From richgauthier at gmail.com Wed Feb 11 10:52:49 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:52:49 -0800 Subject: [General] testing and electron/charged photon article Message-ID: <1DC6C925-8AF2-4341-8F33-A49EEA1D972F@gmail.com> Hi, Please take at look at https://www.academia.edu/10527918/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength . Looking forward to comments. Richard From mules333 at gmail.com Thu Feb 12 20:04:17 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:34:17 +0530 Subject: [General] testing and electron/charged photon article In-Reply-To: <1DC6C925-8AF2-4341-8F33-A49EEA1D972F@gmail.com> References: <1DC6C925-8AF2-4341-8F33-A49EEA1D972F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, It was a draft of this paper of Richard's that triggered the present group's upcoming 'gatthering' on the topic of the photonic electron. The reason that I picked up on it was the two abstracts (attached) that my colleagues and I were submitting to the Nature of light conference. As a result of the exchange that Richard and I had soon thereafter, and a quick check with Chandra about the appropriateness of an extension of his conference, I added a third abstract (attached) that seems to be almost the same as the second. However, the 2nd paper deals with the nature of alternating 'charge' (and 'mass' energy) in a photon and the 3rd continues with how that net neutral charge (and zero rest mass) is 'rectified' to become the net-neutral charge of a massive electron-positron pair that other papers from the group will now describe. Andrew _________________________________________ On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Richard Gauthier wrote: > Hi, > Please take at look at > https://www.academia.edu/10527918/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength > . > Looking forward to comments. > Richard > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: long Abstract Wave interference.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15892 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: long abstract_ Electrical potentials in a standing EM wave.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18884 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: long abstract_ Photon to lepton-pair transition.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20066 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chandra at phys.uconn.edu Wed Feb 18 11:18:36 2015 From: chandra at phys.uconn.edu (chandra) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:18:36 -0500 Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin In-Reply-To: <4EB3484B164D4ABDB164A2211651F881@HPlaptop> References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au> <4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <001801d04a24$13da5c20$3b8f1460$@phys.uconn.edu> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422642@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <4EB3484B164D4ABDB164A2211651F881@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <005701d04baf$b22f7900$168e6b00$@phys.uconn.edu> general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: GravitationalField IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: afield1formiti See Wikipedia : ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime . Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: EinsteinSpeedofLight When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation . Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books &ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: ring_tor1_anim. Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 362 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 12:29:58 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:29:58 -0600 Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin In-Reply-To: <005701d04baf$b22f7900$168e6b00$@phys.uconn.edu> References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au> <4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <001801d04a24$13da5c20$3b8f1460$@phys.uconn.edu> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422642@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <4EB3484B164D4ABDB164A2211651F881@HPlaptop> <005701d04baf$b22f7900$168e6b00$@phys.uconn.edu> Message-ID: <031001d04bb9$af8709c0$0e951d40$@gmail.com> Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia : ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime . Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation . Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books &ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 537 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 304 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 537 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 529 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 479 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 339 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chandra at phys.uconn.edu Wed Feb 18 15:31:31 2015 From: chandra at phys.uconn.edu (chandra) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:31:31 -0500 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Message-ID: <007e01d04bd3$06da0b00$148e2100$@phys.uconn.edu> Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks &field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: GravitationalField IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: afield1formiti See Wikipedia : ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime . Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: EinsteinSpeedofLight When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation . Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books &ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: ring_tor1_anim. Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chandra at phys.uconn.edu Wed Feb 18 15:53:03 2015 From: chandra at phys.uconn.edu (chandra) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:53:03 -0500 Subject: [General] FW: Nobelist dialogue In-Reply-To: References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au> <4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <001801d04a24$13da5c20$3b8f1460$@phys.uconn.edu> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422642@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <4EB3484B164D4ABDB164A2211651F881@HPlaptop> <6ABAACEB-1010-41DC-901A-77BE20D01D31@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009601d04bd6$08f123d0$1ad36b70$@phys.uconn.edu> general at natureoflightandparticles.org Dear David SJ., and All: Let us converge on sending all of our responses through the ?general? web based email, using the above email address. I am now deliberately forwarding my response to David SJ?s email through the ?general? email. Once we all start responding to the ?general? email, we will have all the correspondence archived on the web: natureoflightandparticles.org. Everybody with their personalized pass word have access to the archive. For further enquiry, please, contact my student, Michael Ambroselli: ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu Chandra. Pertaining to this particular subject matter: Dear David SJ., and Richard G.: Let us not feel frustrated so easily. Sometimes it takes a whole century to turn around a century old mis-conception! But we have to keep on working. We have this group. We have a bigger group running the conference for 12 years. We will be holding the 6th biennial conference this August. We do have the momentum of a group who are open to diverse ideas! Chandra. From: David Saint John [mailto:etherdais at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:04 PM To: Richard Gauthier Cc: John Duffield; Adam K; John Williamson; chandra; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Nobelist dialogue Dear Richard (and others), Ugh. I don't quite understand when the transition happened, but at some point statistical behavior may have became as important to particle identity as mass or charge or polarization -- fermions and bosons became nouns rather than verbs. I suspect this has gotten under a few peoples skin, perhaps helping to create parastatistics, anyons, and related ideas. He might be right about your inability to communicate with each other as his initial assertion appears to be an unfortunate consequence of the ossification of concepts in physics. I concur that a photon obeys BE statistics under observed conditions, and that electrons obey FD statistics (perhaps unless they form cooper pairs, in which case things seem a bit fuzzy), but these statistical behaviors are contextualized consequences of many interacting species and wouldn't be the first topic one addresses if you're trying to discuss an underlying mechanism. Dismissal is an unfortunate regularity with these subjects, but you're not alone. I think the metaphor of the cathedral and the bazaar (http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/) applies remarkably well to physics, and the response of 'a tower of the cathedral' to any ideas (even from other cathedral towers) is generally negative - especially if there's any trace of a thought that threatens part of their foundation. With enough effort and attention, the bazaar will eventually break through. Best, -David On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Richard Gauthier wrote: John and all, A short dialogue follows that I just concluded with a physics Nobel laureate. Comments are welcome. Hello Professor, A Ph.D. student at IQC suggested that I might meet you this summer at IQC to discuss a rather out-of-the-box idea -- that the electron is a charged photon having the de Broglie wavelength. I have an article on this topic which I will be presenting at the April APS meeting in Baltimore and at the SPIE photonics conference in San Diego in July at a session on ?What is the photon?. Currently the article is on academia.edu at https://www.academia.edu/10527918/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength and I have attached the article for your convenience. Is this a topic that you would be interested in discussing? Dear Mr.Gauthier, If your theory can explain clearly (as shown rather unambiguously by experiment) why the electron is a fermion and the photon a boson, I think a discussion might be worth while, otherwise not. With best wishes, Hello Professor, The short answer in my charged photon hypothesis is that a charged photon (with charge + or - e) is a fermion while an uncharged photon is a boson. So there is zero contradiction with unambiguous experiments about the electron (my hypothesized charged photon, with charge -e for an electron and +e for a positron) being a fermion and the usual uncharged photon being a boson. The next level answer is that the idea that an electron could be a charged photon was apparently missed by de Broglie and others when de Broglie formulated E=mc^2=hf for a resting electron and E= gamma mc^2 = hf for a moving electron. This is the energy equation for a photon that has a wavelength lambda = h/(gamma m c), and that may be helically circulating as mathematically suggested by Hestene?s and Rivas? analysis of the Dirac equation (referenced in my article) which predicts a light-speed helical motion of the electron?s charge, and is supported by Dirac?s own claim that the electron moves at light-speed but only sub-luminal speed is detected for it. It?s a short step to the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) for the longitudinal wavelength of the light-speed helical charged photon model of the electron, and the proposal that quantum wave functions for the electron are generated by this model. Dear Mr.Gauthier, I?m afraid that our ideas about what constitutes a persuasive argument in physics seem to be so different that I doubt whether a meeting would be useful.Sorry, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 21:13:07 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:43:07 +0530 Subject: [General] Nobelist dialogue In-Reply-To: <6ABAACEB-1010-41DC-901A-77BE20D01D31@gmail.com> References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au> <4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <001801d04a24$13da5c20$3b8f1460$@phys.uconn.edu> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422642@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <4EB3484B164D4ABDB164A2211651F881@HPlaptop> <6ABAACEB-1010-41DC-901A-77BE20D01D31@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Richard, I can see why your ideas were rejected by the 'reader'. If he has no more time than to scan the paper, he will find some good things and some major blanks. The blanks will stop him from looking closely at the good things. I found the good things because I was looking for them. I will describe below, some things that I found based on my models of the electron and photon. I particularly like your derivation of the deBroglie wavelength and the fact that you included his derivation along with yours. This concept is so fundamental to QM and yet, because it has a classical basis (and can be understood by high-school physics students that have had calculus), it 'cannot be mentioned'. This is just like the classical word 'resonance'. Instead of saying the internal resonance of a body, QM must talk of quantum states. Heisenberg's matrix theory (equivalent to the Schrodinger equations) is just the classical solution of a set of simultaneous-linear equations defining the resonances of a system. Diagonalizing the matrix provides the total resonance and resonants of the system. (We will let the mathematically minded of the group phrase that concept properly.) The circular integration about a closed orbit in a uniform 'field' always gives a zero result. However, to close the orbit, it is necessary to have all the conditions equal at the starting and ending point. These different conditions (classical) provide the quantum numbers that are so 'magic'. They define the resonance conditions. The electron is *not* a 'cloud', it is a finite 'body' (but not a point source). The solution to the time-independent Schrodinger equation is a probability cloud that simply identifies properties integrated over all time. This is not an electron. The electron-spin axis should be identified as the source of the helical nature. The deBroglie wavelength, as the pathlength between points of equal angle (phase), is the velocity-dependent description of the electron momentum and much of its nature. It is not related to a dimension of the electron, but to a relativisitic property of its motion. I do not believe that the charge of the electron follows a helical path, the precession of its spin-vector defines that. And, your description gives a nice basis for understanding that. I would like to see this put into the terms of a wrapped photon (moving at slightly less than c in free space) parts of which are forced to exceed that velocity as the whole electron moves. The mass of the electron is the proportionality between the force to cause acceleration and the acceleration required to change its velocity and momentum (m = F/a = d(mv)/dt / dv/dt = d(mv)/dv). Mass shows up physically as a distortion of space. The photon has mass also, but because it is alternating (as the field energy), it has no measureable DC mass (only mass-equivalent energy). [The neutrino has the same condition; but, I believe that it also has an AC mass component that is independent of field strength.] The blanks in your papers (from a quick scan) stem from an initial reaction to the concept of a charged photon. Where do you ever say that a photon is 'charged', but 'net neutral' (as a neutron is charged, but 'net neutral').? Somehow, in the creation of the electron-positron pair (always the pair), the 'charge' is separated. I will be describing the potentials (not charge) of the photon in one of my papers at the conference and h*ow* the AC fields are 'rectified' to become the DC fields (charge) of an electron and positron. I won't be able to start a draft of my contributions until mid-April when I have 2.5 papers due for another conference. All of us have pieces of the puzzle. until we assemble them all in a multilayer and complete approach, I do not believe that many people will pay attention. I propose the we lay the foundations for a Light / Matter Consortium (LMC?) to write and publish a series of joint papers (and John D a book) that has the outline and successive levels of development and detail. The SPIE conference proceedings will provide fundamental references for the pieces (ours and others) in a single location. We can tie-in the earlier papers on the nature of the photon as starting point. I hope that, by the end of the meeting, we will be able to have an outline of all the important points for the photon, the electron and the transitions between them (both ways). I hope to have published the story of electron-positron annihilation by that time. Andrew On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Richard Gauthier wrote: > John and all, > > A short dialogue follows that I just concluded with a physics Nobel > laureate. Comments are welcome. > > Hello Professor, > A Ph.D. student at IQC suggested that I might meet you this summer at > IQC to discuss a rather out-of-the-box idea -- that the electron is a > charged photon having the de Broglie wavelength. I have an article on this > topic which I will be presenting at the April APS meeting in Baltimore and > at the SPIE photonics conference in San Diego in July at a session on "What > is the photon". Currently the article is on academia.edu at > https://www.academia.edu/10527918/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength and > I have attached the article for your convenience. > Is this a topic that you would be interested in discussing? > > Dear Mr.Gauthier, > If your theory can explain clearly (as shown rather unambiguously by > experiment) why the electron is a fermion and the photon a boson, I think > a discussion might be worth while, otherwise not. With best wishes, > > > Hello Professor, > The short answer in my charged photon hypothesis is that a charged > photon (with charge + or - e) is a fermion while an uncharged photon is a > boson. So there is zero contradiction with unambiguous experiments about > the electron (my hypothesized charged photon, with charge -e for an > electron and +e for a positron) being a fermion and the usual uncharged > photon being a boson. The next level answer is that the idea that an > electron could be a charged photon was apparently missed by de Broglie and > others when de Broglie formulated E=mc^2=hf for a resting electron and E= > gamma mc^2 = hf for a moving electron. This is the energy equation for a > photon that has a wavelength lambda = h/(gamma m c), and that may be > helically circulating as mathematically suggested by Hestene's and Rivas' > analysis of the Dirac equation (referenced in my article) which predicts a > light-speed helical motion of the electron's charge, and is supported by > Dirac's own claim that the electron moves at light-speed but only > sub-luminal speed is detected for it. It's a short step to the de Broglie > wavelength h/(gamma mv) for the longitudinal wavelength of the light-speed > helical charged photon model of the electron, and the proposal that quantum > wave functions for the electron are generated by this model. > > Dear Mr.Gauthier, > I'm afraid that our ideas about what constitutes a persuasive argument > in physics seem to be so different that I doubt whether a meeting would be > useful.Sorry, > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From viv at etpsemra.com.au Wed Feb 18 23:03:50 2015 From: viv at etpsemra.com.au (Vivian Robinson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:03:50 +1100 Subject: [General] FW: Nobelist dialogue In-Reply-To: <009601d04bd6$08f123d0$1ad36b70$@phys.uconn.edu> References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au> <4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <001801d04a24$13da5c20$3b8f1460$@phys.uconn.edu> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422642@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <4EB3484B164D4ABDB164A2211651F881@HPlaptop> <6ABAACEB-1010-41DC-901A-77BE20D01D31@gmail.com> <009601d04bd6$08f123d0$1ad36b70$@phys.uconn.edu> Message-ID: Dear Richard (and others) It may help you to understand the Nobel Laureates etc, if you visit the website below. It is President Eisenhower's valedictory address to the nation as he was leaving the White House. Of particular note is his comments about scientific research ? 9 min 30 to 11 min. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY His telling statement was: ?Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite.? Standard model physicists have captured public policy on fundamental science. They will not tolerate alternate ideas as they try to convince the public that what astronomers see represents only 4% of what has to be in the universe for their theories to explain them. In other words their theory of the observed universe differs by 24 times the mass of the observed universe. That doesn't mention the 10**60 + other universes and multiple undetected spatial dimensions they also need to explain what experimentalists measure. Need I go on. They have the ear of government to get all the funds. They point to the great technological advances, claiming credit for what they explained after experimentalists detected the property, as justification for their continued work. No one should be surprised that is the reaction from any member of that elite. They have no desire to lose their status or have their ideas questioned. There is a huge amount of resistance among the general public and scientific community against the standard models. Chandra, it is good to see that you are prepared to consider alternative viewpoints. It helps significantly to get an audience among fellow scientists. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 19/02/2015, at 10:53 AM, "chandra" wrote: > general at natureoflightandparticles.org > > Dear David SJ., and All: Let us converge on sending all of our responses through the ?general? web based email, using the above email address. I am now deliberately forwarding my response to David SJ?s email through the ?general? email. Once we all start responding to the ?general? email, we will have all the correspondence archived on the web: natureoflightandparticles.org. > Everybody with their personalized pass word have access to the archive. For further enquiry, please, contact my student, Michael Ambroselli: ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu > Chandra. > > Pertaining to this particular subject matter: > Dear David SJ., and Richard G.: Let us not feel frustrated so easily. Sometimes it takes a whole century to turn around a century old mis-conception! But we have to keep on working. We have this group. We have a bigger group running the conference for 12 years. We will be holding the 6th biennial conference this August. We do have the momentum of a group who are open to diverse ideas! > > Chandra. > > From: David Saint John [mailto:etherdais at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:04 PM > To: Richard Gauthier > Cc: John Duffield; Adam K; John Williamson; chandra; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > Subject: Re: Nobelist dialogue > > Dear Richard (and others), > > Ugh. I don't quite understand when the transition happened, but at some point statistical behavior may have became as important to particle identity as mass or charge or polarization -- fermions and bosons became nouns rather than verbs. I suspect this has gotten under a few peoples skin, perhaps helping to create parastatistics, anyons, and related ideas. > > He might be right about your inability to communicate with each other as his initial assertion appears to be an unfortunate consequence of the ossification of concepts in physics. I concur that a photon obeys BE statistics under observed conditions, and that electrons obey FD statistics (perhaps unless they form cooper pairs, in which case things seem a bit fuzzy), but these statistical behaviors are contextualized consequences of many interacting species and wouldn't be the first topic one addresses if you're trying to discuss an underlying mechanism. Dismissal is an unfortunate regularity with these subjects, but you're not alone. > > I think the metaphor of the cathedral and the bazaar (http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/) applies remarkably well to physics, and the response of 'a tower of the cathedral' to any ideas (even from other cathedral towers) is generally negative - especially if there's any trace of a thought that threatens part of their foundation. With enough effort and attention, the bazaar will eventually break through. > > Best, > -David > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Richard Gauthier wrote: > John and all, > > A short dialogue follows that I just concluded with a physics Nobel laureate. Comments are welcome. > > Hello Professor, > A Ph.D. student at IQC suggested that I might meet you this summer at IQC to discuss a rather out-of-the-box idea -- that the electron is a charged photon having the de Broglie wavelength. I have an article on this topic which I will be presenting at the April APS meeting in Baltimore and at the SPIE photonics conference in San Diego in July at a session on ?What is the photon?. Currently the article is on academia.edu at https://www.academia.edu/10527918/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength and I have attached the article for your convenience. > Is this a topic that you would be interested in discussing? > > Dear Mr.Gauthier, > If your theory can explain clearly (as shown rather unambiguously by experiment) why the electron is a fermion and the photon a boson, I think a discussion might be worth while, otherwise not. With best wishes, > > > Hello Professor, > The short answer in my charged photon hypothesis is that a charged photon (with charge + or - e) is a fermion while an uncharged photon is a boson. So there is zero contradiction with unambiguous experiments about the electron (my hypothesized charged photon, with charge -e for an electron and +e for a positron) being a fermion and the usual uncharged photon being a boson. The next level answer is that the idea that an electron could be a charged photon was apparently missed by de Broglie and others when de Broglie formulated E=mc^2=hf for a resting electron and E= gamma mc^2 = hf for a moving electron. This is the energy equation for a photon that has a wavelength lambda = h/(gamma m c), and that may be helically circulating as mathematically suggested by Hestene?s and Rivas? analysis of the Dirac equation (referenced in my article) which predicts a light-speed helical motion of the electron?s charge, and is supported by Dirac?s own claim that the electron moves at light-speed but only sub-luminal speed is detected for it. It?s a short step to the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) for the longitudinal wavelength of the light-speed helical charged photon model of the electron, and the proposal that quantum wave functions for the electron are generated by this model. > > Dear Mr.Gauthier, > I?m afraid that our ideas about what constitutes a persuasive argument in physics seem to be so different that I doubt whether a meeting would be useful.Sorry, > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Wed Feb 18 23:26:39 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:26:39 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. [cid:image001.png at 01D04B9C.7D8F7780] Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:image003.png at 01D04BA9.1DA715F0] . This [cid:image005.png at 01D04BA9.1DA715F0] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:image007.png at 01D04BA9.1DA715F0] represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:image009.png at 01D04BA9.1DA715F0] . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image011.png at 01D04BA9.1DA715F0] Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image003.png at 01D04BA9.1DA715F0] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:image017.png at 01D04BA9.1DA715F0] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: [GravitationalField] IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: [afield1form]iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: [EinsteinSpeedofLight] When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. ________________________________ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). ? The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: [ring_tor1_anim]. Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image018.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: image018.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image019.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: image019.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image020.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: image020.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image021.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: image021.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: image009.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: image011.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image017.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: image017.png URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Thu Feb 19 05:01:18 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:01:18 -0600 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks &field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia : ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime . Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation . Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books &ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Thu Feb 19 05:05:05 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:05:05 +0000 Subject: [General] Nobelist dialogue In-Reply-To: <6ABAACEB-1010-41DC-901A-77BE20D01D31@gmail.com> References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au> <4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <001801d04a24$13da5c20$3b8f1460$@phys.uconn.edu> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422642@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <4EB3484B164D4ABDB164A2211651F881@HPlaptop> <6ABAACEB-1010-41DC-901A-77BE20D01D31@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6A0A9F7136F94A34B501B2A0A9F0EBAD@HPlaptop> Richard, Perhaps he was looking for something more succinct. Such as the photon is a boson and the electron is a fermion because two waves can ride over one another but two vortices cannot overlap. But perhaps you were always going to get the brush-off. Such is life. Regards John D From: Richard Gauthier Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:27 PM To: John Duffield Cc: Adam K ; John Williamson ; chandra ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Nobelist dialogue John and all, A short dialogue follows that I just concluded with a physics Nobel laureate. Comments are welcome. Hello Professor, A Ph.D. student at IQC suggested that I might meet you this summer at IQC to discuss a rather out-of-the-box idea -- that the electron is a charged photon having the de Broglie wavelength. I have an article on this topic which I will be presenting at the April APS meeting in Baltimore and at the SPIE photonics conference in San Diego in July at a session on ?What is the photon?. Currently the article is on academia.edu at https://www.academia.edu/10527918/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength and I have attached the article for your convenience. Is this a topic that you would be interested in discussing? Dear Mr.Gauthier, If your theory can explain clearly (as shown rather unambiguously by experiment) why the electron is a fermion and the photon a boson, I think a discussion might be worth while, otherwise not. With best wishes, Hello Professor, The short answer in my charged photon hypothesis is that a charged photon (with charge + or - e) is a fermion while an uncharged photon is a boson. So there is zero contradiction with unambiguous experiments about the electron (my hypothesized charged photon, with charge -e for an electron and +e for a positron) being a fermion and the usual uncharged photon being a boson. The next level answer is that the idea that an electron could be a charged photon was apparently missed by de Broglie and others when de Broglie formulated E=mc^2=hf for a resting electron and E= gamma mc^2 = hf for a moving electron. This is the energy equation for a photon that has a wavelength lambda = h/(gamma m c), and that may be helically circulating as mathematically suggested by Hestene?s and Rivas? analysis of the Dirac equation (referenced in my article) which predicts a light-speed helical motion of the electron?s charge, and is supported by Dirac?s own claim that the electron moves at light-speed but only sub-luminal speed is detected for it. It?s a short step to the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) for the longitudinal wavelength of the light-speed helical charged photon model of the electron, and the proposal that quantum wave functions for the electron are generated by this model. Dear Mr.Gauthier, I?m afraid that our ideas about what constitutes a persuasive argument in physics seem to be so different that I doubt whether a meeting would be useful.Sorry, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Thu Feb 19 05:50:15 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:50:15 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dear John (Williamson), Thank you for your explanation about polarized light and photons. I fully support what you have said. Then again there is always something I have in the back of my mind, and it is very much related to this. I am referring to the quantization of the photon: Is it an intrinsic property of the photon, or is it the result the structure of boundary conditions given by emitter and absorber intermediated by an unquantized EM-wave? We mostly believe the first, and incidentally, this would , with high degree of certainty IMPLY the existence of circularly polarized light as the base state! Harry Atwater gave a talk at SPIE Photonics West and he referred to photons being quantized and proof of plasmons being quantized in the same way. I asked him about the photon quantization afterwards, he said I should look up Leonard Mandel, 1980ies (he died in 2001 so we cannot ask him). Haven?t come round to do so yet? Best, Martin I will try to find out, but help is very welcome This may be a starting point: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milephotons/full/milephotons11.html 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 John Williamson Sent: donderdag 19 februari 2015 8:27 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. [cid:image001.png at 01D04C50.0E7FB710] Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:image002.png at 01D04C50.0E7FB710] . This [cid:image003.png at 01D04C50.0E7FB710] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:image004.png at 01D04C50.0E7FB710] represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:image005.png at 01D04C50.0E7FB710] . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image006.png at 01D04C50.0E7FB710] Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image002.png at 01D04C50.0E7FB710] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:image007.png at 01D04C50.0E7FB710] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: [GravitationalField] IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: [afield1form]iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: [EinsteinSpeedofLight] When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. ________________________________ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). ? The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: [ring_tor1_anim]. Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: image006.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: image008.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: image009.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: image010.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: image011.gif URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Thu Feb 19 05:52:39 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:52:39 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. [cid:image001.png at 01D04C0F.B0C14160] Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:image002.png at 01D04C0F.B0C14160] . This [cid:image003.png at 01D04C0F.B0C14160] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:image004.png at 01D04C0F.B0C14160] represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:image005.png at 01D04C0F.B0C14160] . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image006.png at 01D04C0F.B0C14160] Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image002.png at 01D04C0F.B0C14160] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:image007.png at 01D04C0F.B0C14160] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: [GravitationalField] IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: [afield1form]iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: [EinsteinSpeedofLight] When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. ________________________________ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). ? The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: [ring_tor1_anim]. Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: image006.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: image008.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: image009.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: image010.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: image011.gif URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Thu Feb 19 06:21:17 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:51:17 +0530 Subject: [General] FW: Nobelist dialogue In-Reply-To: References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au> <4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <001801d04a24$13da5c20$3b8f1460$@phys.uconn.edu> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422642@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <4EB3484B164D4ABDB164A2211651F881@HPlaptop> <6ABAACEB-1010-41DC-901A-77BE20D01D31@gmail.com> <009601d04bd6$08f123d0$1ad36b70$@phys.uconn.edu> Message-ID: Dear Viv, I'm fighting the battle on 2 fronts. My other field is cold fusion. There is the entrenched academia, researchers, and petroleum industry. Andrew On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Vivian Robinson wrote: > Dear Richard (and others) > > It may help you to understand the Nobel Laureates etc, if you visit the > website below. It is President Eisenhower's valedictory address to the > nation as he was leaving the White House. Of particular note is his > comments about scientific research ? 9 min 30 to 11 min. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY > > His telling statement was: > > ?Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we > should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public > policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological > elite.? > > Standard model physicists have captured public policy on fundamental > science. They will not tolerate alternate ideas as they try to convince the > public that what astronomers see represents only 4% of what has to be in > the universe for their theories to explain them. In other words their > theory of the observed universe differs by 24 times the mass of the > observed universe. That doesn't mention the 10**60 + other universes and > multiple undetected spatial dimensions they also need to explain what > experimentalists measure. Need I go on. > > They have the ear of government to get all the funds. They point to the > great technological advances, claiming credit for what they explained after > experimentalists detected the property, as justification for their > continued work. No one should be surprised that is the reaction from any > member of that elite. They have no desire to lose their status or have > their ideas questioned. > > There is a huge amount of resistance among the general public and > scientific community against the standard models. Chandra, it is good to > see that you are prepared to consider alternative viewpoints. It helps > significantly to get an audience among fellow scientists. > > Cheers, > > Viv Robinson > > On 19/02/2015, at 10:53 AM, "chandra" wrote: > > general at natureoflightandparticles.org > > Dear David SJ., and All: Let us converge on sending all of our responses > through the ?general? web based email, using the above email address. I am > now deliberately forwarding my response to David SJ?s email through the > ?general? email. Once we all start responding to the ?general? email, we > will have all the correspondence archived on the web: > natureoflightandparticles.org . > Everybody with their personalized pass word have access to the > archive. For further enquiry, please, contact my student, Michael > Ambroselli: ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu > Chandra. > > Pertaining to this particular subject matter: > Dear David SJ., and Richard G.: Let us not feel frustrated so easily. > Sometimes it takes a whole century to turn around a century old > mis-conception! But we have to keep on working. We have this group. We have > a bigger group running the conference for 12 years. We will be holding the 6 > th biennial conference this August. We do have the momentum of a group > who are open to diverse ideas! > > Chandra. > > *From:* David Saint John [mailto:etherdais at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:04 PM > *To:* Richard Gauthier > *Cc:* John Duffield; Adam K; John Williamson; chandra; A. F. Kracklauer; > Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, > Martin van der; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert > Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; > Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > *Subject:* Re: Nobelist dialogue > > Dear Richard (and others), > > Ugh. I don't quite understand when the transition happened, but at some > point statistical behavior may have became as important to particle > identity as mass or charge or polarization -- fermions and bosons became > nouns rather than verbs. I suspect this has gotten under a few peoples > skin, perhaps helping to create parastatistics, anyons, and related ideas. > > He might be right about your inability to communicate with each other as > his initial assertion appears to be an unfortunate consequence of the > ossification of concepts in physics. I concur that a photon obeys BE > statistics under observed conditions, and that electrons obey FD statistics > (perhaps unless they form cooper pairs, in which case things seem a bit > fuzzy), but these statistical behaviors are contextualized consequences of > many interacting species and wouldn't be the first topic one addresses if > you're trying to discuss an underlying mechanism. Dismissal is an > unfortunate regularity with these subjects, but you're not alone. > > I think the metaphor of the cathedral and the bazaar ( > http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/) applies remarkably > well to physics, and the response of 'a tower of the cathedral' to any > ideas (even from other cathedral towers) is generally negative - especially > if there's any trace of a thought that threatens part of their foundation. > With enough effort and attention, the bazaar will eventually break through. > > Best, > -David > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Richard Gauthier > wrote: > John and all, > > A short dialogue follows that I just concluded with a physics Nobel > laureate. Comments are welcome. > > Hello Professor, > A Ph.D. student at IQC suggested that I might meet you this summer at > IQC to discuss a rather out-of-the-box idea -- that the electron is a > charged photon having the de Broglie wavelength. I have an article on this > topic which I will be presenting at the April APS meeting in Baltimore and > at the SPIE photonics conference in San Diego in July at a session on ?What > is the photon?. Currently the article is on academia.edu at > https://www.academia.edu/10527918/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength and > I have attached the article for your convenience. > Is this a topic that you would be interested in discussing? > > Dear Mr.Gauthier, > If your theory can explain clearly (as shown rather unambiguously by > experiment) why the electron is a fermion and the photon a boson, I think > a discussion might be worth while, otherwise not. With best wishes, > > > Hello Professor, > The short answer in my charged photon hypothesis is that a charged > photon (with charge + or - e) is a fermion while an uncharged photon is a > boson. So there is zero contradiction with unambiguous experiments about > the electron (my hypothesized charged photon, with charge -e for an > electron and +e for a positron) being a fermion and the usual uncharged > photon being a boson. The next level answer is that the idea that an > electron could be a charged photon was apparently missed by de Broglie and > others when de Broglie formulated E=mc^2=hf for a resting electron and E= > gamma mc^2 = hf for a moving electron. This is the energy equation for a > photon that has a wavelength lambda = h/(gamma m c), and that may be > helically circulating as mathematically suggested by Hestene?s and Rivas? > analysis of the Dirac equation (referenced in my article) which predicts a > light-speed helical motion of the electron?s charge, and is supported by > Dirac?s own claim that the electron moves at light-speed but only > sub-luminal speed is detected for it. It?s a short step to the de Broglie > wavelength h/(gamma mv) for the longitudinal wavelength of the light-speed > helical charged photon model of the electron, and the proposal that quantum > wave functions for the electron are generated by this model. > > Dear Mr.Gauthier, > I?m afraid that our ideas about what constitutes a persuasive argument > in physics seem to be so different that I doubt whether a meeting would be > useful.Sorry, > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Thu Feb 19 07:25:18 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:25:18 -0600 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks &field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia : ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime . Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation . Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books &ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Thu Feb 19 12:13:10 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:13:10 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: Martin: I think the quantization of the photon is an intrinsic property of the photon because the emitters and absorbers are photons. We don?t call them that, and they?re usually in an atom, but we can make them out of light, and we can diffract them, and when we?ve finished with them we can turn them back into photons. I don't know if you saw Leonard Susskind trying to explain the Higgs boson, but at 2 minutes 50 seconds he was waving his marker round* saying angular momentum is quantized. See the red dot at the top left below? Now roll your finger round and round. Do it fast, or do it slow, but always roll it round the same loop. It?s like the wave height is always the same regardless of wavelength. And there it is, hidden in plain sight, the amplitude is always the same regardless of wavelength: Hence there?s only one wavelength you can use to make an electron, where the wavelength is 4? times the amplitude. Hence your electron is always a 511keV electron. But maybe it?s better to say the quantum nature of light is something to do with the very nature of space itself. Or as chandra would call it, the complex tension field. Like it?s got an elastic limit or a ?saturation point? or something. Regards John D * also see at 3:22 where Susskind says a field is a condition of space. From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:50 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Dear John (Williamson), Thank you for your explanation about polarized light and photons. I fully support what you have said. Then again there is always something I have in the back of my mind, and it is very much related to this. I am referring to the quantization of the photon: Is it an intrinsic property of the photon, or is it the result the structure of boundary conditions given by emitter and absorber intermediated by an unquantized EM-wave? We mostly believe the first, and incidentally, this would , with high degree of certainty IMPLY the existence of circularly polarized light as the base state! Harry Atwater gave a talk at SPIE Photonics West and he referred to photons being quantized and proof of plasmons being quantized in the same way. I asked him about the photon quantization afterwards, he said I should look up Leonard Mandel, 1980ies (he died in 2001 so we cannot ask him). Haven?t come round to do so yet? Best, Martin I will try to find out, but help is very welcome This may be a starting point: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milephotons/full/milephotons11.html 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 John Williamson Sent: donderdag 19 februari 2015 8:27 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 4347219 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 708317 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Thu Feb 19 14:16:41 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:16:41 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> , Message-ID: <82E48958-0727-4224-928A-36B415A68D83@philips.com> Dear John, I see what you are saying, at least to some extend, and you are creative and absorbing. Good. Still there are a few reasons why i cannot adopt your view straight away, but we will talk about that later. I am not after some model, i am after experimental fact! In my email i just asked a simple question, with possibly (likely) a very, very subtle answer. I am looking for the experimental proof for the quantization of light. To be more precise, the proof that quantization is really in the fields, in the photon. This proof is not found in Compton scattering or blackbody radiation, and in fact it may not be possible to prove it. Nonetheless it is common knowledge that the photon is quatized by itself, not as a result of the total exchange process between emitter and absorber.... For the august conference this should be a very important question to answer, or explain, point out, or whatever the present status of it is... Cheers, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > Op 19 feb. 2015 om 21:16 heeft "John Duffield" het volgende geschreven: > > Martin: > > I think the quantization of the photon is an intrinsic property of the photon because the emitters and absorbers are photons. We don???t call them that, and they???re usually in an atom, but we can make them out of light, and we can diffract them, and when we???ve finished with them we can turn them back into photons. I don't know if you saw Leonard Susskind trying to explain the Higgs boson, but at 2 minutes 50 seconds he was waving his marker round* saying angular momentum is quantized. See the red dot at the top left below? > [Deep_water_wave] > > Now roll your finger round and round. Do it fast, or do it slow, but always roll it round the same loop. It???s like the wave height is always the same regardless of wavelength. And there it is, hidden in plain sight, the amplitude is always the same regardless of wavelength: > [image] > > Hence there???s only one wavelength you can use to make an electron, where the wavelength is 4?? times the amplitude. Hence your electron is always a 511keV electron. But maybe it???s better to say the quantum nature of light is something to do with the very nature of space itself. Or as chandra would call it, the complex tension field. Like it???s got an elastic limit or a ???saturation point??? or something. > > Regards > John D > > > * also see at 3:22 where Susskind says a field is a condition of space. > > > From: Mark, Martin van der > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:50 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem > > Dear John (Williamson), > Thank you for your explanation about polarized light and photons. I fully support what you have said. > > Then again there is always something I have in the back of my mind, and it is very much related to this. I am referring to the quantization of the photon: Is it an intrinsic property of the photon, or is it the result the structure of boundary conditions given by emitter and absorber intermediated by an unquantized EM-wave? > We mostly believe the first, and incidentally, this would , with high degree of certainty IMPLY the existence of circularly polarized light as the base state! > Harry Atwater gave a talk at SPIE Photonics West and he referred to photons being quantized and proof of plasmons being quantized in the same way. I asked him about the photon quantization afterwards, he said I should look up Leonard Mandel, 1980ies (he died in 2001 so we cannot ask him). > Haven???t come round to do so yet??? > Best, Martin > > I will try to find out, but help is very welcome > This may be a starting point: > http://www.nature.com/milestones/milephotons/full/milephotons11.html > > > 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 John Williamson > Sent: donderdag 19 februari 2015 8:27 > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem > > Gentle people, > > I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... > > None of us understand and encompass all that is known. > > Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! > > I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). > > Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. > > A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! > > Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. > > Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. > > Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. > > Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... > > Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... > > Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! > > Regards, John. > ________________________________ > From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM > To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin > Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! > > Chip: > I am with you 100% that photons cannot ???carry??? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ???Interference of Waves???, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ???circular??? or ???elliptically??? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. > By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ???angular momentum??? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ???incoherent???! Light is never ???incoherent???; the detector???s response characteristics determine the beams??? correlation property, or the ???viability of the fringes???. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors??? physical properties as ???Optical Coherence??? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones??? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ???polarization??? chapter in my book, ???Causal Physics:???.??? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] > > We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! > > By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ???photonic electron???. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ???c-velocity??? does not make them ???photons???. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ???push-away??? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ???mass???. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ???particle??? world is so elusive. Assigning ???plane wave??? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ???particles???. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ???particles??? ???fall??? or ???get repulsed??? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ???four forces??? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein???s unified field. > > Chandra. > > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM > To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > Hi Chandra > > Thank you for the note about replying to ???general???. > > Hi John Williamson > > Question: > > I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. > > Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. > [cid:64D02DBB63CA4295ADAE1ACD7F2E9132 at HPlaptop] > > Thoughts? > > Chip > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM > To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org > Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > general at natureoflightandparticles.org > This is from Chandra: > > If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ???general??? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ???general???, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ???natureoflightandparticles.org???. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu > > > For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ???engineering thinking??? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. > ============================= > Now my response to: > John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ???Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. > > Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? > Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell???s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. > Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:BC946115E05A49BEA4AEAEDDC9F89CC2 at HPlaptop] . This [cid:C7E46132C7C446638A55D8947702C167 at HPlaptop] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger???s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:319D70059B76488787C423FFA9D3128F at HPlaptop] represents detector???s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ???stimulation??? when we take out the ???detector constant??? ?? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:A8E8D094A63747BE8368310410FC1AEA at HPlaptop] . But, ?? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ???engineering thinking??? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ???energy transfer??? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:B406C075525646C39B0643EF70227637 at HPlaptop] > > Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF???s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ???nirvana??? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ???local??? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! > > The concept of ???photonic electron??? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ???Pilot Waves???. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:BC946115E05A49BEA4AEAEDDC9F89CC2 at HPlaptop] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:D8659715259F421CA4474902B4ACDDC6 at HPlaptop] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! > > Chandra. > > > From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM > To: Adam K > Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Adam: > > Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you???re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: > > [GravitationalField] > > IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: > > [afield1form]iti > > See Wikipedia: ???the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time???. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ???electric??? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ???magnetic??? waveform. But there aren???t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It???s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: > > Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? > > Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn???t interact with light. But note that its path wasn???t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn???t call it a photon any more, you???d call it an electron. > > Regards > John D > > > * It???s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ???(??0/??0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ???(G/??). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it???s a ???how pliable??? measure as opposed to a ???how stiff??? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ???(1/??0??0). > > PS: I???ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ > > > > From: Adam K > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM > To: John Duffield > Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > > A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): > > Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. > > Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). > > Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: > Adam/John: > > I think it???s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: > > "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. > > He said space, not spacetime, and he didn???t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: > > Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. > > Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn???t curved in the room you???re in. Instead it???s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: > > > [EinsteinSpeedofLight] > > When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: > > Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. > > Space isn???t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron???s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton???s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don???t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom???s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. > > Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. > > Regards > John > > > From: John Williamson > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM > To: Adam K ; chandra > Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green > Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin > > Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. > > Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. > > The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. > > However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. > > Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? > > Regards, John. > ________________________________ > From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM > To: chandra > Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > Hi Chandra, > > I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. > > A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw > > I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) > > I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? > > Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? > > Best wishes, > > Adam > > PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: > Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ???Space??? is the ???mother??? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). ??? The ???vacuum??? or the ???space??? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ???Complex Tension Field (or CTF)???. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ???photonics electrons???. > The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors??? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. > The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: > http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves > > Sincerely, > Chandra. > > From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM > To: John Williamson > Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > > Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > Hi John, > > Why do you say this? > > space does not support torsion, > > Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. > > Adam > On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: > Hi John, > > Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. > > What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? > > This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. > > Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. > > Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. > > This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! > > Cheers, John. > ________________________________ > From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM > To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > John > Sorry I haven???t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain???t cheese. And like the ???quantum bicycle??? is doesn???t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you???re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn???t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn???t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it???s isn???t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it???s rotating like this: > > [ring_tor1_anim]. > > Every which way. But there???s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. > As regard field and force, IMHO there???s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It???s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn???t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It???s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they???re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren???t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ???the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B??? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. > Darn, I have to go. I???ll get back to you some more later. > Regards > John > > * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment > > > From: John Williamson > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM > To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin > > Hi Guys, > > Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). > > I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), > > o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. > > You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. > > Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. > > Hope this helps, > > John. > ________________________________ > From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM > To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > Andrew: > > Viv???s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. > > Viv/Andrew: > > I???d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn???t really a field, it???s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it???s important. > > All: > > I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can???t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there???s not much point talking about selectrons if you don???t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. > > Regards > John > > > From: Vivian Robinson > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM > To: Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Dear Andrew and all, > > I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. > > With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. > > http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU > > Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. > > I hope this helps your understanding. > > Cheers, > > Viv Robinson > > On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: > > Dear Richard, > You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron???s spin is undefined until it???s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: > "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." > I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. > > I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. > I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. > > The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. > This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) > When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. > Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. > Andrew > > > > > > ________________________________ > 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > Click here to unsubscribe > Martin: I think the quantization of the photon is an intrinsic property of the photon because the emitters and absorbers are photons. We don???t call them that, and they???re usually in an atom, but we can make them out of light, and we can diffract them, and when we???ve finished with them we can turn them back into photons. I don't know if you saw Leonard Susskind trying to explain the Higgs boson, but at 2 minutes 50 seconds he was waving his marker round* saying angular momentum is quantized. See the red dot at the top left below? [Deep_water_wave] Now roll your finger round and round. Do it fast, or do it slow, but always roll it round the same loop. It???s like the wave height is always the same regardless of wavelength. And there it is, hidden in plain sight, the amplitude is always the same regardless of wavelength: [image] Hence there???s only one wavelength you can use to make an electron, where the wavelength is 4?? times the amplitude. Hence your electron is always a 511keV electron. But maybe it???s better to say the quantum nature of light is something to do with the very nature of space itself. Or as chandra would call it, the complex tension field. Like it???s got an elastic limit or a ???saturation point??? or something. Regards John D * also see at 3:22 where Susskind says a field is a condition of space. From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:50 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Dear John (Williamson), Thank you for your explanation about polarized light and photons. I fully support what you have said. Then again there is always something I have in the back of my mind, and it is very much related to this. I am referring to the quantization of the photon: Is it an intrinsic property of the photon, or is it the result the structure of boundary conditions given by emitter and absorber intermediated by an unquantized EM-wave? We mostly believe the first, and incidentally, this would , with high degree of certainty IMPLY the existence of circularly polarized light as the base state! Harry Atwater gave a talk at SPIE Photonics West and he referred to photons being quantized and proof of plasmons being quantized in the same way. I asked him about the photon quantization afterwards, he said I should look up Leonard Mandel, 1980ies (he died in 2001 so we cannot ask him). Haven???t come round to do so yet??? Best, Martin I will try to find out, but help is very welcome This may be a starting point: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milephotons/full/milephotons11.html 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 John Williamson Sent: donderdag 19 februari 2015 8:27 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ???carry??? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ???Interference of Waves???, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ???circular??? or ???elliptically??? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ???angular momentum??? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ???incoherent???! Light is never ???incoherent???; the detector???s response characteristics determine the beams??? correlation property, or the ???viability of the fringes???. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors??? physical properties as ???Optical Coherence??? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones??? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ???polarization??? chapter in my book, ???Causal Physics:???.??? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ???photonic electron???. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ???c-velocity??? does not make them ???photons???. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ???push-away??? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ???mass???. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ???particle??? world is so elusive. Assigning ???plane wave??? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ???particles???. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ???particles??? ???fall??? or ???get repulsed??? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ???four forces??? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein???s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ???general???. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. [cid:64D02DBB63CA4295ADAE1ACD7F2E9132 at HPlaptop] Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ???general??? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ???general???, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ???natureoflightandparticles.org???. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ???engineering thinking??? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ???Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell???s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:BC946115E05A49BEA4AEAEDDC9F89CC2 at HPlaptop] . This [cid:C7E46132C7C446638A55D8947702C167 at HPlaptop] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger???s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:319D70059B76488787C423FFA9D3128F at HPlaptop] represents detector???s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ???stimulation??? when we take out the ???detector constant??? ?? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:A8E8D094A63747BE8368310410FC1AEA at HPlaptop] . But, ?? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ???engineering thinking??? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ???energy transfer??? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:B406C075525646C39B0643EF70227637 at HPlaptop] Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF???s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ???nirvana??? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ???local??? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ???photonic electron??? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ???Pilot Waves???. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:BC946115E05A49BEA4AEAEDDC9F89CC2 at HPlaptop] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:D8659715259F421CA4474902B4ACDDC6 at HPlaptop] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you???re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: [GravitationalField] IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: [afield1form]iti See Wikipedia: ???the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time???. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ???electric??? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ???magnetic??? waveform. But there aren???t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It???s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn???t interact with light. But note that its path wasn???t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn???t call it a photon any more, you???d call it an electron. Regards John D * It???s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ???(??0/??0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ???(G/??). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it???s a ???how pliable??? measure as opposed to a ???how stiff??? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ???(1/??0??0). PS: I???ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it???s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn???t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn???t curved in the room you???re in. Instead it???s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: [EinsteinSpeedofLight] When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn???t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron???s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton???s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don???t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom???s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. ________________________________ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ???Space??? is the ???mother??? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ???vacuum??? or the ???space??? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ???Complex Tension Field (or CTF)???. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ???photonics electrons???. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors??? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven???t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain???t cheese. And like the ???quantum bicycle??? is doesn???t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you???re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn???t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn???t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it???s isn???t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it???s rotating like this: [ring_tor1_anim]. Every which way. But there???s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there???s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It???s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn???t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It???s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they???re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren???t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ???the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B??? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I???ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv???s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I???d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn???t really a field, it???s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it???s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can???t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there???s not much point talking about selectrons if you don???t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron???s spin is undefined until it???s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Deep_water_wave[1].gif Type: image/gif Size: 4347219 bytes Desc: Deep_water_wave[1].gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image[3].png Type: image/png Size: 708317 bytes Desc: image[3].png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: image006.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: image008.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: image009.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: image010.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: image011.gif URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Thu Feb 19 14:43:42 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:43:42 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <82E48958-0727-4224-928A-36B415A68D83@philips.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <82E48958-0727-4224-928A-36B415A68D83@philips.com> Message-ID: <2AF713FD1ADC4F28B5ACEB0E0E19CC9A@HPlaptop> Martin, I think you already have the proof you?re looking for in the ultraviolet catastrophe the photoelectric effect and the toroidal photon. Those electrons that emit light are light. Ditto for the protons. Think about low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation. When you annihilate a proton with an antiproton, you don?t get quarks spilling out. You get pions, which decay into gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. Forget about the neutrinos for a minute, because they travel at c or thereabouts. Annihilate the electrons with the positrons, and all you?ve got is gamma photons. There?s also a 1% cross-section for direct annihilation to gamma photons. What?s the electron made out of? Light. What?s the proton made out of? Light. What?s emitting light? Light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:16 PM To: John Duffield Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Dear John, I see what you are saying, at least to some extend, and you are creative and absorbing. Good. Still there are a few reasons why i cannot adopt your view straight away, but we will talk about that later. I am not after some model, i am after experimental fact! In my email i just asked a simple question, with possibly (likely) a very, very subtle answer. I am looking for the experimental proof for the quantization of light. To be more precise, the proof that quantization is really in the fields, in the photon. This proof is not found in Compton scattering or blackbody radiation, and in fact it may not be possible to prove it. Nonetheless it is common knowledge that the photon is quatized by itself, not as a result of the total exchange process between emitter and absorber.... For the august conference this should be a very important question to answer, or explain, point out, or whatever the present status of it is... Cheers, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > Op 19 feb. 2015 om 21:16 heeft "John Duffield" het volgende geschreven: > > Martin: > > I think the quantization of the photon is an intrinsic property of the photon because the emitters and absorbers are photons. We don???t call them that, and they???re usually in an atom, but we can make them out of light, and we can diffract them, and when we???ve finished with them we can turn them back into photons. I don't know if you saw Leonard Susskind trying to explain the Higgs boson, but at 2 minutes 50 seconds he was waving his marker round* saying angular momentum is quantized. See the red dot at the top left below? > [Deep_water_wave] > > Now roll your finger round and round. Do it fast, or do it slow, but always roll it round the same loop. It???s like the wave height is always the same regardless of wavelength. And there it is, hidden in plain sight, the amplitude is always the same regardless of wavelength: > [image] > > Hence there???s only one wavelength you can use to make an electron, where the wavelength is 4?? times the amplitude. Hence your electron is always a 511keV electron. But maybe it???s better to say the quantum nature of light is something to do with the very nature of space itself. Or as chandra would call it, the complex tension field. Like it???s got an elastic limit or a ???saturation point??? or something. > > Regards > John D > > > * also see at 3:22 where Susskind says a field is a condition of space. > > > From: Mark, Martin van der > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:50 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem > > Dear John (Williamson), > Thank you for your explanation about polarized light and photons. I fully support what you have said. > > Then again there is always something I have in the back of my mind, and it is very much related to this. I am referring to the quantization of the photon: Is it an intrinsic property of the photon, or is it the result the structure of boundary conditions given by emitter and absorber intermediated by an unquantized EM-wave? > We mostly believe the first, and incidentally, this would , with high degree of certainty IMPLY the existence of circularly polarized light as the base state! > Harry Atwater gave a talk at SPIE Photonics West and he referred to photons being quantized and proof of plasmons being quantized in the same way. I asked him about the photon quantization afterwards, he said I should look up Leonard Mandel, 1980ies (he died in 2001 so we cannot ask him). > Haven???t come round to do so yet??? > Best, Martin > > I will try to find out, but help is very welcome > This may be a starting point: > http://www.nature.com/milestones/milephotons/full/milephotons11.html > > > 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 John Williamson > Sent: donderdag 19 februari 2015 8:27 > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem > > Gentle people, > > I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... > > None of us understand and encompass all that is known. > > Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! > > I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). > > Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. > > A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! > > Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. > > Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. > > Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. > > Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... > > Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... > > Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! > > Regards, John. > ________________________________ > From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM > To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin > Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! > > Chip: > I am with you 100% that photons cannot ???carry??? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ???Interference of Waves???, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ???circular??? or ???elliptically??? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. > By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ???angular momentum??? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ???incoherent???! Light is never ???incoherent???; the detector???s response characteristics determine the beams??? correlation property, or the ???viability of the fringes???. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors??? physical properties as ???Optical Coherence??? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones??? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ???polarization??? chapter in my book, ???Causal Physics:???.??? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] > > We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! > > By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ???photonic electron???. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ???c-velocity??? does not make them ???photons???. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ???push-away??? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ???mass???. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ???particle??? world is so elusive. Assigning ???plane wave??? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ???particles???. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ???particles??? ???fall??? or ???get repulsed??? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ???four forces??? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein???s unified field. > > Chandra. > > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM > To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > Hi Chandra > > Thank you for the note about replying to ???general???. > > Hi John Williamson > > Question: > > I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. > > Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. > [cid:64D02DBB63CA4295ADAE1ACD7F2E9132 at HPlaptop] > > Thoughts? > > Chip > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM > To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org > Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > general at natureoflightandparticles.org > This is from Chandra: > > If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ???general??? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ???general???, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ???natureoflightandparticles.org???. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu > > > For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ???engineering thinking??? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. > ============================= > Now my response to: > John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ???Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. > > Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? > Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell???s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. > Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:BC946115E05A49BEA4AEAEDDC9F89CC2 at HPlaptop] . This [cid:C7E46132C7C446638A55D8947702C167 at HPlaptop] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger???s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:319D70059B76488787C423FFA9D3128F at HPlaptop] represents detector???s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ???stimulation??? when we take out the ???detector constant??? ?? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:A8E8D094A63747BE8368310410FC1AEA at HPlaptop] . But, ?? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ???engineering thinking??? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ???energy transfer??? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:B406C075525646C39B0643EF70227637 at HPlaptop] > > Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF???s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ???nirvana??? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ???local??? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! > > The concept of ???photonic electron??? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ???Pilot Waves???. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:BC946115E05A49BEA4AEAEDDC9F89CC2 at HPlaptop] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:D8659715259F421CA4474902B4ACDDC6 at HPlaptop] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! > > Chandra. > > > From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM > To: Adam K > Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Adam: > > Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you???re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: > > [GravitationalField] > > IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: > > [afield1form]iti > > See Wikipedia: ???the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time???. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ???electric??? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ???magnetic??? waveform. But there aren???t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It???s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: > > Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? > > Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn???t interact with light. But note that its path wasn???t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn???t call it a photon any more, you???d call it an electron. > > Regards > John D > > > * It???s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ???(??0/??0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ???(G/??). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it???s a ???how pliable??? measure as opposed to a ???how stiff??? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ???(1/??0??0). > > PS: I???ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ > > > > From: Adam K > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM > To: John Duffield > Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > > A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): > > Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. > > Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). > > Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: > Adam/John: > > I think it???s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: > > "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. > > He said space, not spacetime, and he didn???t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: > > Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. > > Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn???t curved in the room you???re in. Instead it???s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: > > > [EinsteinSpeedofLight] > > When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: > > Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. > > Space isn???t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron???s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton???s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don???t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom???s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. > > Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. > > Regards > John > > > From: John Williamson > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM > To: Adam K ; chandra > Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green > Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin > > Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. > > Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. > > The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. > > However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. > > Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? > > Regards, John. > ________________________________ > From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM > To: chandra > Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > Hi Chandra, > > I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. > > A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw > > I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) > > I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? > > Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? > > Best wishes, > > Adam > > PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: > Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ???Space??? is the ???mother??? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). ??? The ???vacuum??? or the ???space??? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ???Complex Tension Field (or CTF)???. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ???photonics electrons???. > The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors??? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. > The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: > http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves > > Sincerely, > Chandra. > > From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM > To: John Williamson > Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > > Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > Hi John, > > Why do you say this? > > space does not support torsion, > > Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. > > Adam > On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: > Hi John, > > Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. > > What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? > > This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. > > Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. > > Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. > > This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! > > Cheers, John. > ________________________________ > From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM > To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > John > Sorry I haven???t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain???t cheese. And like the ???quantum bicycle??? is doesn???t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you???re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn???t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn???t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it???s isn???t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it???s rotating like this: > > [ring_tor1_anim]. > > Every which way. But there???s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. > As regard field and force, IMHO there???s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It???s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn???t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It???s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they???re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren???t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ???the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B??? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. > Darn, I have to go. I???ll get back to you some more later. > Regards > John > > * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment > > > From: John Williamson > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM > To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin > > Hi Guys, > > Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). > > I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), > > o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. > > You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. > > Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. > > Hope this helps, > > John. > ________________________________ > From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM > To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > Andrew: > > Viv???s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. > > Viv/Andrew: > > I???d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn???t really a field, it???s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it???s important. > > All: > > I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can???t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there???s not much point talking about selectrons if you don???t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. > > Regards > John > > > From: Vivian Robinson > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM > To: Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Dear Andrew and all, > > I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. > > With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. > > http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU > > Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. > > I hope this helps your understanding. > > Cheers, > > Viv Robinson > > On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: > > Dear Richard, > You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron???s spin is undefined until it???s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: > "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." > I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. > > I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. > I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. > > The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. > This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) > When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. > Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. > Andrew > > > > > > ________________________________ > 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > Click here to unsubscribe > Martin: I think the quantization of the photon is an intrinsic property of the photon because the emitters and absorbers are photons. We don???t call them that, and they???re usually in an atom, but we can make them out of light, and we can diffract them, and when we???ve finished with them we can turn them back into photons. I don't know if you saw Leonard Susskind trying to explain the Higgs boson, but at 2 minutes 50 seconds he was waving his marker round* saying angular momentum is quantized. See the red dot at the top left below? Now roll your finger round and round. Do it fast, or do it slow, but always roll it round the same loop. It???s like the wave height is always the same regardless of wavelength. And there it is, hidden in plain sight, the amplitude is always the same regardless of wavelength: Hence there???s only one wavelength you can use to make an electron, where the wavelength is 4?? times the amplitude. Hence your electron is always a 511keV electron. But maybe it???s better to say the quantum nature of light is something to do with the very nature of space itself. Or as chandra would call it, the complex tension field. Like it???s got an elastic limit or a ???saturation point??? or something. Regards John D * also see at 3:22 where Susskind says a field is a condition of space. From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:50 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Dear John (Williamson), Thank you for your explanation about polarized light and photons. I fully support what you have said. Then again there is always something I have in the back of my mind, and it is very much related to this. I am referring to the quantization of the photon: Is it an intrinsic property of the photon, or is it the result the structure of boundary conditions given by emitter and absorber intermediated by an unquantized EM-wave? We mostly believe the first, and incidentally, this would , with high degree of certainty IMPLY the existence of circularly polarized light as the base state! Harry Atwater gave a talk at SPIE Photonics West and he referred to photons being quantized and proof of plasmons being quantized in the same way. I asked him about the photon quantization afterwards, he said I should look up Leonard Mandel, 1980ies (he died in 2001 so we cannot ask him). Haven???t come round to do so yet??? Best, Martin I will try to find out, but help is very welcome This may be a starting point: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milephotons/full/milephotons11.html 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 John Williamson Sent: donderdag 19 februari 2015 8:27 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ???carry??? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ???Interference of Waves???, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ???circular??? or ???elliptically??? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ???angular momentum??? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ???incoherent???! Light is never ???incoherent???; the detector???s response characteristics determine the beams??? correlation property, or the ???viability of the fringes???. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors??? physical properties as ???Optical Coherence??? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones??? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ???polarization??? chapter in my book, ???Causal Physics:???.??? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ???photonic electron???. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ???c-velocity??? does not make them ???photons???. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ???push-away??? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ???mass???. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ???particle??? world is so elusive. Assigning ???plane wave??? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ???particles???. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ???particles??? ???fall??? or ???get repulsed??? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ???four forces??? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein???s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ???general???. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ???general??? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ???general???, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ???natureoflightandparticles.org???. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ???engineering thinking??? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ???Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell???s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger???s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector???s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ???stimulation??? when we take out the ???detector constant??? ?? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ?? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ???engineering thinking??? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ???energy transfer??? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF???s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ???nirvana??? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ???local??? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ???photonic electron??? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ???Pilot Waves???. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you???re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ???the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time???. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ???electric??? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ???magnetic??? waveform. But there aren???t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It???s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn???t interact with light. But note that its path wasn???t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn???t call it a photon any more, you???d call it an electron. Regards John D * It???s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ???(??0/??0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ???(G/??). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it???s a ???how pliable??? measure as opposed to a ???how stiff??? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ???(1/??0??0). PS: I???ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield wrote: Adam/John: I think it???s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn???t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn???t curved in the room you???re in. Instead it???s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn???t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron???s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton???s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don???t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom???s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ???Space??? is the ???mother??? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). J The ???vacuum??? or the ???space??? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ???Complex Tension Field (or CTF)???. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ???photonics electrons???. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors??? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven???t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain???t cheese. And like the ???quantum bicycle??? is doesn???t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you???re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn???t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn???t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it???s isn???t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it???s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there???s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there???s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It???s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn???t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It???s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they???re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren???t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ???the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B??? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I???ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv???s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I???d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn???t really a field, it???s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it???s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can???t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there???s not much point talking about selectrons if you don???t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou??ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O??mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron???s spin is undefined until it???s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 10060 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 4347219 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 708317 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Thu Feb 19 15:01:10 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 23:01:10 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Thu Feb 19 21:56:57 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:56:57 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. [cid:E1C2A129D62740998686696478EF5D5F at HPlaptop] Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:60F18EE44E224F6390B8877D609BC5AB at HPlaptop] . This [cid:84F501F1806E460FABBA69DAFC47B68E at HPlaptop] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:F6FD10F1F5444A4091C8F413B3474DA0 at HPlaptop] represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:C3E14C7F5493421A98023450D861ED22 at HPlaptop] . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:821AEF436C1D4914B26213F8266764AC at HPlaptop] Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:60F18EE44E224F6390B8877D609BC5AB at HPlaptop] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:E74857E4297F4E968E5E8CED729689AC at HPlaptop] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: [GravitationalField] IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: [afield1form]iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = v(?0/e0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = v(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = v(1/e0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: [EinsteinSpeedofLight] When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. ________________________________ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: [ring_tor1_anim]. Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: image006.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: image008.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: image009.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: image010.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: image011.gif URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Fri Feb 20 06:00:58 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:00:58 -0600 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <041a01d04d15$ac225ed0$04671c70$@gmail.com> Hi John Williamson, John Duffield and All A burning desire to answer the many remaining unanswered questions drives me to try to understand the details of the physical behavior of the universe wherever that leads. Sorry for the confusing language about the photon being ?frozen? in time. It was just a partially conveyed thought. While the time and distance transformations are well established, I had not really connected it all in that way, for the photon, until John W. mentioned it. Now, to me, many issues are much clearer and easier to understand. I have no problem with the harmonic resonator, quantized view of particles, principally because we can see an assignable cause. Recent research has also led me to believe that photons are quantized, even though I vehemently fought against that concept, and tried to find ways to deny it for many years. In my view the term quantized needs to better defined, so that we speak of exactly what is quantized for any given item. In that sense I feel that massive spin ? particles are probably quantized in more clearly understandable ways than photons. At this point I feel that photons are individual energy quanta. I have however, not yet proven, to my own satisfaction, that photons are the only form of electromagnetic radiation. Still working on that one. I do feel that photons are one primary means of energy transfer between separate particles, and in that context, are quantized. The question arises regarding whether the quantization is inherent to the photon, or is apparent quantization, due to the nature of the emitters and absorbers. My current feeling is that energy density, total energy content, and frequency, are quantized for the photon in that context, and that frequency is quantized for the photon, due to energy density, and new field equations, providing for the spin angular momentum terms. While I really do not like the Copenhagen interpretation and the ensuing stagnation of causal findings in physics, due in part to that philosophy, I am quite willing to accept the evidence of experiment, and work from there to discover the answers, wherever that leads. What has led us all to this point, is the unexplained ?bizarre? behaviors of certain physical phenomena. Understanding the cause for each behavior is paramount, in my opinion, in order for physics to actually do its job and provide the real answers. The math of QED has been successful at predicting and accurately calculating many items. This is heralded as a tremendous success on those grounds. To me it is obvious that an empirically derived set of equations will do exactly what QED has done. But the three issues that give me pause regarding that approach are: 1) we still don?t know why, and 2) since we don?t know why, the math for the theory is incomplete and in certain ways inaccurate. 3) We already know the math has problems in certain areas, how can we really fully rely on it to disclose the remaining secrets? Those are my concerns regarding the math, but my concerns regarding the basic philosophy which got us here are far deeper. I am still having problems understanding an issue. It seems there have been experiments where plane polarized photons were passed through a polarizer and the spin of those photons measured after the polarizer. As I understand it the spin was still +/- h bar. Has this actually been done? How can that be explained casually? Even in consideration of the relativistic photon time and distance transformations, I cannot causally justify this experiment, unless the photon in this case, is a plane wave, with a spin angular moment force component, and not a physical spin. Thoughts anyone? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [ mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield < johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [ afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto: afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg < mules333 at gmail.com> wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Fri Feb 20 06:42:45 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:42:45 -0600 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> Hi John Williamson In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues involved. Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe??? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment . See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks &field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia : ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime . Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation . Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books &ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Fri Feb 20 09:12:04 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:12:04 -0800 Subject: [General] Potential discussion group member In-Reply-To: <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2454C0BC-33C2-47BD-9913-C21A89AC254F@gmail.com> Hello all, One of my ResearchGate contacts has some very similar ideas on EM and particles to those of some in our discussion group. His recent Physics Essays abstract is attached. I also have his article for those interested. I think he would be a good addition to our general discussion group. Richard de Broglie wave and electromagnetic travelling wave model of electron and other charged particles Malik Mohammad Asif a) Department of Physics, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Park Road, Chak Shahzad, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan (Received 2 October 2012; accepted 8 February 2014; published online 7 March 2014) Abstract: The original wave theory proposed by de Broglie necessitates a stationary (localized) monochromatic plane wave of high frequency nuo associated with a particle. As the particle moves, the de Broglie wavelength appears as an observable (a relativistic effect). The nature and interpretation of high frequency oscillations remained unrevealed so far. This paper presents a self- trapped circular electromagnetic (EM) travelling wave model of electron (specifically) and of other charged particles in general. Curling EM wave is localized (stationary) and still a plane monochromatic travelling wave, against the customary wave packet approach, where a number of frequencies are made to interfere to build a stationary localized wave packet. The model reveals facts such as interpretation of wave function Psi (de Broglie wave) as a relativistic effect of a real wave function and removes the discrepancy of very high phase velocity (c2/v) associated with it. The model also incorporates zitterbewegung of electron and 4pi rotation needed, for a complete round of wave cycle. VC 2014 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-27.1.146] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sleary at vavi.co.uk Fri Feb 20 09:22:33 2015 From: sleary at vavi.co.uk (Stephen Leary) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:22:33 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Chip, I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be absorbed. Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate references. Cheers Stephen On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > Hi John Williamson > > > > In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime > scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues > involved. > > > > Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the > universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its > path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point > in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by > the rest of the universe??? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John > Williamson > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Hello John and everyone, > > I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees > "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for > those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all > valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see > is the point. That is the point! > > I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. > Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even > that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to > try ... > > What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and > the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in > space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being > expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only > to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is > very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised > by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame > observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us > (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 > minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion > years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- > this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the > square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of > emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross > section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our > average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) > are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old > universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to > "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially > large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning > to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed > by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian > problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen > process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own > parameters! > > Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans > space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) > tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz > contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to > take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In > that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is > the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on > the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is > (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the > condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique > to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not > matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the > same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) > that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed > in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero > rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In > optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near > field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to > the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of > 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to > be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of > the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It > is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. > > Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are > perfectly spherical!). > > Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have > more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! > > Cheers, John. > > P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard > properties of waves! > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John > Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > John: > > > > Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, > or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of > light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you > wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. > I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about > it: BLAM! > > > > In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence > for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the > quantum eraser experiment > . See this near > the bottom: *?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be > accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. *The next > sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical > mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin > surpasseth all human understanding. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > *From:* Chip Akins > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM > > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > > > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > John Williamson > > > > I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding > the photon. > > > > Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is > frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all > possible paths simultaneously. > > > > It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to > really understand it. > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *John Williamson > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Hello Chip and everyone, > > I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about > the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something > else. Whose then? > > A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my > view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space > time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole > system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null > vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In > this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or > ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in > its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and > all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in > phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in > antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to > follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space > time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of > which are as-observed in experiment. > > Gotta go ... lab ... > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip > Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > Hi John and Chandra > > > > In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood > that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane > polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can > take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. > However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but > also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass > through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition > at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There > seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it > may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. > > > > This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon > model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be > plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which > disallows this solution. > > > > John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the > photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do > you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel > there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? > > > > One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the > crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues > are actually physically correct. > > > > Chip > > > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *John Williamson > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem > > > > Gentle people, > > I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough > I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to > the proper argument here. Here goes though ... > > None of us understand and encompass all that is known. > > Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our > judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment > which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual > acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of > the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they > happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different > rooms! > > I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In > particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of > angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left > polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries > exactly none at all (linear polarised). > > Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum > intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been > discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - > Those elementary particle physicists. > > A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. > One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium > (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two > photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the > latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is > incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - > carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus > 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There > you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons > act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary > particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really > no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! > > Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - > linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular > momentum - circular. > > Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - > photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ > by one unit. > > Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly > polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the > angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). > Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. > > Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even > if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead > easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by > the photon... > > Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the > anonymous laureate!) ... > > Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and > circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! > > Regards, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [ > chandra at phys.uconn.edu] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* [General] Photonic electron and spin > > *Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property!* > > > > Chip: > > I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This > has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists > for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. > Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the > mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping > interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart > angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like > responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or > ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We > cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler > and more elegant. > > By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady > orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot > create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. > Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to > each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between > the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular > momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set > of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in > only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally > polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The > dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if > resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition > effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! > Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics > determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the > fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned > detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical > EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in > formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention > this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my > book, ?Causal Physics:?.? > http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 > ] > > > > We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of > interacting material particles to light for well over a century and > diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! > > > > By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic > electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do > not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, > resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you > prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets > (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; > hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY > excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. > It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the > highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? > does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states > of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the > ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to > the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no > physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped > oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning > ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases > of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations > of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical > harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final > reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence > of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these > ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of > their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get > repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous > ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients > in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex > oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified > field. > > > > Chandra. > > > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hi Chandra > > > > Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. > > > > Hi John Williamson > > > > Question: > > > > I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum > to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may > just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin > angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might > explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the > necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon > planar polarization. > > > > Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *chandra > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM > *To:* general at natureoflightandparticles.org > *Subject:* [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > > > general at natureoflightandparticles.org > > This is from Chandra: > > > > If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am > doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these > email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ? > natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions > were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that > email, please, send a separate email to > > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu > > > > > > For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some > ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential > experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very > helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the > SPIE conference. > > ============================= > > Now my response to: > > John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my > personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology > (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and > theoretical formulation thinking. > > > > *Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? * > > Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear > domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the > simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of > all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can > sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR > restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical > validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or > classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our > wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction > process. > > Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical > transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the > square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously > exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) > as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear > susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real > physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical > probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than > the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the > beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude > stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from > recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when > we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields > are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band > of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting > ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction > process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint > stimulation > > > > Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance > from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency > to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It > can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the > external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF > does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation > energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM > waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire > universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of > Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own > identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to > perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent > energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed > how wave propagates. It is nothing new! > > > > The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group > easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle > duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped > oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes > behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate > that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in > particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are > not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of > different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence > phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi > with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due > to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same > detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector > is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the > conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the > REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed > knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new > confirmed knowledge! > > > > Chandra. > > > > > > *From:* John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com > ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM > *To:* Adam K > *Cc:* John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; > Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, > Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; > Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; > Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Adam: > > > > Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the > refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re > in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: > > > > [image: GravitationalField] > > > > IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature > such that we depict a photon like this: > > > > [image: afield1form]iti > > > > See Wikipedia > : > *?