[General] Questionnaire

Sun Aug 2 19:07:53 PDT 2015

Hi Richard

The question of whether the “photon” is inherently quantized, or just appears quantized to us, through our observation of the reaction of the quantized emitters and absorbers, seems to be an important aspect for creating a full understanding of the nature of “photons”, and their reaction with particles. 

The process of emission is a quantized process, as is the process of absorption. But since a photon can be any number of wavelengths, depending on the quantized configuration of the emission process, it seems that the photon itself cannot be strongly quantized, and may have no inherent quantization at all, meaning no forces in itself which cause it to be quantized.  We know that fermions have forces which cause their resonant nature and quantization.

If I understand Martin’s challenge, it is to show that the photon must be inherently quantized, and not just quantized because of the emitter and absorber. ??

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 7:54 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire

Martin,

   That’s fine. But why focus on the photon as not a particle but a process? The emitter, electromagnetic field and absorber are processes also and not particles. So what is the source of existence and stability of all these? Everything is process. So where do we go from here? Quantum effects are also process. Does that not make them less physical? 

          Richard

On Aug 2, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> > wrote:

Richard, not true. How does it work?

It only proves the end result, the quantized transfer, but not whether the field is intrinsically quantized.

There is an aweful lot of shit and confusion and parottery ( if that is a concept) about this. So, please dont quote it unless you can really explain why it makes the difference.

My position is actually that this is impossible at the deepest level!

But the consequence of that is that it is also impossible to make a description of a photon as being a particle! Because it is only a process, and that does not require existence and stability by itself, it aquires it within the context of the exchange of energy and angular momentum by emitter, electromagnetic field and absorber. This is why the process can have any number of wavelenghts, any polarization and be entangled.

Cheers, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 3 aug. 2015 om 02:14 heeft Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven:

Hello Martin,

   Thanks for your challenge to the group.

   I’m quoting from the Wikipedia article “Photon” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon :  "Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-2> [3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-3>  starting with Compton scattering <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering>  of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_%28physics%29> . "

The abstract of reference [2] titled 

Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence, 

H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel

Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 – Published 12 September 1977

says: "The phenomenon of antibunching of photoelectric counts has been observed in resonance fluorescence experiments in which sodium atoms are continuously excited by a dye-laser beam. It is pointed out that, unlike photoelectric bunching, which can be given a semiclassical interpretation, antibunching is understandable only in terms of a quantized electromagnetic field. The measurement also provides rather direct evidence for an atom undergoing a quantum jump."

You seem to be claiming that there is no definite experimental proof that light itself is quantized. Does the above experiment contradict your claim?  You may say that the above experiment or any single experiment or group of experiments cannot be completely conclusive. Well, is any physics experiment completely conclusive about a theory? Are you asking the impossible when you ask for conclusive experimental proof?

 all the best,

      Richard

On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> > wrote:

Dear Andrew,

I have looked at the questionnaire and realized that the one, most important question is missing!

Question 2 is closest to it, but not quite as straight to the point.

The question is to my opinion the most fundamental of any to be asked in the context of the nature of the photon. It is: Does quantization of the transfer of electromagnetic energy and angular momentum (the process that is mediated by what we call “photon”) resides in the electromagnetic field itself or in the emitter and absorber?  Or something else, perhaps.

Anyone may take a position of what he or she likes best of course, and I have my preference of what I would think it to be.

But if one takes a position as being the truth, it should be accompanied by reference to experimental proof.

I bet that no one can come up with any reference that is conclusive about this! It is the pink elephant in the room…if it is there we should make it explicit!!!!

Best regards, 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> mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: zaterdag 1 augustus 2015 6:03
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: Mary Fletcher
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire

Dear John M,

Looking forward to talking w you at the conference. 

I recognized that most of us have too much to say on most of the items. Could you perhaps provide chapter or page of sections of your book that pertain to the questions? That would give an interested party a handy guide to the more detailed info and to your book.

Andrew

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:02 PM, < <mailto:john at macken.com> john at macken.com> wrote:

Hello Everyone,

I am currently in Iceland and starting tomorrow I will be in Greenland for 7 days. Most of that time I will definitely be out of email contact and the rest of the time it is questionable if I will have any internet. I will be returning to the US just before the conference. I will arrive in San Diego about noon on Monday, Aug. 10. Therefore I will miss the Sunday night get-together.

