0D5F210]
And the side...
[cid:image002.png at 01D08029.B0D5F210]
Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 6:47 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson

Dear Chandra,
I agree. I think that Einstein was even more right than he realized himself, but the future must show us.
Bohr did a great job on finding the structure of the atom and introduced a revoltionary way of thinking to hold up the postulates required. That way of thinking, however, is merely a scafolding, and it should be removed to see the truth and beauty lying hidden behind it.
Copenhagen interpretation is now no more than a dogma that hampers progress!
Cheers, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 25 apr. 2015 om 01:32 heeft chandra <chandra at phys.uconn.edu<mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>> het volgende geschreven:
Friends:
For a brief moment, allow me to change the subject. Freeman Dyson is an excellent writer. In the last part  of his "Book Review" article (attached), Dyson beautifully summarizes the three philosophical positions of Einstein (Classical), Bohr (Duality) and the current generation (Quantum-Only). To save time and to get to the philosophy segment, jump to the bottom of the picture showing Bohr and Einstein goofing and relaxing!
My philosophical position is more in line with Einstein; while acknowledging that the one of the three key reasons behind the emergence of quantum uncertainty is "because the processes in the second layer are unobservable" (Dyson). This is why I have proposed, with demonstrated experiments in my book ("Causal Physics"), that when we start framing our enquiring postulates to imagine and visualize the invisible interaction processes, the nature start to become a lot more transparent even within the current QM formalisms. Further, this philosophy of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPME) shows that current QM, in spite of its great successes, a next generation formalism with deeper levels of enquiry has to be developed by the next generation. In other words, I am suggesting that our Knowledge Gatekeepers should change their blind devotion to currently successful theories and encourage the next generation to come up with various serious but radically different possible approaches.  Our conference platform is one such example.
If we do not deliberately frame our enquiring questions to visualize the invisible aspects of nature's interaction processes; we will forever remain in the darkness of duality. Duality represents ignorance; it does not represent new or better knowledge. We have to go beyond Bohr.
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:46 AM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Articles of interest

Dear David and everyone,
Sounds as though MIT does a bit of a better job of promoting itself than I do (what a surprise!).
There is nothing much new in looking at single electrons. SLAC was doing this for years in HEP with its linear accelerator.  For that matter Millikan was sensitive to single electrons with his oil-drop experiment - and the school I went to was enlightened enough to let me do this experiment myself at the age of sixteen or so. What is marvelous is that they can make it sound as though detecting one electron something sexy! Robert Hadfield (in our group) is in the business of detecting single photons and John Weaver (in our group) has huge capability to look at individual electrons with some of his work as well. This stuff is widely published!
More important than looking at detecting single electrons (easy enough!) is looking at the underlying  sub-electron structure. Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's I was in the business of looking at just that. I designed a single electron electrometer sensitive at down to about a thousandth of the electron charge. If you look at my Google scholar page you can find several papers related to this. The device could also be used as a single electron pump, to deliver a stream of electrons phase locked to the frequency of a varying gate potential.  My paper (see attached), looking at the electron sub-structure delivered electrons one-at-a-time and probe the profile of the individual electron wave-function with a resolution of better than a tenth of its de Broglie wavelength. This experimental work did not stop when I left the field of course. Leo Kouwenhoven, in particular, spent many years investigating my single-electron electrometer device (and creating new ones) in the last quarter of a century. There is now a very great deal of experimental information about the inner structure of matter, electrons (and photons) with which to work.
What was lacking then, and is still not widely accepted now, is a proper theoretical framework within which to interpret this inner structure. This is what we have to do. Firstly develop the theoretical framework and secondly get the message out.
We have to convince people we are not crazies and that this is serious, new science. That is what will be hard. Any communications of this to the outside world needs to get rid of the speculative , ill informed, or just plain wrong stuff that is perfectly ok within the context of an online discussion or over a pint or two, but not ok at all if we wish to make a serious attempt at convincing the outside world.
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 David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:11 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] Articles of interest
Science moves on...two articles of interest for the discussion.

Detecting a single electron
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/magnetic-system-detects-single-electrons-0421

Detecting photons on the fly
http://spie.org/x113450.xml

<1504_Einstein&Philosophy.docx>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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 hudginswr at msn.com<mailto:hudginswr at msn.com> Click here to unsubscribe <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/hudginswr%40msn.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150426/ae9d8fca/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 21767 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150426/ae9d8fca/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 153832 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150426/ae9d8fca/attachment-0001.png>