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order > spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the > other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in > time?*. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal > ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? > waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to > one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: > > > > *Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become > nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so > brilliantly confirmed by experience?* > > > > Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a > little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down > the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think > light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. > And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so > bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going > round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an > electron. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light > is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like > resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave > travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v > = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because > it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the > expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). > > > > PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ > > > > > > > > > *From:* Adam K > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM > > *To:* John Duffield > > *Cc:* John Williamson ; chandra > ; Richard Gauthier ; A. > F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary > ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; David Saint John > ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. > ; Jonathan Weaver ; > Rachel ; Robert Hadfield > ; robert hudgins ; Vivian > Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek > ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew > Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green > > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > > > A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): > > > > Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the > 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive > index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. > > > > Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an > oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). > > > > Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become > nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so > brilliantly confirmed by experience? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: > > Adam/John: > > > > I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden > Address > Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said > this: > > > > *"empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor > isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the > gravitation potentials g**mn**), has, I think, finally disposed of the > view that space is physically empty*. > > > > He said *space*, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said > it was *inhomogeneous*. Also see this > Baez article where > you can read this: > > > > *Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but > just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature > of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial.* > > > > Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved > Spacetime . Inhomogeneous > space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved > in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of > light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: > > > > > > [image: EinsteinSpeedofLight] > > > > When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see > a curvature of your plot. See this explanation > . Also > see the general relativity section of this Baez page > > written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: > > > > *Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In > the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and > general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, > the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed > here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his > sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental > assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any > unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when > the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This > difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and > floor observers.* > > > > Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic > field, *it is*. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry > is all > about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but > throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, > and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic > field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it > anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now > repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and > anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a > tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s > gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk > rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. > > > > Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, *a wave which is held > together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own > field energy*. What he should have talked about, was an *electron*. > > > > Regards > > John > > > > > > *From:* John Williamson > > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM > > *To:* Adam K ; chandra > > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland > ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; David Saint John > ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. > ; Jonathan Weaver ; > Rachel ; Robert Hadfield > ; robert hudgins ; Vivian > Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek > ; John Duffield ; Mayank > Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg > ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael > Wright ; Nick Green > > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. > > Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to > pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no > respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes > indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one > allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of > course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their > interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the > interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer > to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical > torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in > the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to > the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral > field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very > origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a > torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? > Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked > the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My > own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing > alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and > one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts > that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not > really know. > > The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good > approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy > consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation > (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). > There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is > still too simple. > > However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I > rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque > on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon > from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to > be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of > the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does > appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this > brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for > Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, > however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by > observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for > example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers > "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through > space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. > > Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not > agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking > to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm > picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more > time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me > to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this > discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger > Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of > Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in > the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? > > Regards, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM > *To:* chandra > *Cc:* John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; > Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; > David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert > Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; > Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick > Green > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Hi Chandra, > > > > I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, > Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is > unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my > opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact > that plane waves don't exist. > > > > A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw > > > > I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more > carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would > superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing > something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands > superposition pretty well.) > > > > I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I > think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special > relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical > property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' > properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF > just spacetime? > > > > Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Adam > > > > PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the > hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in > cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time > through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: > > Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain > (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? > is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments > and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the > energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. > This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM > waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable > particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential > gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. > > The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary > reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable > through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and > perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need > a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a > unified field theory of everything. > > The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are > also elaborated in my recent book: > > > http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves > > > > Sincerely, > > Chandra. > > > > *From:* Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM > *To:* John Williamson > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; > wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; > Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar > Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; > ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; > John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; > Michael Wright; Nick Green > > > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hi John, > > Why do you say this? > > space does not support torsion, > > Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point > would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. > > Adam > > On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: > > Hi John, > > Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of > quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that > fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin > "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either > clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL > angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your > measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values > you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for > which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum > (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the > spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. > > What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when > you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. > Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect > to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The > simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and > the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a > tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin > and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a > characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for > half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. > The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space > (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen > atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A > free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must > tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a > frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? > Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is > where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in > 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what > would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? > > This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in > space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not > fully consistent with (all of) experiment. > > Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to > one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt > track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can > aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as > they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational > inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the > Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are > robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a > spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they > may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for > a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track > moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a > rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They > walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a > rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin > their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the > whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track > the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom > counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports > torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole > track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support > torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, > directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to > minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to > Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent > with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. > It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if > one measures the spin. > > Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there > is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic > self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any > particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the > flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect > to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - > whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two > frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz > transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the > other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space > or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round > the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). > It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense > to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow > of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have > interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well > enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often > in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in > this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. > > This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. > Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a > simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple > single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple > momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) > electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference > and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! > > Cheers, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM > *To:* John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; > Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De > Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin > van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel > O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; > Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > John > > Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is > nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin > angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We > made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, > and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be > spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms > outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your > arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be > moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids > in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, > because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise > or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: > > > > [image: ring_tor1_anim]. > > > > Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is > why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard > scientific evidence says it is. > > As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx > By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t > work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very > essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the > surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged > space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by > suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one > another. They aren?t doing this. They *are* photons. 511keV photons with > a toroidal topology. And see this: *?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J > cross B is a product of fields E and B? *There is no field E or B! Those > are the forces that result from field interactions. > > Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. > > Regards > > John > > > > * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment > > > > > > *From:* John Williamson > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM > > *To:* John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson > ; Andrew Meulenberg > > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil > Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Adam K ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > ; Hans De Raedt ; David > Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; Jonathan Weaver > ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." > ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland > ; Robert Hadfield ; robert > hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy > Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hi Guys, > > Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) > than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). > > I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not > get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we > are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start > getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They > are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but > this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the > electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), > > o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a > 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential > (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant > indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge > which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector > quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it > is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a > field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can > squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity > of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible > (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields > with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that > symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where > this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand > what the gauge is and what it is for. > > You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, > not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. > Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other > inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general > have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more > complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. > > Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? > Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are > products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the > paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on > FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case > of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and > B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of > the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of > Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times > four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) > vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. > > Hope this helps, > > John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM > *To:* Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; > Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De > Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan > Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; > "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; > robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Andrew: > > > > Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again > at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative > measure of local motion. > > > > Viv/Andrew: > > > > I?d like to stress that the photon is an *electromagnetic* field > variation, and the electron has an *electromagnetic* field. The thing we > call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that > results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about > this, but I really do think it?s important. > > > > All: > > > > I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a > photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about > selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that > matter. > > > > Regards > > John > > > > > > *From:* Vivian Robinson > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM > > *To:* Andrew Meulenberg > > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil > Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Adam K ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > ; Hans De Raedt ; David > Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; John Duffield ; John > Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; Mayank Drolia > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." > ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland > ; Robert Hadfield ; robert > hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy > Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Dear Andrew and all, > > > > I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under > this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at > problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have > had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my > ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved > and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the > physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most > in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What > some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We > know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric > and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed > appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of > the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon > are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length > that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of > conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. > > > > With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an > electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I > wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the > Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics > Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two > revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of > whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is > a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half > hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the > Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the > electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its > radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and > magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the > electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, > positron is mirror image of electron. > > > > > http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU > > > > Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's > spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends > upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are > "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised > because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the > observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until > its spin is measured. > > > > I hope this helps your understanding. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Viv Robinson > > > > On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > > > > Dear Richard, > > You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving > electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, > and even then I think it has to be moving" with: > > "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like > spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the > quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction > of some measurement axis." > > I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that > reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I > anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would > appreciate it. > > > > I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of > discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the > mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be > fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the > deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear > particles and physics. > > I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the > point. > > > > The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is > not a single-cycle creature. It *has* been made that way in special cases > with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 > (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just > the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon > about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on > a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one > view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose > itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform > isotropic *E*-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The > inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a > worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my > papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") > will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. > > This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, > from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, > momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that > there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole > eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges > independent.) > > When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular > momentum in *all* directions. Since the photon is traveling in all > directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a > torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light > speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of > motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the > electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the > relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis > (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the > distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This > then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and > quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. > > Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed > mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of > matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all > electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and > begins with the photon. > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -- Stephen Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Fri Feb 20 10:01:01 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:01:01 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Chip, Stephen, the right reference would be: J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). cheers, Martin Incidentally, Can anybody send me: Physics Essays, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? 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 Stephen Leary Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi Chip, I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be absorbed. Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate references. Cheers Stephen On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi John Williamson In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues involved. Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe??? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. [cid:image001.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:image002.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] . This [cid:image003.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:image004.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:image005.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image006.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image002.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:image007.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: [GravitationalField] IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: [afield1form]iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: [EinsteinSpeedofLight] When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. ________________________________ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). ? The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: [ring_tor1_anim]. Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: image006.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: image008.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: image009.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: image010.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: image011.gif URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Fri Feb 20 19:25:50 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:55:50 +0530 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au> <4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dear John W. and John D., Have you considered that a 'stationary' electron's spin could be about the time axis? It has no net direction in space until it moves or has a force applied to it. At that point, the electron field (photonic) is relativistically distorted and has a 3-D spin component that precesses about the velocity (or force or field) vector. That precession determines the deBroglie wavelength (and other attributes?). Andrew __________________________ On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:09 AM, John Williamson < John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi John, > > Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of > quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that > fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin > "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either > clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL > angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your > measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values > you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for > which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum > (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the > spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. > > What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when > you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. > Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect > to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The > simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and > the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a > tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin > and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a > characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for > half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. > The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space > (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen > atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A > free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must > tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a > frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? > Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is > where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in > 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what > would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? > > This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in > space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not > fully consistent with (all of) experiment. > > Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to > one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt > track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can > aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as > they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational > inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the > Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are > robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a > spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they > may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for > a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track > moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a > rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They > walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a > rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin > their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the > whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track > the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom > counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports > torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole > track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support > torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, > directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to > minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to > Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent > with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. > It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if > one measures the spin. > > Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there > is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic > self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any > particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the > flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect > to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - > whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two > frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz > transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the > other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space > or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round > the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). > It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense > to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow > of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have > interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well > enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often > in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in > this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. > > This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. > Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a > simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple > single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple > momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) > electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference > and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! > > Cheers, John. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM > *To:* John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; > Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De > Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin > van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel > O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; > Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > John > > Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is > nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin > angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We > made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, > and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be > spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms > outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your > arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be > moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids > in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, > because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise > or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: > > > > [image: ring_tor1_anim]. > > > > Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is > why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard > scientific evidence says it is. > > As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx > By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t > work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very > essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the > surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged > space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by > suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one > another. They aren?t doing this. They *are* photons. 511keV photons with > a toroidal topology. And see this: *?