I have found it very hard to write the concise answers required for the questionnaire. The reason is that I have much more detailed answers for each of the questions than most other people in the group. For example, I have just finished what I believe is the final substantive draft of my book titled “The Universe is Only Spacetime”. It is now over 400 pages. The portion of the book addressed by the questions extends from chapter 4 to chapter 11. This is a total of 134 pages. Furthermore, I get into substantial quantitative detail and proofs which make short answers impossible.

For example, with electrons I have explained and quantified two components of the electron model. This model does not derive either the electron’s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, if these two numbers are provided, I can derive the electron’s energy, inertia, gravitational curvature of spacetime, gravitational force with another fundamental particle, and electrostatic force with another fundamental particle. This derivation comes from the properties of spacetime and the particle model. If I just proceed from first principles, I generate the electrostatic force if both particles had Planck charge rather than elementary charge e. In an earlier email, John W. considered this to be a defect. He said that I had missed the correct value by more than a factor of 100 (missed by 1/α). This is ironic because I was quite happy with this answer. I was calculation the force assuming a coupling constant of 1, not the electron’s force with a mysterious coupling constant of alpha (α).

I believe that this is the first time that a model of a fundamental particle has been able to generate the gravitational force and the electrostatic force even assuming a coupling constant of 1. If you know of any other model which has passed this test, I would be interested in hearing about it.  

I have not mentioned it before, but my model also generates the strong force. The model also produces asymptotic freedom when quarks are bound together into hadrons and explains why the strong force increases as the separation distance is increased beyond the natural distance which produces asymptotic freedom. (all in the book.)

On another point, I believe that any model of particles that does not include waves which modulate the rate of time will never be able to generate either curved spacetime or the gravitational force. It is my understanding that Chandra’s CTF model only involves the 3 spatial dimensions without involving time. If he introduces time into his model, then my model and his model would be very close.

Finally, I object to characterizing an electron as being a confined photon. I believe that a photon and an electron are both made of the same fundamental building block. Therefore photons can be converted to electron/positron pairs and vice versa. They are closely related, but saying that an electron is an oscillating confined photon implies that a photon is the fundamental building block of the universe or at least particles. It also implies that we will never be able to understand an electric field, a magnetic field or a charge in terms of a distortion of a more fundamental component.

I explain all of these in terms of a distortion of energetic spacetime. I claim that an electric field, a magnetic field and even a gravitational field have both an oscillating component and a non-oscillating component.   I give equations for these in the book. I show that the oscillating component gives the correct energy density to the electric and magnetic field. I also propose that a gravitational field has an energy density. I combine this with the energy of the spacetime field and show how the interaction generates a black hole when the energy density of the gravitational field at a particular frequency matches the energy density of spacetime at that frequency.

While I have finished this most recent revision of the book, it has not been loaded onto the website yet. There is a problem with the website that is preventing new material from being loaded onto the website. This problem is being worked on by one of my sons and should be fixed in a few days.

John M.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Andrew Meulenberg" < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:57am
To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: "Mary Fletcher" < <mailto:marycfletcher at gmail.com> marycfletcher at gmail.com>
Subject: [General] Questionnaire

Dear Folks,

We have 4 contributors so far. It is very illuminating. I hope that at some point we can get convergence on at least some of the questions. John W. has added a question that everyone can add to the end of the list:

QUESTION 14: By what mechanism is the electron confined?

I do not have time to answer the good comments in the individual emails right now (wife and premature twins, Grant and Remington, are in the hospital and all doing well). However, I hope to have time at the Conference to do so in person for those present.

I will not be arriving until 8:16PM on Sunday evening, so I cannot join the group (where ever) until about 9PM. Please do not wait until then to get started. I will be leaving Friday evening.

My time and schedule are somewhat constrained by that of Bob Hudgins and Mary Fletcher, who will arrive earlier in the day. We are planning on renting a car and staying at a motel in South Bay where the rates are more reasonable. if anyone else is doing something similar, please let me know.

Best to all,

Andrew

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> 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 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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20150802/984f0a86/attachment.htm>