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J > cross B is a product of fields E and B? *There is no field E or B! Those > are the forces that result from field interactions. > > Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. > > Regards > > John > > > > * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment > > > *From:* John Williamson > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM > *To:* John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson > ; Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil > Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Adam K ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > ; Hans De Raedt ; David > Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; Jonathan Weaver > ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." > ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland > ; Robert Hadfield ; robert > hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy > Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > Hi Guys, > > Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) > than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). > > I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not > get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we > are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start > getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They > are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but > this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the > electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), > > o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a > 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential > (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant > indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge > which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector > quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it > is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a > field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can > squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity > of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible > (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields > with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that > symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where > this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand > what the gauge is and what it is for. > > You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, > not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. > Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other > inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general > have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more > complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. > > Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? > Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are > products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the > paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on > FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case > of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and > B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of > the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of > Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times > four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) > vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. > > Hope this helps, > > John. > ------------------------------ > *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM > *To:* Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; > Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De > Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan > Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; > "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; > robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Andrew: > > Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again > at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative > measure of local motion. > > Viv/Andrew: > > I?d like to stress that the photon is an *electromagnetic* field > variation, and the electron has an *electromagnetic* field. The thing we > call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that > results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about > this, but I really do think it?s important. > > All: > > I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a > photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about > selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that > matter. > > Regards > John > > > *From:* Vivian Robinson > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM > *To:* Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil > Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Adam K ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > ; Hans De Raedt ; David > Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; John Duffield ; John > Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; Mayank Drolia > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." > ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland > ; Robert Hadfield ; robert > hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy > Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Dear Andrew and all, > > I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under > this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at > problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have > had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my > ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved > and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the > physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most > in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What > some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We > know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric > and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed > appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of > the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon > are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length > that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of > conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. > > With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an > electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I > wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the > Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics > Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two > revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of > whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is > a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half > hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the > Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the > electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its > radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and > magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the > electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, > positron is mirror image of electron. > > > http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU > > Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's > spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends > upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are > "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised > because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the > observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until > its spin is measured. > > I hope this helps your understanding. > > Cheers, > > Viv Robinson > > On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving > electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, > and even then I think it has to be moving" with: > "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like > spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the > quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction > of some measurement axis." > I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation > that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. > I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would > appreciate it. > > I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of > discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the > mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be > fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the > deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear > particles and physics. > > I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the > point. > > The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is > not a single-cycle creature. It *has* been made that way in special cases > with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 > (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just > the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon > about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on > a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one > view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose > itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform > isotropic *E*-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The > inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a > worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my > papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") > will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. > > This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, > from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, > momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that > there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole > eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges > independent.) > > When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular > momentum in *all* directions. Since the photon is traveling in all > directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a > torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light > speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of > motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the > electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the > relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis > (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the > distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This > then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and > quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. > > Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed > mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of > matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all > electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and > begins with the photon. > > Andrew > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ring_tor1_anim[1].gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Fri Feb 20 22:18:41 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 06:18:41 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> , Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Thank you Martin and Stephen, Yes that was precisely the initial reference I had in mind. The paper initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has faded away with time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not understanding all sorts of stuff. To come back to Chip's question ... it is not so much that the photon "looks into the future" but more that one must really, in any theoretical framework, take on board the full implications of the theory, weigh them properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st century this process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories wanting in some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not there yet in understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as it means we can have some fun making new ones up. Lets get back to the narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity in this context. let us also consider three "localities"; that of the emitter, that of the absorber and that of the exchanged photon. Now, for the un-initiated amongst us, the word "local" here has a special meaning. It is the local in quantum non-locality. It is also "local" as opposed to "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance is "stronger" than a "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with gauge theories. To confuse things further, people take these things too seriously sometimes in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local really does or does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using big words or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This comes also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a single photon exchange event. Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame (and we will come back to this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in from the past. This could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far away and long ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is separated by scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the absorber, the emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same velocity (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No matter. Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future. We all do this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could consider this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or perhaps not hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a perfectly valid picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty is that it will hit something. If the probability of eventual absorption by matter elsewhere is unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then the converse should also be true - that wherever one looks one should observe stuff. This is not the case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as one would observe star-stuff in every direction. Alternatively, it could, be destined for some particular absorber - in the sense of the Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter argument seems to me to better fit the weight of current experiment from the quantum entanglement community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment with single photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase cancellation. No matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot of the interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go into the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the usual kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned "up" one will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will get only horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly polarised photons (or we polarise them) either will see, on average, just half of the incoming photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the short(ish) scale of current experiment: photons are not emitted of there is nowhere for them to go. Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a lack of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know how it works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, and investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or propose counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended in any way if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I already know that. What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this might seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there must be a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past, the other emits only to the future. Now move to the third locality - that of the exchange photon itself. Let us consider what is, and what is not, local for this object. Now, although the distance is very large for emitter and absorber -billions of light years, and the time measured by each is huge, though (for Andrew!) of opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) seen by a rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers cancel exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as an observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according to special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an experiment is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor observer as (s)he splats against whatever massive body is observing our hero the photon - but no matter. Darwinian selection. Conclusion: if we take special relativity seriously, the photon "locality" includes both the emission and absorption event at the same (relativistic) point in space time. In any event, for me the "direction" of time is self evident. It is the direction of energy exchange. Same maths, same thing. It is always from emitter to absorber. By definition. Emitter emits to future. Observer observes only past. As is consistent with experiment. No need for any daft entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or backwards symettrically. We can not. The question is then: is such a standpoint consistent with the whole body of experimental evidence or not. Discuss. Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Chip, Stephen, the right reference would be: J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). cheers, Martin Incidentally, Can anybody send me: Physics Essays, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? 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 Stephen Leary Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi Chip, I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be absorbed. Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate references. Cheers Stephen On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi John Williamson In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues involved. Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe??? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. [cid:image001.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:image002.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] . This [cid:image003.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:image004.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:image005.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image006.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:image002.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:image007.png at 01D04D3E.AF3E9650] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: [GravitationalField] IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: [afield1form]iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = v(?0/e0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = v(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = v(1/e0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: [EinsteinSpeedofLight] When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. ________________________________ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: [ring_tor1_anim]. Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. ________________________________ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: image006.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: image008.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: image009.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: image010.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: image011.gif URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Fri Feb 20 22:28:25 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:58:25 +0530 Subject: [General] Potential discussion group member In-Reply-To: <2454C0BC-33C2-47BD-9913-C21A89AC254F@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> <2454C0BC-33C2-47BD-9913-C21A89AC254F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Richard, I would appreciate a copy of his paper. Thx, Andrew On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Richard Gauthier wrote: > Hello all, > One of my ResearchGate contacts has some very similar ideas on EM and > particles to those of some in our discussion group. His recent Physics > Essays abstract is attached. I also have his article for those interested. > I think he would be a good addition to our general discussion group. > Richard > > de Broglie wave and electromagnetic travelling wave model of electron > and other charged particles > Malik Mohammad Asif a) Department of Physics, COMSATS Institute of > Information Technology, Park Road, Chak Shahzad, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan > (Received 2 October 2012; accepted 8 February 2014; published online 7 > March 2014) > Abstract: The original wave theory proposed by de Broglie necessitates a > stationary (localized) monochromatic plane wave of high frequency nuo associated > with a particle. As the particle moves, the de Broglie wavelength appears > as an observable (a relativistic effect). The nature and interpretation of > high frequency oscillations remained unrevealed so far. This paper presents > a self- trapped circular electromagnetic (EM) travelling wave model of > electron (specifically) and of other charged particles in general. Curling > EM wave is localized (stationary) and still a plane monochromatic > travelling wave, against the customary wave packet approach, where a number > of frequencies are made to interfere to build a stationary localized wave > packet. The model reveals facts such as interpretation of wave function Psi > (de Broglie wave) as a relativistic effect of a real wave function and > removes the discrepancy of very high phase velocity (c2/v) associated > with it. The model also incorporates zitterbewegung of electron and 4pi > rotation needed, for a complete round of wave cycle. VC 2014 Physics > Essays Publication. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-27.1.146] > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Fri Feb 20 22:41:05 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:11:05 +0530 Subject: [General] gravitation Message-ID: Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Sat Feb 21 00:02:30 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 13:32:30 +0530 Subject: [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and people's views Message-ID: Dear Folk, I just finished glancing through Viv's paper. (I won't have time to read it for a while). http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Like so many papers of what has been written by people in this group, I think that we are all seeing the same vision (not necessarily thru the same glasses). On most of the topics, I could not express the many important points as well as she did, or John W. did, or John D. did, etc. in their various writings. The number of subtopics in the field is immense. The number of people (and egos of independent minds?) involved is already large and growing. How do we move it forward? We don't have time to sort it all out with presentation of many individual papers (on one day at a single conference) that will say much the same thing. We don't have time to sort it all out with joint discussions of all of the topics during that week. Chandra has done almost single-handedly a great job on organizing and running the Nature of Light series. It has been growing over the years. I think that we all want to do things faster with this new direction. We now have the critical mass to bring it all together. Chandra has provided the 'bootstrap' to help us get it off the ground. Chip and Chandra have listed some topics that need to be covered. John W. started to answer some of them. These are points for discussion when we get together at the conference (and even before). In the meantime, I would propose that we do several things that will organize our diverse thoughts, but joint effort. I would welcome someone volunteering for the work necessary and for other suggestions and contributions of ideas and effort. If we can use the website as a repository of contributions and a 'poster board' of the contributors and presentations, then we might be able to multiply the benefits of this gathering and its impact on the physics community. We need a poster paper that will: 1. identify the main photonic electron concepts 2. List session presentations and presenters at the conference - title of paper (s) and - main emphasis of the presentation 3. list topics that identify what we consider to be the important points. - it will contain sub topics and the subtopics will have 'positions' (specific concepts or simply pro & con) - each subtopic position will have a primary 'advocate' (if one exists) and - Each member of the group (not just those at the conference) will have a column that will be filled in for each postion (e.g., green for agree, red for disagree, yellow for mixed, blank for undecided, 'O' for thinking that the position, subtopic, or topic has no added value. 4. provide a decision process that: - 'encourages' each author to chose a topic (or topics) to emphasize in their presentation at the conference. - The papers probably will have to follow the abstract submitted. They can be more complete. However, - the presentations can avoid great repetition by having a couple general views at the beginning of the session(s) and then limiting slides to the particular point of interest. 5. propose an additional conference to carry on what we are starting this year. - for alternating years? - In Europe? - SPIE, or other sponsor - title? 6. . - - - - As a starting point, the topics list for people to vote on could include: 1. Photon properties leading to the electron - Potentials in a photon (AM & BH) - fields of a photon - energy (mass) density of a photon (AM) - self-focusing as result of high mass-density distortion of space - total internal reflection - Imbert-Fedorov effect 2. Coherent photon interactions - Constructive interference (Bosonic nature) - Destructive interference (Fermionic nature) - in-between interference (non- interaction?) - incoherent interference (non- interaction?) 3. Photon-to-electron conversion - self coherence - photon bending in an inhomogenous *E*-field - 'rectification' of light - electron-positron coupling via wormhole - etc. 4. Electron properties derived from photon: - total energy - EM energy - charge (potential & fields) - mass (charge & energy equivalent) - Compton wavelength - deBroglie wavelength? - ang. momentum - spin - relativistic response - predictions, different from known properties? - ?? 5. Others? Contributions to this list, from others in the group, should be added in italics. Phrasing these listed items in the form of true/false questions may not be possible; but, it is worth a try so that people can quickly answer and give a picture of where we stand as a subgroup. This set of posters is not just for the subgroup. It will act as a guide for the group of attendees and speakers who have not thought deeply about the electron as based on photons. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Sat Feb 21 03:14:51 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:14:51 +0000 Subject: [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and people's views In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andrew, good work. I would like to add to: "4) electron properties derived from photon": * anomalous gyromagnetic ratio, g-2 * point-like interaction * Pauli principle * weak interaction At the moment I am (with John W) trying to prepare a paper o the Pauli Principle, we have had some idea about this since 1994 (see ICHEP'94 conference). The weak interaction is perhaps too illusive yet in a photon model, so very interesting to test creativity perhaps. Note that all other features in the list have been covered already in our 1997 paper. There is a little anecdote about this, I was invited to Hendrik Casimir's home in 1993 (the Casimir force Casimir, indeed), He had retired more than 2 decades before from being the CEO of Philips Research and was, at 84, still very active. It was quite some honour to me and it was because he had heard about "the electron as a photon in toroidal topology" paper of John and me and was quite pleased with the derivation of the De Broglie wavelength and its cause as described in that paper (the original version was written in 1991, it took us a while to get it published). I had a long talk with him on black body radiation from wavelength size structures as well as on the so-called quantum cutter. Both where seen as very important for making more efficient lamps. 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 Andrew Meulenberg Sent: zaterdag 21 februari 2015 9:03 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: P.G. Vaidya Subject: [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and people's views Dear Folk, I just finished glancing through Viv's paper. (I won't have time to read it for a while). http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Like so many papers of what has been written by people in this group, I think that we are all seeing the same vision (not necessarily thru the same glasses). On most of the topics, I could not express the many important points as well as she did, or John W. did, or John D. did, etc. in their various writings. The number of subtopics in the field is immense. The number of people (and egos of independent minds?) involved is already large and growing. How do we move it forward? We don't have time to sort it all out with presentation of many individual papers (on one day at a single conference) that will say much the same thing. We don't have time to sort it all out with joint discussions of all of the topics during that week. Chandra has done almost single-handedly a great job on organizing and running the Nature of Light series. It has been growing over the years. I think that we all want to do things faster with this new direction. We now have the critical mass to bring it all together. Chandra has provided the 'bootstrap' to help us get it off the ground. Chip and Chandra have listed some topics that need to be covered. John W. started to answer some of them. These are points for discussion when we get together at the conference (and even before). In the meantime, I would propose that we do several things that will organize our diverse thoughts, but joint effort. I would welcome someone volunteering for the work necessary and for other suggestions and contributions of ideas and effort. If we can use the website as a repository of contributions and a 'poster board' of the contributors and presentations, then we might be able to multiply the benefits of this gathering and its impact on the physics community. We need a poster paper that will: 1. identify the main photonic electron concepts 2. List session presentations and presenters at the conference * title of paper (s) and * main emphasis of the presentation 1. list topics that identify what we consider to be the important points. * it will contain sub topics and the subtopics will have 'positions' (specific concepts or simply pro & con) * each subtopic position will have a primary 'advocate' (if one exists) and * Each member of the group (not just those at the conference) will have a column that will be filled in for each postion (e.g., green for agree, red for disagree, yellow for mixed, blank for undecided, 'O' for thinking that the position, subtopic, or topic has no added value. 1. provide a decision process that: * 'encourages' each author to chose a topic (or topics) to emphasize in their presentation at the conference. * The papers probably will have to follow the abstract submitted. They can be more complete. However, * the presentations can avoid great repetition by having a couple general views at the beginning of the session(s) and then limiting slides to the particular point of interest. 1. propose an additional conference to carry on what we are starting this year. * for alternating years? * In Europe? * SPIE, or other sponsor * title? 1. . - - - - As a starting point, the topics list for people to vote on could include: 1. Photon properties leading to the electron * Potentials in a photon (AM & BH) * fields of a photon * energy (mass) density of a photon (AM) * self-focusing as result of high mass-density distortion of space * total internal reflection * Imbert-Fedorov effect 1. Coherent photon interactions * Constructive interference (Bosonic nature) * Destructive interference (Fermionic nature) * in-between interference (non- interaction?) * incoherent interference (non- interaction?) 1. Photon-to-electron conversion * self coherence * photon bending in an inhomogenous E-field * 'rectification' of light * electron-positron coupling via wormhole * etc. 1. Electron properties derived from photon: * total energy * EM energy * charge (potential & fields) * mass (charge & energy equivalent) * Compton wavelength * deBroglie wavelength? * ang. momentum * spin * relativistic response * predictions, different from known properties? * ?? 1. Others? Contributions to this list, from others in the group, should be added in italics. Phrasing these listed items in the form of true/false questions may not be possible; but, it is worth a try so that people can quickly answer and give a picture of where we stand as a subgroup. This set of posters is not just for the subgroup. It will act as a guide for the group of attendees and speakers who have not thought deeply about the electron as based on photons. Andrew ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Sat Feb 21 05:34:12 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:04:12 +0530 Subject: [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and people's views In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Martin, Thank you for the input. I look forward to learning from you in many areas (I guess I need to start by reading your papers). Right now, in my cold fusion work, I am looking at the effects on an electron when it is within a fermi of a proton. So, both your comments on the size of the electron (under those conditions) and the weak interaction are particularly important to me. I think that both this work on the electron and the theories of cold fusion will open up physics in the same manner as did relativity & QM in the last century. My interest in the Pauli Principle fits with the model we have for the beginning process(es) in cold fusion. Perhaps you can answer a question that no one seems able to address: "when do two fermions become a boson?" It is possible to consider superconductivity, which does not require the electrons to be close and electron-positron annihilation, which requires them to be very close. What about two electrons in an atomic s-orbit (averaging an angstrom apart)? What about two electrons in a deep Dirac level orbit (~2 fermi radius, so 4 fm apart)? What about the proton and an electron? Physics seems to accept what is convenient and reject what cannot be proven. We need a list of all the papers submitted and who will be there. I look forward to the sessions and the gatherings before & after. Andrew _____________________________ On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Mark, Martin van der < martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote: > Andrew, good work. > > I would like to add to: "4) electron properties derived from photon": > > ? anomalous gyromagnetic ratio, g-2 > > ? point-like interaction > > ? Pauli principle > > ? weak interaction > > At the moment I am (with John W) trying to prepare a paper o the Pauli > Principle, we have had some idea about this since 1994 (see ICHEP'94 > conference). The weak interaction is perhaps too illusive yet in a photon > model, so very interesting to test creativity perhaps. Note that all other > features in the list have been covered already in our 1997 paper. > > > > There is a little anecdote about this, I was invited to Hendrik Casimir's > home in 1993 (the Casimir force Casimir, indeed), He had retired more than > 2 decades before from being the CEO of Philips Research and was, at 84, > still very active. It was quite some honour to me and it was because he had > heard about "the electron as a photon in toroidal topology" paper of John > and me and was quite pleased with the derivation of the De Broglie > wavelength and its cause as described in that paper (the original version > was written in 1991, it took us a while to get it published). I had a long > talk with him on black body radiation from wavelength size structures as > well as on the so-called quantum cutter. Both where seen as very important > for making more efficient lamps. > > 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+31 40 2747548+31 40 2747548+31 40 2747548 > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark= > philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew > Meulenberg > *Sent:* zaterdag 21 februari 2015 9:03 > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew > Meulenberg > *Cc:* P.G. Vaidya > *Subject:* [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion > and people's views > > > > Dear Folk, > > I just finished glancing through Viv's paper. (I won't have time to read > it for a while). > > > http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU > > > > Like so many papers of what has been written by people in this group, I > think that we are all seeing the same vision (not necessarily thru the same > glasses). On most of the topics, I could not express the many important > points as well as she did, or John W. did, or John D. did, etc. in their > various writings. The number of subtopics in the field is immense. The > number of people (and egos of independent minds?) involved is already large > and growing. How do we move it forward? > > We don't have time to sort it all out with presentation of many individual > papers (on one day at a single conference) that will say much the same > thing. We don't have time to sort it all out with joint discussions of all > of the topics during that week. Chandra has done almost single-handedly a > great job on organizing and running the Nature of Light series. It has been > growing over the years. I think that we all want to do things faster with > this new direction. We now have the critical mass to bring it all together. > Chandra has provided the 'bootstrap' to help us get it off the ground. > > Chip and Chandra have listed some topics that need to be covered. John W. > started to answer some of them. These are points for discussion when we get > together at the conference (and even before). In the meantime, I would > propose that we do several things that will organize our diverse thoughts, > but joint effort. I would welcome someone volunteering for the work > necessary and for other suggestions and contributions of ideas and effort. > If we can use the website as a repository of contributions and a 'poster > board' of the contributors and presentations, then we might be able to > multiply the benefits of this gathering and its impact on the physics > community. > > We need a poster paper that will: > > 1. identify the main photonic electron concepts > 2. List session presentations and presenters at the conference > > > - title of paper (s) and > - main emphasis of the presentation > > > 1. list topics that identify what we consider to be the important > points. > > > - it will contain sub topics and the subtopics will have 'positions' > (specific concepts or simply pro & con) > - each subtopic position will have a primary 'advocate' (if one > exists) and > - Each member of the group (not just those at the conference) will > have a column that will be filled in for each postion (e.g., green for > agree, red for disagree, yellow for mixed, blank for undecided, 'O' for > thinking that the position, subtopic, or topic has no added value. > > > 1. provide a decision process that: > > > - 'encourages' each author to chose a topic (or topics) to emphasize > in their presentation at the conference. > - The papers probably will have to follow the abstract submitted. > They can be more complete. However, > - the presentations can avoid great repetition by having a couple > general views at the beginning of the session(s) and then limiting slides > to the particular point of interest. > > > 1. propose an additional conference to carry on what we are starting > this year. > > > - for alternating years? > - In Europe? > - SPIE, or other sponsor > - title? > > > 1. . - - - - > > As a starting point, the topics list for people to vote on could include: > > 1. Photon properties leading to the electron > > > - Potentials in a photon (AM & BH) > - fields of a photon > - energy (mass) density of a photon (AM) > - self-focusing as result of high mass-density distortion of space > - total internal reflection > - Imbert-Fedorov effect > > > 1. Coherent photon interactions > > > - Constructive interference (Bosonic nature) > - Destructive interference (Fermionic nature) > - in-between interference (non- interaction?) > - incoherent interference (non- interaction?) > > > 1. Photon-to-electron conversion > > > - self coherence > - photon bending in an inhomogenous *E*-field > - 'rectification' of light > - electron-positron coupling via wormhole > - etc. > > > 1. Electron properties derived from photon: > > > - total energy > - EM energy > - charge (potential & fields) > - mass (charge & energy equivalent) > - Compton wavelength > - deBroglie wavelength? > - ang. momentum > - spin > - relativistic response > - predictions, different from known properties? > - ?? > > > 1. Others? > > Contributions to this list, from others in the group, should be added in > italics. Phrasing these listed items in the form of true/false questions > may not be possible; but, it is worth a try so that people can quickly > answer and give a picture of where we stand as a subgroup. > > This set of posters is not just for the subgroup. It will act as a guide > for the group of attendees and speakers who have not thought deeply about > the electron as based on photons. > > Andrew > > ------------------------------ > 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 mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Sat Feb 21 05:49:34 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 07:49:34 -0600 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> , <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <007101d04ddd$3f2bca50$bd835ef0$@gmail.com> Hi All Sorting through implications at the macro level? While this ?single point in spacetime? approach appears to answer the questions raised by experiment, it is still a bit mind warping to try to understand the larger implications. Let?s start with John W?s thought about ?now? for a photon, and let?s then conjecture that the emitters and absorbers are also particles made of photons. In this scenario, virtually all of the photons (and therefore particles) in the universe are feeling practically all of our future and our past. Does this imply then, that using that approach, all photon exchange events are already determined? Otherwise, how can it be that a photon from a distant star, millions of years in the past (in our frame), can know that you will be standing in a specific location, and that a particle in your eye will make a good absorber? If, however, each photon?s ?now?, is defined to begin at the macroscopic time point ?now?, for a particle at rest, and stretch into its own future only, and not into its past, it seems we still have the issues of predetermination of events. Our normal beliefs and experiences indicate to us that all events are not predetermined. It seems to us that we have choices. So where is the illusion? Is it in our perception of freedom of choice, or in our theory, or simply my misinterpretation of the implications? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:19 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Thank you Martin and Stephen, Yes that was precisely the initial reference I had in mind. The paper initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has faded away with time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not understanding all sorts of stuff. To come back to Chip's question ... it is not so much that the photon "looks into the future" but more that one must really, in any theoretical framework, take on board the full implications of the theory, weigh them properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st century this process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories wanting in some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not there yet in understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as it means we can have some fun making new ones up. Lets get back to the narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity in this context. let us also consider three "localities"; that of the emitter, that of the absorber and that of the exchanged photon. Now, for the un-initiated amongst us, the word "local" here has a special meaning. It is the local in quantum non-locality. It is also "local" as opposed to "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance is "stronger" than a "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with gauge theories. To confuse things further, people take these things too seriously sometimes in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local really does or does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using big words or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This comes also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a single photon exchange event. Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame (and we will come back to this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in from the past. This could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far away and long ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is separated by scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the absorber, the emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same velocity (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No matter. Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future. We all do this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could consider this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or perhaps not hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a perfectly valid picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty is that it will hit something. If the probability of eventual absorption by matter elsewhere is unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then the converse should also be true - that wherever one looks one should observe stuff. This is not the case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as one would observe star-stuff in every direction. Alternatively, it could, be destined for some particular absorber - in the sense of the Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter argument seems to me to better fit the weight of current experiment from the quantum entanglement community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment with single photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase cancellation. No matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot of the interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go into the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the usual kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned "up" one will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will get only horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly polarised photons (or we polarise them) either will see, on average, just half of the incoming photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the short(ish) scale of current experiment: photons are not emitted of there is nowhere for them to go. Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a lack of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know how it works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, and investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or propose counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended in any way if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I already know that. What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this might seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there must be a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past, the other emits only to the future. Now move to the third locality - that of the exchange photon itself. Let us consider what is, and what is not, local for this object. Now, although the distance is very large for emitter and absorber -billions of light years, and the time measured by each is huge, though (for Andrew!) of opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) seen by a rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers cancel exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as an observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according to special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an experiment is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor observer as (s)he splats against whatever massive body is observing our hero the photon - but no matter. Darwinian selection. Conclusion: if we take special relativity seriously, the photon "locality" includes both the emission and absorption event at the same (relativistic) point in space time. In any event, for me the "direction" of time is self evident. It is the direction of energy exchange. Same maths, same thing. It is always from emitter to absorber. By definition. Emitter emits to future. Observer observes only past. As is consistent with experiment. No need for any daft entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or backwards symettrically. We can not. The question is then: is such a standpoint consistent with the whole body of experimental evidence or not. Discuss. Cheers, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Chip, Stephen, the right reference would be: J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). cheers, Martin Incidentally, Can anybody send me: Physics Essays, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? 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 Stephen Leary Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi Chip, I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be absorbed. Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate references. Cheers Stephen On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi John Williamson In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues involved. Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe??? Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson= glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson= glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [ chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson= glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [ chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ? natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [ mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield < johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [ afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto: afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg < mules333 at gmail.com> wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Sat Feb 21 06:46:21 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 14:46:21 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin In-Reply-To: References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au><4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <274C21CCC2424C22B549FA5C2E70386F@HPlaptop> Andrew: I have a very mundane view of time. Like, it?s just a measure of motion. See A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein along with time travel is science fiction. So things like the passage of time or travelling through time leave me cold. Ditto for spin about the time axis I?m afraid. I feel more comfortable with the Einstein-de Haas effect which ?demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics?. Maybe the issue is the standing-wave nature of the electron? There?s a rotational action in the photon, and if the photon is itself going round and round just so, the two rotations maybe cancel such that the field variation looks like a standing field. But it isn?t really standing. If you have a standing wave in a cavity and you drop one of the sides, that wave is off like a shot. It moves at c from a ?standing? start. It looked like it was still and stationary and standing and static, but it wasn?t. It was always dynamical. Ditto for the electron. If it wasn?t a dynamical spinor, it wouldn?t go round and round in a magnetic field. Let me put it another way: if it wasn?t spinning, your boomerang wouldn?t come back. As for an electron moving, IMHO one should start with Compton scattering because that?s the simplest situation. The way I see it is that the electron ?acquires a slice? of the incident photon, such that the electron?s photonic field is no longer rotationally symmetrical. Hence the electron moves. Draw repeated circles on a piece of paper whilst somebody pulls the paper to the left. Or draw an incomplete circle, then without lifting your pen, draw another and another and another. It has net direction in space. I?m not sure about the 3D spin component that precesses about the velocity vector. I?m struggling to visualize it. Sorry. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:25 AM To: John Williamson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; P.G. Vaidya Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin Dear John W. and John D., Have you considered that a 'stationary' electron's spin could be about the time axis? It has no net direction in space until it moves or has a force applied to it. At that point, the electron field (photonic) is relativistically distorted and has a 3-D spin component that precesses about the velocity (or force or field) vector. That precession determines the deBroglie wavelength (and other attributes?). Andrew __________________________ On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:09 AM, John Williamson wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 21892 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 8784 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chandra at phys.uconn.edu Sat Feb 21 06:50:57 2015 From: chandra at phys.uconn.edu (chandra) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 09:50:57 -0500 Subject: [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and people's views In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002001d04de5$cdbc65b0$69353110$@phys.uconn.edu> Andrew: I am very glad to see that some of you are constructing questions that forces us to think in terms of ongoing physical processes happening in nature; which I personally express as Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E). Let us keep on developing the potential structure of discussion at the San Diego conference. Framing the question determines the answer! However, the questions are created out of our conscious and/or unconscious PURPOSE of perpetually doing better and better (evolution!). Of course, it is done by our neural network, the human thinking mind, influenced by individual gene-set, collective cultures and strong self-disciplined minds. This is why it is critically important to promote how to become self-aware of our individualistic thinking logics. Logically self-consistent serious thoughts will always find some defendable explanation for observed natural phenomena. But that set of logics (postulates) will, for us, will remain always INCOMPLETE, because we have constructed them based upon insufficient knowledge of the universe. Yet, we must keep on evolving by iteratively improving upon the original logic-set. This is also the reason why we must consciously encourage diversity of thinking. Our different logic templates will extract out different aspects of ontological reality being used by nature; albeit mixed up by mental "chaff" appearing as logically self-consistent "reality" through our favorite theories and experiments. Remember that theory determines what we "can" measure and none of our measurements can extract complete information about anything of nature that we are trying to study (explore)! This is high time in the evolution of physics teaching that we make the students become consciously aware of their personal belief system; which is at the core of their enquiring minds (how they frame questions to understand nature). Sorry for philosophizing! But, I am trying to keep my role as the provocateur to establish the platform for perpetually iterative thinking in physics, a paradigm that does not have to go through repeated disruptive REVOLUTIONS as our past history. Faster, iterative and corrective feedback will make our evolution steady. This will save many brilliant minds from producing nothing useful anchored to ontological reality, but, nonetheless, producing many brilliant concepts and theories. I have attached the review of a book on "Light:..." by Kelly, which I have written in AJP. I praise the book for its comprehensiveness about the state of current theoretical understanding of light. However, I have also expressed my overall view against the collective "blind alley" thinking; which ignores the Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) built into our theories. We must not generalize Gamma-Nucleon interaction results as THE platform to understand rest of the EM wave spectrum; they are dramatically different from the standpoint of detector-wave interaction processes. We have recently discussed about the response of a Nobel laureate. In the near future, I will give brief summary of my encounters with over half-a-dozen Laureates, starting with Willis Lamb in 1976, after I experimentally convinced myself about the NIW-property of all waves in the absence of interacting materials. Let us keep up the high spirit of our enquiring minds! We are all important. We are all productive and useful. We are all have developed diverse logically self-consistent thinking templates. This is the most healthy aspect of positive human evolution. A la Newton, let us keep standing on the shoulders of our predecessor giants to keep on increasing our knowledge horizon; instead of succumbing to our evolutionary "messiah-complex" by bowing down at the feet of our great forefathers. It is high time for us to identify and articulate all the founding postulates behind all the working theories and recast them in light of all the current knowledge we have acquired. Physics is not non-evolving religion! And, inspire the next generation to do the same on the improvements done by us. The foundation of the edifice of the Physics has not been SET by the current working theories. Human minds and the methodology of our enquiry have not yet reached the stage to SET the foundation of evolution of scientific knowledge. It is a bit un-settling; but our thinking process must keep on evolving. Humans are thinking animals! Our evolution is now driven by our cultural concepts in which we are totally immersed. Hence, the "Urgency of evolution-process-congruent thinking" to anchor our thinking to reality. If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it! I apologize in advance if some you of you think I am just wasting your time! Cheers! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticl es.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 8:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Cc: P.G. Vaidya Subject: Re: [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and people's views Dear Martin, Thank you for the input. I look forward to learning from you in many areas (I guess I need to start by reading your papers). Right now, in my cold fusion work, I am looking at the effects on an electron when it is within a fermi of a proton. So, both your comments on the size of the electron (under those conditions) and the weak interaction are particularly important to me. I think that both this work on the electron and the theories of cold fusion will open up physics in the same manner as did relativity & QM in the last century. My interest in the Pauli Principle fits with the model we have for the beginning process(es) in cold fusion. Perhaps you can answer a question that no one seems able to address: "when do two fermions become a boson?" It is possible to consider superconductivity, which does not require the electrons to be close and electron-positron annihilation, which requires them to be very close. What about two electrons in an atomic s-orbit (averaging an angstrom apart)? What about two electrons in a deep Dirac level orbit (~2 fermi radius, so 4 fm apart)? What about the proton and an electron? Physics seems to accept what is convenient and reject what cannot be proven. We need a list of all the papers submitted and who will be there. I look forward to the sessions and the gatherings before & after. Andrew _____________________________ On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Mark, Martin van der wrote: Andrew, good work. I would like to add to: "4) electron properties derived from photon": . anomalous gyromagnetic ratio, g-2 . point-like interaction . Pauli principle . weak interaction At the moment I am (with John W) trying to prepare a paper o the Pauli Principle, we have had some idea about this since 1994 (see ICHEP'94 conference). The weak interaction is perhaps too illusive yet in a photon model, so very interesting to test creativity perhaps. Note that all other features in the list have been covered already in our 1997 paper. There is a little anecdote about this, I was invited to Hendrik Casimir's home in 1993 (the Casimir force Casimir, indeed), He had retired more than 2 decades before from being the CEO of Philips Research and was, at 84, still very active. It was quite some honour to me and it was because he had heard about "the electron as a photon in toroidal topology" paper of John and me and was quite pleased with the derivation of the De Broglie wavelength and its cause as described in that paper (the original version was written in 1991, it took us a while to get it published). I had a long talk with him on black body radiation from wavelength size structures as well as on the so-called quantum cutter. Both where seen as very important for making more efficient lamps. 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 +31 40 2747548 +31 40 2747548 +31 40 2747548 From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark =philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: zaterdag 21 februari 2015 9:03 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: P.G. Vaidya Subject: [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and people's views Dear Folk, I just finished glancing through Viv's paper. (I won't have time to read it for a while). http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press .com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26 fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcr w&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Like so many papers of what has been written by people in this group, I think that we are all seeing the same vision (not necessarily thru the same glasses). On most of the topics, I could not express the many important points as well as she did, or John W. did, or John D. did, etc. in their various writings. The number of subtopics in the field is immense. The number of people (and egos of independent minds?) involved is already large and growing. How do we move it forward? We don't have time to sort it all out with presentation of many individual papers (on one day at a single conference) that will say much the same thing. We don't have time to sort it all out with joint discussions of all of the topics during that week. Chandra has done almost single-handedly a great job on organizing and running the Nature of Light series. It has been growing over the years. I think that we all want to do things faster with this new direction. We now have the critical mass to bring it all together. Chandra has provided the 'bootstrap' to help us get it off the ground. Chip and Chandra have listed some topics that need to be covered. John W. started to answer some of them. These are points for discussion when we get together at the conference (and even before). In the meantime, I would propose that we do several things that will organize our diverse thoughts, but joint effort. I would welcome someone volunteering for the work necessary and for other suggestions and contributions of ideas and effort. If we can use the website as a repository of contributions and a 'poster board' of the contributors and presentations, then we might be able to multiply the benefits of this gathering and its impact on the physics community. We need a poster paper that will: 1. identify the main photonic electron concepts 2. List session presentations and presenters at the conference * title of paper (s) and * main emphasis of the presentation 3. list topics that identify what we consider to be the important points. * it will contain sub topics and the subtopics will have 'positions' (specific concepts or simply pro & con) * each subtopic position will have a primary 'advocate' (if one exists) and * Each member of the group (not just those at the conference) will have a column that will be filled in for each postion (e.g., green for agree, red for disagree, yellow for mixed, blank for undecided, 'O' for thinking that the position, subtopic, or topic has no added value. 4. provide a decision process that: * 'encourages' each author to chose a topic (or topics) to emphasize in their presentation at the conference. * The papers probably will have to follow the abstract submitted. They can be more complete. However, * the presentations can avoid great repetition by having a couple general views at the beginning of the session(s) and then limiting slides to the particular point of interest. 5. propose an additional conference to carry on what we are starting this year. * for alternating years? * In Europe? * SPIE, or other sponsor * title? 6. . - - - - As a starting point, the topics list for people to vote on could include: 1. Photon properties leading to the electron * Potentials in a photon (AM & BH) * fields of a photon * energy (mass) density of a photon (AM) * self-focusing as result of high mass-density distortion of space * total internal reflection * Imbert-Fedorov effect 2. Coherent photon interactions * Constructive interference (Bosonic nature) * Destructive interference (Fermionic nature) * in-between interference (non- interaction?) * incoherent interference (non- interaction?) 3. Photon-to-electron conversion * self coherence * photon bending in an inhomogenous E-field * 'rectification' of light * electron-positron coupling via wormhole * etc. 4. Electron properties derived from photon: * total energy * EM energy * charge (potential & fields) * mass (charge & energy equivalent) * Compton wavelength * deBroglie wavelength? * ang. momentum * spin * relativistic response * predictions, different from known properties? * ?? 5. Others? Contributions to this list, from others in the group, should be added in italics. Phrasing these listed items in the form of true/false questions may not be possible; but, it is worth a try so that people can quickly answer and give a picture of where we stand as a subgroup. This set of posters is not just for the subgroup. It will act as a guide for the group of attendees and speakers who have not thought deeply about the electron as based on photons. Andrew _____ 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 mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2015.1_BookRevw._Light-Kelly.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55888 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Sat Feb 21 07:19:05 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 15:19:05 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <007101d04ddd$3f2bca50$bd835ef0$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <007101d04ddd$3f2bca50$bd835ef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0FE3D028526F457898E2EA2A89EB3798@HPlaptop> John/Chip/All: I just don?t buy this Wheeler/Feynman emitter/absorber stuff. By and large, if I see something with Wheeler?s name on it, I am skeptical. And as for special relativity, see The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. The photon has a wavelength, it isn?t length-contracted to a zero wavelength. It moves at c, it isn?t instant. And IMHO it doesn?t ?see? anything at all. It doesn?t see a light year as no space at all. It doesn?t see a year as no time at all. IMHO a radiating body radiates, it doesn?t care about some absorber light years away. There?s no spooky connection between emitters and absorbers. However the photon from a flourescent light is about three metres long, and you know that a photon can interact with itself. IMHO it can interact with itself in the equipment. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:49 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi All Sorting through implications at the macro level? While this ?single point in spacetime? approach appears to answer the questions raised by experiment, it is still a bit mind warping to try to understand the larger implications. Let?s start with John W?s thought about ?now? for a photon, and let?s then conjecture that the emitters and absorbers are also particles made of photons. In this scenario, virtually all of the photons (and therefore particles) in the universe are feeling practically all of our future and our past. Does this imply then, that using that approach, all photon exchange events are already determined? Otherwise, how can it be that a photon from a distant star, millions of years in the past (in our frame), can know that you will be standing in a specific location, and that a particle in your eye will make a good absorber? If, however, each photon?s ?now?, is defined to begin at the macroscopic time point ?now?, for a particle at rest, and stretch into its own future only, and not into its past, it seems we still have the issues of predetermination of events. Our normal beliefs and experiences indicate to us that all events are not predetermined. It seems to us that we have choices. So where is the illusion? Is it in our perception of freedom of choice, or in our theory, or simply my misinterpretation of the implications? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:19 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Thank you Martin and Stephen, Yes that was precisely the initial reference I had in mind. The paper initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has faded away with time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not understanding all sorts of stuff. To come back to Chip's question ... it is not so much that the photon "looks into the future" but more that one must really, in any theoretical framework, take on board the full implications of the theory, weigh them properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st century this process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories wanting in some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not there yet in understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as it means we can have some fun making new ones up. Lets get back to the narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity in this context. let us also consider three "localities"; that of the emitter, that of the absorber and that of the exchanged photon. Now, for the un-initiated amongst us, the word "local" here has a special meaning. It is the local in quantum non-locality. It is also "local" as opposed to "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance is "stronger" than a "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with gauge theories. To confuse things further, people take these things too seriously sometimes in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local really does or does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using big words or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This comes also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a single photon exchange event. Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame (and we will come back to this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in from the past. This could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far away and long ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is separated by scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the absorber, the emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same velocity (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No matter. Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future. We all do this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could consider this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or perhaps not hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a perfectly valid picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty is that it will hit something. If the probability of eventual absorption by matter elsewhere is unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then the converse should also be true - that wherever one looks one should observe stuff. This is not the case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as one would observe star-stuff in every direction. Alternatively, it could, be destined for some particular absorber - in the sense of the Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter argument seems to me to better fit the weight of current experiment from the quantum entanglement community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment with single photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase cancellation. No matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot of the interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go into the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the usual kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned "up" one will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will get only horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly polarised photons (or we polarise them) either will see, on average, just half of the incoming photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the short(ish) scale of current experiment: photons are not emitted of there is nowhere for them to go. Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a lack of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know how it works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, and investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or propose counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended in any way if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I already know that. What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this might seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there must be a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past, the other emits only to the future. Now move to the third locality - that of the exchange photon itself. Let us consider what is, and what is not, local for this object. Now, although the distance is very large for emitter and absorber -billions of light years, and the time measured by each is huge, though (for Andrew!) of opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) seen by a rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers cancel exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as an observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according to special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an experiment is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor observer as (s)he splats against whatever massive body is observing our hero the photon - but no matter. Darwinian selection. Conclusion: if we take special relativity seriously, the photon "locality" includes both the emission and absorption event at the same (relativistic) point in space time. In any event, for me the "direction" of time is self evident. It is the direction of energy exchange. Same maths, same thing. It is always from emitter to absorber. By definition. Emitter emits to future. Observer observes only past. As is consistent with experiment. No need for any daft entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or backwards symettrically. We can not. The question is then: is such a standpoint consistent with the whole body of experimental evidence or not. Discuss. Cheers, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Chip, Stephen, the right reference would be: J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). cheers, Martin Incidentally, Can anybody send me: Physics Essays, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? 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 Stephen Leary Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi Chip, I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be absorbed. Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate references. Cheers Stephen On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi John Williamson In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues involved. Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe??? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Sat Feb 21 07:27:07 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 09:27:07 -0600 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> , <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <008b01d04dea$df5f11a0$9e1d34e0$@gmail.com> Hi Martin and All If you find a copy of : Physics Essays, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? I am interested in reading it as well. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:19 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Thank you Martin and Stephen, Yes that was precisely the initial reference I had in mind. The paper initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has faded away with time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not understanding all sorts of stuff. To come back to Chip's question ... it is not so much that the photon "looks into the future" but more that one must really, in any theoretical framework, take on board the full implications of the theory, weigh them properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st century this process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories wanting in some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not there yet in understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as it means we can have some fun making new ones up. Lets get back to the narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity in this context. let us also consider three "localities"; that of the emitter, that of the absorber and that of the exchanged photon. Now, for the un-initiated amongst us, the word "local" here has a special meaning. It is the local in quantum non-locality. It is also "local" as opposed to "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance is "stronger" than a "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with gauge theories. To confuse things further, people take these things too seriously sometimes in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local really does or does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using big words or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This comes also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a single photon exchange event. Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame (and we will come back to this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in from the past. This could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far away and long ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is separated by scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the absorber, the emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same velocity (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No matter. Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future. We all do this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could consider this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or perhaps not hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a perfectly valid picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty is that it will hit something. If the probability of eventual absorption by matter elsewhere is unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then the converse should also be true - that wherever one looks one should observe stuff. This is not the case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as one would observe star-stuff in every direction. Alternatively, it could, be destined for some particular absorber - in the sense of the Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter argument seems to me to better fit the weight of current experiment from the quantum entanglement community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment with single photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase cancellation. No matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot of the interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go into the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the usual kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned "up" one will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will get only horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly polarised photons (or we polarise them) either will see, on average, just half of the incoming photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the short(ish) scale of current experiment: photons are not emitted of there is nowhere for them to go. Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a lack of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know how it works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, and investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or propose counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended in any way if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I already know that. What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this might seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there must be a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past, the other emits only to the future. Now move to the third locality - that of the exchange photon itself. Let us consider what is, and what is not, local for this object. Now, although the distance is very large for emitter and absorber -billions of light years, and the time measured by each is huge, though (for Andrew!) of opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) seen by a rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers cancel exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as an observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according to special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an experiment is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor observer as (s)he splats against whatever massive body is observing our hero the photon - but no matter. Darwinian selection. Conclusion: if we take special relativity seriously, the photon "locality" includes both the emission and absorption event at the same (relativistic) point in space time. In any event, for me the "direction" of time is self evident. It is the direction of energy exchange. Same maths, same thing. It is always from emitter to absorber. By definition. Emitter emits to future. Observer observes only past. As is consistent with experiment. No need for any daft entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or backwards symettrically. We can not. The question is then: is such a standpoint consistent with the whole body of experimental evidence or not. Discuss. Cheers, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Chip, Stephen, the right reference would be: J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). cheers, Martin Incidentally, Can anybody send me: Physics Essays, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? 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 Stephen Leary Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi Chip, I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be absorbed. Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate references. Cheers Stephen On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi John Williamson In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues involved. Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe??? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment . See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com ] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu ] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks &field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org ?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia : ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime . Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation . Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books &ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com ] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Sat Feb 21 07:39:58 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 09:39:58 -0600 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <0FE3D028526F457898E2EA2A89EB3798@HPlaptop> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <007101d04ddd$3f2bca50$bd835ef0$@gmail.com> <0FE3D028526F457898E2EA2A89EB3798@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <009101d04dec$aade7270$009b5750$@gmail.com> Hi John Duffield Can you enlighten me about how you calculate the ?length? of a photon? Intuitively, 3 meters seems pretty long to me. Of course the wavelength of visible light is well known and resides in the range from 390nm to 780nm. What, in your view, causes a photon of visible light to be about 5128205128 wavelengths in length? How is this calculated? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:19 AM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John/Chip/All: I just don?t buy this Wheeler/Feynman emitter/absorber stuff. By and large, if I see something with Wheeler?s name on it, I am skeptical. And as for special relativity, see The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. The photon has a wavelength, it isn?t length-contracted to a zero wavelength. It moves at c, it isn?t instant. And IMHO it doesn?t ?see? anything at all. It doesn?t see a light year as no space at all. It doesn?t see a year as no time at all. IMHO a radiating body radiates, it doesn?t care about some absorber light years away. There?s no spooky connection between emitters and absorbers. However the photon from a flourescent light is about three metres long, and you know that a photon can interact with itself. IMHO it can interact with itself in the equipment. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:49 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi All Sorting through implications at the macro level? While this ?single point in spacetime? approach appears to answer the questions raised by experiment, it is still a bit mind warping to try to understand the larger implications. Let?s start with John W?s thought about ?now? for a photon, and let?s then conjecture that the emitters and absorbers are also particles made of photons. In this scenario, virtually all of the photons (and therefore particles) in the universe are feeling practically all of our future and our past. Does this imply then, that using that approach, all photon exchange events are already determined? Otherwise, how can it be that a photon from a distant star, millions of years in the past (in our frame), can know that you will be standing in a specific location, and that a particle in your eye will make a good absorber? If, however, each photon?s ?now?, is defined to begin at the macroscopic time point ?now?, for a particle at rest, and stretch into its own future only, and not into its past, it seems we still have the issues of predetermination of events. Our normal beliefs and experiences indicate to us that all events are not predetermined. It seems to us that we have choices. So where is the illusion? Is it in our perception of freedom of choice, or in our theory, or simply my misinterpretation of the implications? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:19 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Thank you Martin and Stephen, Yes that was precisely the initial reference I had in mind. The paper initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has faded away with time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not understanding all sorts of stuff. To come back to Chip's question ... it is not so much that the photon "looks into the future" but more that one must really, in any theoretical framework, take on board the full implications of the theory, weigh them properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st century this process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories wanting in some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not there yet in understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as it means we can have some fun making new ones up. Lets get back to the narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity in this context. let us also consider three "localities"; that of the emitter, that of the absorber and that of the exchanged photon. Now, for the un-initiated amongst us, the word "local" here has a special meaning. It is the local in quantum non-locality. It is also "local" as opposed to "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance is "stronger" than a "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with gauge theories. To confuse things further, people take these things too seriously sometimes in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local really does or does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using big words or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This comes also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a single photon exchange event. Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame (and we will come back to this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in from the past. This could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far away and long ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is separated by scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the absorber, the emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same velocity (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No matter. Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future. We all do this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could consider this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or perhaps not hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a perfectly valid picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty is that it will hit something. If the probability of eventual absorption by matter elsewhere is unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then the converse should also be true - that wherever one looks one should observe stuff. This is not the case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as one would observe star-stuff in every direction. Alternatively, it could, be destined for some particular absorber - in the sense of the Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter argument seems to me to better fit the weight of current experiment from the quantum entanglement community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment with single photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase cancellation. No matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot of the interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go into the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the usual kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned "up" one will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will get only horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly polarised photons (or we polarise them) either will see, on average, just half of the incoming photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the short(ish) scale of current experiment: photons are not emitted of there is nowhere for them to go. Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a lack of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know how it works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, and investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or propose counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended in any way if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I already know that. What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this might seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there must be a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past, the other emits only to the future. Now move to the third locality - that of the exchange photon itself. Let us consider what is, and what is not, local for this object. Now, although the distance is very large for emitter and absorber -billions of light years, and the time measured by each is huge, though (for Andrew!) of opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) seen by a rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers cancel exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as an observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according to special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an experiment is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor observer as (s)he splats against whatever massive body is observing our hero the photon - but no matter. Darwinian selection. Conclusion: if we take special relativity seriously, the photon "locality" includes both the emission and absorption event at the same (relativistic) point in space time. In any event, for me the "direction" of time is self evident. It is the direction of energy exchange. Same maths, same thing. It is always from emitter to absorber. By definition. Emitter emits to future. Observer observes only past. As is consistent with experiment. No need for any daft entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or backwards symettrically. We can not. The question is then: is such a standpoint consistent with the whole body of experimental evidence or not. Discuss. Cheers, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Chip, Stephen, the right reference would be: J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). cheers, Martin Incidentally, Can anybody send me: Physics Essays, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? 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 Stephen Leary Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi Chip, I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be absorbed. Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate references. Cheers Stephen On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi John Williamson In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues involved. Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe??? Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson= glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson= glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [ chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson= glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [ chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ? natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [ mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield < johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [ afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto: afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg < mules333 at gmail.com> wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Sat Feb 21 07:45:40 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 15:45:40 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sleary at vavi.co.uk Sat Feb 21 08:06:19 2015 From: sleary at vavi.co.uk (Stephen Leary) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:06:19 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, There are some very interesting papers on Gravitation by a scientist called Charles F Brush from around 1915. He has some interesting theories on Gravitation being a shadow between two bodies. His explanations of the forces and the screening are somewhat lacking but i feel the fundamentals are worth exploring. http://digitalcase.case.edu:9000/fedora/get/ksl:spcbru01027/spcbru01027.pdf http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Evidence%20for%20Kinetic%20Theory%20of%20Gravitation%20%281%29.pdf Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 3:45 PM, John Duffield wrote: > Andrew: > > It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. > Einstein said a field is a state of space > . Susskind said the same > in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an > electron is. > > As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself > this: *where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton > annihilation to gamma photons? *And ask yourself this: *what is it that > makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c?* Alternatively, imagine > you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. > > [image: toroidalphotonsmall] > > Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will > find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: > > > [image: trefoil] > > It?s made of three parts, three partons. See > http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions > knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left > calling out the crossing-over directions: *up up down*. When you do > eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. > > Regards > John D > > > *From:* Andrew Meulenberg > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > *Subject:* [General] gravitation > > Dear John D, > > I wonder why this concept has not been developed? > > "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber > sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That > represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." > > I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the > long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the > net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking > (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as > distortions of space & how relativity affects them. > > I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in > August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the > interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic > electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. > > Andrew > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -- Stephen Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: toroidalphotonsmall[1].png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: trefoil[1].png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Sat Feb 21 08:16:38 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:16:38 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <009101d04dec$aade7270$009b5750$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><007101d04ddd$3f2bca50$bd835ef0$@gmail.com><0FE3D028526F457898E2EA2A89EB3798@HPlaptop> <009101d04dec$aade7270$009b5750$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Chip: Actually, I don?t know. Maybe I shouldn?t have mentioned it. But maybe it?s to do with emission time and wavepackets. See stuff like this and this: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/photon/photon.html ?In the RF region, a photon would be many kilometres in length. In the IR region, a photon would be several meters in length, and in the visible region it would be many cm to meters in length. It is only in the hard x-ray region that the "photon" would approach the dimensions of an orbital...? There?s also stuff like this http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3364 , but on the other hands there?s also http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596. I tend to think of a photon as a one-wavelength electromagnetic pulse myself, the spatial derivative of which is the sinusoidal ?electric field? variation, the time derivative being the sinusoidal ?magnetic field? variation. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:39 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John Duffield Can you enlighten me about how you calculate the ?length? of a photon? Intuitively, 3 meters seems pretty long to me. Of course the wavelength of visible light is well known and resides in the range from 390nm to 780nm. What, in your view, causes a photon of visible light to be about 5128205128 wavelengths in length? How is this calculated? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:19 AM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John/Chip/All: I just don?t buy this Wheeler/Feynman emitter/absorber stuff. By and large, if I see something with Wheeler?s name on it, I am skeptical. And as for special relativity, see The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. The photon has a wavelength, it isn?t length-contracted to a zero wavelength. It moves at c, it isn?t instant. And IMHO it doesn?t ?see? anything at all. It doesn?t see a light year as no space at all. It doesn?t see a year as no time at all. IMHO a radiating body radiates, it doesn?t care about some absorber light years away. There?s no spooky connection between emitters and absorbers. However the photon from a flourescent light is about three metres long, and you know that a photon can interact with itself. IMHO it can interact with itself in the equipment. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:49 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi All Sorting through implications at the macro level? While this ?single point in spacetime? approach appears to answer the questions raised by experiment, it is still a bit mind warping to try to understand the larger implications. Let?s start with John W?s thought about ?now? for a photon, and let?s then conjecture that the emitters and absorbers are also particles made of photons. In this scenario, virtually all of the photons (and therefore particles) in the universe are feeling practically all of our future and our past. Does this imply then, that using that approach, all photon exchange events are already determined? Otherwise, how can it be that a photon from a distant star, millions of years in the past (in our frame), can know that you will be standing in a specific location, and that a particle in your eye will make a good absorber? If, however, each photon?s ?now?, is defined to begin at the macroscopic time point ?now?, for a particle at rest, and stretch into its own future only, and not into its past, it seems we still have the issues of predetermination of events. Our normal beliefs and experiences indicate to us that all events are not predetermined. It seems to us that we have choices. So where is the illusion? Is it in our perception of freedom of choice, or in our theory, or simply my misinterpretation of the implications? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:19 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Thank you Martin and Stephen, Yes that was precisely the initial reference I had in mind. The paper initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has faded away with time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not understanding all sorts of stuff. To come back to Chip's question ... it is not so much that the photon "looks into the future" but more that one must really, in any theoretical framework, take on board the full implications of the theory, weigh them properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st century this process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories wanting in some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not there yet in understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as it means we can have some fun making new ones up. Lets get back to the narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity in this context. let us also consider three "localities"; that of the emitter, that of the absorber and that of the exchanged photon. Now, for the un-initiated amongst us, the word "local" here has a special meaning. It is the local in quantum non-locality. It is also "local" as opposed to "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance is "stronger" than a "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with gauge theories. To confuse things further, people take these things too seriously sometimes in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local really does or does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using big words or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This comes also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a single photon exchange event. Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame (and we will come back to this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in from the past. This could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far away and long ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is separated by scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the absorber, the emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same velocity (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No matter. Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future. We all do this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could consider this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or perhaps not hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a perfectly valid picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty is that it will hit something. If the probability of eventual absorption by matter elsewhere is unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then the converse should also be true - that wherever one looks one should observe stuff. This is not the case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as one would observe star-stuff in every direction. Alternatively, it could, be destined for some particular absorber - in the sense of the Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter argument seems to me to better fit the weight of current experiment from the quantum entanglement community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment with single photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase cancellation. No matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot of the interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go into the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the usual kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned "up" one will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will get only horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly polarised photons (or we polarise them) either will see, on average, just half of the incoming photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the short(ish) scale of current experiment: photons are not emitted of there is nowhere for them to go. Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a lack of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know how it works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, and investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or propose counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended in any way if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I already know that. What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this might seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there must be a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past, the other emits only to the future. Now move to the third locality - that of the exchange photon itself. Let us consider what is, and what is not, local for this object. Now, although the distance is very large for emitter and absorber -billions of light years, and the time measured by each is huge, though (for Andrew!) of opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) seen by a rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers cancel exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as an observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according to special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an experiment is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor observer as (s)he splats against whatever massive body is observing our hero the photon - but no matter. Darwinian selection. Conclusion: if we take special relativity seriously, the photon "locality" includes both the emission and absorption event at the same (relativistic) point in space time. In any event, for me the "direction" of time is self evident. It is the direction of energy exchange. Same maths, same thing. It is always from emitter to absorber. By definition. Emitter emits to future. Observer observes only past. As is consistent with experiment. No need for any daft entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or backwards symettrically. We can not. The question is then: is such a standpoint consistent with the whole body of experimental evidence or not. Discuss. Cheers, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Chip, Stephen, the right reference would be: J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). cheers, Martin Incidentally, Can anybody send me: Physics Essays, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? 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 Stephen Leary Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi Chip, I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be absorbed. Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate references. Cheers Stephen On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi John Williamson In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues involved. Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe??? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sleary at vavi.co.uk Sat Feb 21 08:24:45 2015 From: sleary at vavi.co.uk (Stephen Leary) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:24:45 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <007101d04ddd$3f2bca50$bd835ef0$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <007101d04ddd$3f2bca50$bd835ef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, I think you are confusing things slightly. A photon exchange is an interaction. If there is nothing to interact with then there cannot be an interaction. The source and destination particles are continuously sharing each others external fields and when the correct conditions exist they interact. I think the problem is we think of the photon exchange like a man throwing a ball to another when a more accurate description might be that two men are continuously holding a rope tight and when the exchange happens one pulls on it and the other moves. An analogy full of flaws too but its designed to get us thinking. Cheers Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > Hi All > > > > Sorting through implications at the macro level? > > > > While this ?single point in spacetime? approach appears to answer the > questions raised by experiment, it is still a bit mind warping to try to > understand the larger implications. > > > > Let?s start with John W?s thought about ?now? for a photon, and let?s then > conjecture that the emitters and absorbers are also particles made of > photons. > > > > In this scenario, virtually all of the photons (and therefore particles) > in the universe are feeling practically all of our future and our past. > Does this imply then, that using that approach, all photon exchange events > are already determined? Otherwise, how can it be that a photon from a > distant star, millions of years in the past (in our frame), can know that > you will be standing in a specific location, and that a particle in your > eye will make a good absorber? > > > > If, however, each photon?s ?now?, is defined to begin at the macroscopic > time point ?now?, for a particle at rest, and stretch into its own future > only, and not into its past, it seems we still have the issues of > predetermination of events. > > > > Our normal beliefs and experiences indicate to us that all events are not > predetermined. It seems to us that we have choices. > > > > So where is the illusion? Is it in our perception of freedom of choice, > or in our theory, or simply my misinterpretation of the implications? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John > Williamson > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:19 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Thank you Martin and Stephen, > > Yes that was precisely the initial reference I had in mind. The paper > initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has faded away with > time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not understanding all > sorts of stuff. > > To come back to Chip's question ... it is not so much that the photon > "looks into the future" but more that one must really, in any theoretical > framework, take on board the full implications of the theory, weigh them > properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st century this > process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories wanting in > some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not there yet in > understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of > experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as > it means we can have some fun making new ones up. > > Lets get back to the narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity > in this context. let us also consider three "localities"; that of the > emitter, that of the absorber and that of the exchanged photon. Now, for > the un-initiated amongst us, the word "local" here has a special meaning. > It is the local in quantum non-locality. It is also "local" as opposed to > "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance is "stronger" than a > "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with gauge theories. > To confuse things further, people take these things too seriously sometimes > in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local really does or > does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using big words > or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This comes > also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards > and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a > positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that > reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a > single photon exchange event. > > Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame (and we will come back to > this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in from the past. This > could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far away and long > ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is separated by > scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the absorber, the > emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same velocity > (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No matter. > > Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future. We all do > this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could consider > this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think > this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or > perhaps not hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a > perfectly valid picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty > is that it will hit something. If the probability of eventual absorption by > matter elsewhere is unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then > the converse should also be true - that wherever one looks one should > observe stuff. This is not the case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as > one would observe star-stuff in every direction. Alternatively, it could, > be destined for some particular absorber - in the sense of the > Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter argument seems to me to better > fit the weight of current experiment from the quantum entanglement > community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment with single > photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase cancellation. No > matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot of the > interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or > right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go > into the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the > usual kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned > "up" one will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will > get only horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly > polarised photons (or we polarise them) either will see, on average, just > half of the incoming photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the > short(ish) scale of current experiment: photons are not emitted of there is > nowhere for them to go. > > Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a lack > of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not > particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know > how it works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, > and investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or > propose counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended > in any way if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I > already know that. > > What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this might > seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in > order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there > must be a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its > past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past, > the other emits only to the future. > > Now move to the third locality - that of the exchange photon itself. Let > us consider what is, and what is not, local for this object. Now, although > the distance is very large for emitter and absorber -billions of light > years, and the time measured by each is huge, though (for Andrew!) of > opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) seen by a > rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers cancel > exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as an > observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the > distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according > to special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an > experiment is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor > observer as (s)he splats against whatever massive body is observing our > hero the photon - but no matter. Darwinian selection. > > Conclusion: if we take special relativity seriously, the photon "locality" > includes both the emission and absorption event at the same (relativistic) > point in space time. > > In any event, for me the "direction" of time is self evident. It is the > direction of energy exchange. Same maths, same thing. It is always from > emitter to absorber. By definition. Emitter emits to future. Observer > observes only past. As is consistent with experiment. No need for any daft > entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or backwards symettrically. We can > not. > > The question is then: is such a standpoint consistent with the whole body > of experimental evidence or not. Discuss. > > Cheers, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, > Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] > *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01 PM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > Chip, Stephen, > > the right reference would be: > > J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the > Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). > > cheers, Martin > > > > *Incidentally,* > > Can anybody send me: Physics Essays > , > Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? > > > > > > 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 *Stephen Leary > *Sent:* vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Hi Chip, > > > > I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some > evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the > reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember > reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can > be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both > photons have somewhere to be absorbed. > > > > Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate > references. > > > Cheers > > Stephen > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > > Hi John Williamson > > > > In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime > scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues > involved. > > > > Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the > universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its > path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point > in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by > the rest of the universe??? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John > Williamson > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Hello John and everyone, > > I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees > "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for > those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all > valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see > is the point. That is the point! > > I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. > Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even > that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to > try ... > > What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and > the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in > space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being > expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only > to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is > very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised > by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame > observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us > (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 > minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion > years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- > this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the > square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of > emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross > section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our > average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) > are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old > universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to > "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially > large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning > to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed > by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian > problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen > process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own > parameters! > > Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans > space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) > tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz > contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to > take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In > that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is > the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on > the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is > (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the > condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique > to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not > matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the > same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) > that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed > in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero > rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In > optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near > field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to > the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of > 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to > be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of > the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It > is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. > > Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are > perfectly spherical!). > > Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have > more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! > > Cheers, John. > > P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard > properties of waves! > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John > Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > John: > > > > Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, > or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of > light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you > wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. > I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about > it: BLAM! > > > > In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence > for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the > quantum eraser experiment > . See this near > the bottom: *?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be > accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. *The next > sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical > mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin > surpasseth all human understanding. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > *From:* Chip Akins > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM > > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > > > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > John Williamson > > > > I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding > the photon. > > > > Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is > frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all > possible paths simultaneously. > > > > It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to > really understand it. > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *John Williamson > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Hello Chip and everyone, > > I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about > the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something > else. Whose then? > > A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my > view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space > time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole > system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null > vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In > this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or > ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in > its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and > all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in > phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in > antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to > follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space > time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of > which are as-observed in experiment. > > Gotta go ... lab ... > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip > Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > Hi John and Chandra > > > > In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood > that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane > polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can > take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. > However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but > also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass > through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition > at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There > seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it > may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. > > > > This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon > model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be > plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which > disallows this solution. > > > > John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the > photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do > you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel > there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? > > > > One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the > crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues > are actually physically correct. > > > > Chip > > > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *John Williamson > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem > > > > Gentle people, > > I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough > I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to > the proper argument here. Here goes though ... > > None of us understand and encompass all that is known. > > Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our > judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment > which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual > acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of > the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they > happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different > rooms! > > I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In > particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of > angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left > polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries > exactly none at all (linear polarised). > > Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum > intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been > discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - > Those elementary particle physicists. > > A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. > One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium > (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two > photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the > latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is > incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - > carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus > 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There > you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons > act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary > particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really > no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! > > Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - > linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular > momentum - circular. > > Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - > photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ > by one unit. > > Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly > polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the > angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). > Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. > > Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even > if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead > easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by > the photon... > > Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the > anonymous laureate!) ... > > Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and > circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! > > Regards, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [ > chandra at phys.uconn.edu] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* [General] Photonic electron and spin > > *Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property!* > > > > Chip: > > I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This > has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists > for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. > Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the > mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping > interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart > angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like > responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or > ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We > cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler > and more elegant. > > By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady > orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot > create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. > Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to > each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between > the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular > momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set > of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in > only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally > polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The > dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if > resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition > effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! > Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics > determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the > fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned > detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical > EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in > formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention > this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my > book, ?Causal Physics:?.? > http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 > ] > > > > We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of > interacting material particles to light for well over a century and > diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! > > > > By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic > electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do > not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, > resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you > prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets > (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; > hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY > excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. > It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the > highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? > does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states > of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the > ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to > the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no > physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped > oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning > ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases > of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations > of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical > harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final > reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence > of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these > ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of > their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get > repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous > ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients > in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex > oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified > field. > > > > Chandra. > > > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hi Chandra > > > > Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. > > > > Hi John Williamson > > > > Question: > > > > I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum > to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may > just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin > angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might > explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the > necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon > planar polarization. > > > > Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0] > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *chandra > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM > *To:* general at natureoflightandparticles.org > *Subject:* [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > > > general at natureoflightandparticles.org > > This is from Chandra: > > > > If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am > doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these > email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ? > natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions > were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that > email, please, send a separate email to > > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu > > > > > > For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some > ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential > experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very > helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the > SPIE conference. > > ============================= > > Now my response to: > > John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my > personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology > (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and > theoretical formulation thinking. > > > > *Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? * > > Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear > domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the > simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of > all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can > sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR > restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical > validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or > classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our > wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction > process. > > Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical > transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the > square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously > exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) > as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[image: > cid:image002.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0] . This [image: > cid:image003.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0]is the linear susceptibility to > stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude > stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude > only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen > Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [image: > cid:image004.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0]represents detector?s physical > conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule > deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one > ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the > summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [image: > cid:image005.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0]. But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a > narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am > promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the > interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the > conjoint stimulation[image: cid:image006.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0] > > > > Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance > from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency > to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It > can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the > external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF > does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation > energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM > waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire > universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of > Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own > identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to > perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent > energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed > how wave propagates. It is nothing new! > > > > The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group > easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle > duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped > oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes > behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate > that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in > particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are > not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of > different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence > phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi > with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due > to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same > detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector > is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the > conjoint stimulation[image: cid:image002.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0] due to > (now) multiple particles [image: cid:image007.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0]. > This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack > of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be > made into a new confirmed knowledge! > > > > Chandra. > > > > > > *From:* John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com > ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM > *To:* Adam K > *Cc:* John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; > Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, > Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; > Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; > Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Adam: > > > > Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the > refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re > in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: > > > > [image: GravitationalField] > > > > IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature > such that we depict a photon like this: > > > > [image: afield1form]iti > > > > See Wikipedia > : > *?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order > spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the > other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in > time?*. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal > ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? > waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to > one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: > > > > *Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become > nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so > brilliantly confirmed by experience?* > > > > Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a > little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down > the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think > light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. > And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so > bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going > round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an > electron. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light > is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like > resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave > travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v > = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because > it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the > expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). > > > > PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ > > > > > > > > > *From:* Adam K > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM > > *To:* John Duffield > > *Cc:* John Williamson ; chandra > ; Richard Gauthier ; A. > F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary > ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; David Saint John > ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. > ; Jonathan Weaver ; > Rachel ; Robert Hadfield > ; robert hudgins ; Vivian > Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek > ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew > Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green > > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > > > A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): > > > > Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the > 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive > index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. > > > > Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an > oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). > > > > Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become > nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so > brilliantly confirmed by experience? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: > > Adam/John: > > > > I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden > Address > Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said > this: > > > > *"empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor > isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the > gravitation potentials g**mn**), has, I think, finally disposed of the > view that space is physically empty*. > > > > He said *space*, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said > it was *inhomogeneous*. Also see this > Baez article where > you can read this: > > > > *Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but > just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature > of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial.* > > > > Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved > Spacetime . Inhomogeneous > space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved > in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of > light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: > > > > > > [image: EinsteinSpeedofLight] > > > > When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see > a curvature of your plot. See this explanation > . Also > see the general relativity section of this Baez page > > written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: > > > > *Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In > the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and > general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, > the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed > here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his > sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental > assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any > unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when > the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This > difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and > floor observers.* > > > > Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic > field, *it is*. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry > is all > about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but > throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, > and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic > field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it > anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now > repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and > anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a > tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s > gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk > rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. > > > > Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, *a wave which is held > together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own > field energy*. What he should have talked about, was an *electron*. > > > > Regards > > John > > > > > > *From:* John Williamson > > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM > > *To:* Adam K ; chandra > > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland > ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; David Saint John > ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. > ; Jonathan Weaver ; > Rachel ; Robert Hadfield > ; robert hudgins ; Vivian > Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek > ; John Duffield ; Mayank > Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg > ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael > Wright ; Nick Green > > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. > > Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to > pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no > respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes > indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one > allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of > course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their > interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the > interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer > to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical > torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in > the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to > the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral > field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very > origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a > torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? > Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked > the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My > own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing > alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and > one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts > that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not > really know. > > The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good > approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy > consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation > (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). > There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is > still too simple. > > However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I > rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque > on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon > from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to > be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of > the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does > appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this > brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for > Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, > however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by > observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for > example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers > "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through > space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. > > Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not > agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking > to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm > picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more > time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me > to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this > discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger > Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of > Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in > the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? > > Regards, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM > *To:* chandra > *Cc:* John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; > Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; > David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert > Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; > Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick > Green > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Hi Chandra, > > > > I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, > Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is > unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my > opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact > that plane waves don't exist. > > > > A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw > > > > I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more > carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would > superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing > something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands > superposition pretty well.) > > > > I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I > think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special > relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical > property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' > properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF > just spacetime? > > > > Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Adam > > > > PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the > hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in > cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time > through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: > > Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain > (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? > is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments > and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the > energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. > This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM > waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable > particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential > gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. > > The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary > reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable > through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and > perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need > a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a > unified field theory of everything. > > The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are > also elaborated in my recent book: > > > http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves > > > > Sincerely, > > Chandra. > > > > *From:* Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM > *To:* John Williamson > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; > wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; > Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar > Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; > ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; > John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; > Michael Wright; Nick Green > > > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hi John, > > Why do you say this? > > space does not support torsion, > > Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point > would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. > > Adam > > On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: > > Hi John, > > Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of > quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that > fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin > "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either > clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL > angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your > measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values > you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for > which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum > (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the > spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. > > What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when > you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. > Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect > to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The > simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and > the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a > tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin > and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a > characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for > half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. > The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space > (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen > atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A > free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must > tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a > frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? > Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is > where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in > 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what > would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? > > This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in > space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not > fully consistent with (all of) experiment. > > Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to > one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt > track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can > aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as > they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational > inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the > Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are > robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a > spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they > may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for > a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track > moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a > rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They > walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a > rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin > their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the > whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track > the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom > counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports > torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole > track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support > torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, > directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to > minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to > Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent > with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. > It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if > one measures the spin. > > Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there > is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic > self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any > particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the > flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect > to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - > whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two > frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz > transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the > other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space > or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round > the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). > It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense > to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow > of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have > interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well > enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often > in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in > this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. > > This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. > Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a > simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple > single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple > momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) > electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference > and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! > > Cheers, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM > *To:* John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; > Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De > Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin > van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel > O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; > Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > John > > Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is > nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin > angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We > made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, > and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be > spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms > outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your > arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be > moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids > in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, > because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise > or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: > > > > [image: ring_tor1_anim]. > > > > Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is > why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard > scientific evidence says it is. > > As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx > By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t > work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very > essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the > surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged > space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by > suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one > another. They aren?t doing this. They *are* photons. 511keV photons with > a toroidal topology. And see this: *?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J > cross B is a product of fields E and B? *There is no field E or B! Those > are the forces that result from field interactions. > > Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. > > Regards > > John > > > > * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment > > > > > > *From:* John Williamson > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM > > *To:* John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson > ; Andrew Meulenberg > > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil > Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Adam K ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > ; Hans De Raedt ; David > Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; Jonathan Weaver > ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." > ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland > ; Robert Hadfield ; robert > hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy > Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hi Guys, > > Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) > than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). > > I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not > get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we > are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start > getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They > are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but > this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the > electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), > > o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a > 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential > (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant > indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge > which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector > quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it > is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a > field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can > squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity > of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible > (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields > with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that > symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where > this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand > what the gauge is and what it is for. > > You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, > not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. > Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other > inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general > have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more > complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. > > Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? > Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are > products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the > paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on > FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case > of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and > B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of > the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of > Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times > four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) > vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. > > Hope this helps, > > John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM > *To:* Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; > Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De > Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan > Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; > "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; > robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Andrew: > > > > Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again > at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative > measure of local motion. > > > > Viv/Andrew: > > > > I?d like to stress that the photon is an *electromagnetic* field > variation, and the electron has an *electromagnetic* field. The thing we > call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that > results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about > this, but I really do think it?s important. > > > > All: > > > > I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a > photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about > selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that > matter. > > > > Regards > > John > > > > > > *From:* Vivian Robinson > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM > > *To:* Andrew Meulenberg > > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil > Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Adam K ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > ; Hans De Raedt ; David > Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; John Duffield ; John > Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; Mayank Drolia > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." > ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland > ; Robert Hadfield ; robert > hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy > Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Dear Andrew and all, > > > > I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under > this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at > problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have > had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my > ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved > and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the > physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most > in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What > some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We > know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric > and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed > appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of > the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon > are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length > that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of > conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. > > > > With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an > electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I > wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the > Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics > Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two > revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of > whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is > a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half > hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the > Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the > electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its > radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and > magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the > electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, > positron is mirror image of electron. > > > > > http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU > > > > Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's > spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends > upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are > "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised > because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the > observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until > its spin is measured. > > > > I hope this helps your understanding. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Viv Robinson > > > > On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > > > > Dear Richard, > > You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving > electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, > and even then I think it has to be moving" with: > > "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like > spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the > quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction > of some measurement axis." > > I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that > reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I > anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would > appreciate it. > > > > I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of > discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the > mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be > fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the > deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear > particles and physics. > > I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the > point. > > > > The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is > not a single-cycle creature. It *has* been made that way in special cases > with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 > (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just > the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon > about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on > a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one > view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose > itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform > isotropic *E*-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The > inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a > worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my > papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") > will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. > > This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, > from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, > momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that > there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole > eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges > independent.) > > When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular > momentum in *all* directions. Since the photon is traveling in all > directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a > torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light > speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of > motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the > electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the > relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis > (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the > distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This > then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and > quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. > > Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed > mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of > matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all > electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and > begins with the photon. > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > -- > > Stephen Leary > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -- Stephen Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Sat Feb 21 10:25:48 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 23:55:48 +0530 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <007101d04ddd$3f2bca50$bd835ef0$@gmail.com> <0FE3D028526F457898E2EA2A89EB3798@HPlaptop> <009101d04dec$aade7270$009b5750$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Chip, A couple of the papers that John D provided, use the same argument that Feynman used. The emission time gives an indication of the photon length. I don't think it is a good argument. However, I believe that the order of magnitude may not be too bad as an upper limit. The idea that an undisturbed electron can radiate a photon 1E7 cycles (> 1 meter) long makes sense. The argument, which allows some of the decays to occur in a very-much shorter time than the 1/2 life, would allow the early decays to have shorter-length photons than the later ones. I believe that this model would also provide much broader linewidths than observed. The linewidths, and the Fourier transforms necessary to provide them, would give the variation in number of cycles needed to provide the spread in energy (momentum) observed. Someone more familiar with this type problem could make a better guess than I. It is one of the few times that I think Feynman might have been wrong (not just taking a short cut). However, the concept has stuck in my mind, so it might have been a good teaching ploy. Andrew On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 9:46 PM, John Duffield wrote: > Chip: > > Actually, I don?t know. Maybe I shouldn?t have mentioned it. But maybe > it?s to do with emission time and wavepackets. See stuff like this > > and this: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/photon/photon.html > > *?In the RF region, a photon would be many kilometres in length. In the IR > region, a photon would be several meters in length, and in the visible > region it would be many cm to meters in length. It is only in the hard > x-ray region that the "photon" would approach the dimensions of an > orbital...? * > > There?s also stuff like this http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3364 , but on the > other hands there?s also http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596. > > I tend to think of a photon as a one-wavelength electromagnetic pulse > myself, the spatial derivative of which is the sinusoidal ?electric field? > variation, the time derivative being the sinusoidal ?magnetic field? > variation. > > Regards > John > > > > > *From:* Chip Akins > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:39 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > Hi John Duffield > > > > Can you enlighten me about how you calculate the ?length? of a photon? > > Intuitively, 3 meters seems pretty long to me. > > Of course the wavelength of visible light is well known and resides in the > range from 390nm to 780nm. What, in your view, causes a photon of visible > light to be about 5128205128 wavelengths in length? How is this calculated? > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John > Duffield > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:19 AM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > John/Chip/All: > > > > I just don?t buy this Wheeler/Feynman emitter/absorber stuff. By and > large, if I see something with Wheeler?s name on it, I am skeptical. And as > for special relativity, see The Other Meaning of Special Relativity > by > Robert Close. The photon has a wavelength, it isn?t length-contracted to a > zero wavelength. It moves at c, it isn?t instant. And IMHO it doesn?t ?see? > anything at all. It doesn?t see a light year as no space at all. It doesn?t > see a year as no time at all. IMHO a radiating body radiates, it doesn?t > care about some absorber light years away. There?s no spooky connection > between emitters and absorbers. However the photon from a flourescent light > is about three metres long, and you know that a photon can interact with > itself. IMHO it can interact with itself in the equipment. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > *From:* Chip Akins > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:49 PM > > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > > > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Hi All > > > > Sorting through implications at the macro level? > > > > While this ?single point in spacetime? approach appears to answer the > questions raised by experiment, it is still a bit mind warping to try to > understand the larger implications. > > > > Let?s start with John W?s thought about ?now? for a photon, and let?s then > conjecture that the emitters and absorbers are also particles made of > photons. > > > > In this scenario, virtually all of the photons (and therefore particles) > in the universe are feeling practically all of our future and our past. > Does this imply then, that using that approach, all photon exchange events > are already determined? Otherwise, how can it be that a photon from a > distant star, millions of years in the past (in our frame), can know that > you will be standing in a specific location, and that a particle in your > eye will make a good absorber? > > > > If, however, each photon?s ?now?, is defined to begin at the macroscopic > time point ?now?, for a particle at rest, and stretch into its own future > only, and not into its past, it seems we still have the issues of > predetermination of events. > > > > Our normal beliefs and experiences indicate to us that all events are not > predetermined. It seems to us that we have choices. > > > > So where is the illusion? Is it in our perception of freedom of choice, > or in our theory, or simply my misinterpretation of the implications? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *John Williamson > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:19 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Thank you Martin and Stephen, > > Yes that was precisely the initial reference I had in mind. The paper > initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has faded away with > time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not understanding all > sorts of stuff. > > To come back to Chip's question ... it is not so much that the photon > "looks into the future" but more that one must really, in any theoretical > framework, take on board the full implications of the theory, weigh them > properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st century this > process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories wanting in > some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not there yet in > understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of > experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as > it means we can have some fun making new ones up. > > Lets get back to the narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity > in this context. let us also consider three "localities"; that of the > emitter, that of the absorber and that of the exchanged photon. Now, for > the un-initiated amongst us, the word "local" here has a special meaning. > It is the local in quantum non-locality. It is also "local" as opposed to > "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance is "stronger" than a > "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with gauge theories. > To confuse things further, people take these things too seriously sometimes > in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local really does or > does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using big words > or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This comes > also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards > and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a > positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that > reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a > single photon exchange event. > > Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame (and we will come back to > this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in from the past. This > could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far away and long > ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is separated by > scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the absorber, the > emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same velocity > (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No matter. > > Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future. We all do > this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could consider > this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think > this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or > perhaps not hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a > perfectly valid picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty > is that it will hit something. If the probability of eventual absorption by > matter elsewhere is unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then > the converse should also be true - that wherever one looks one should > observe stuff. This is not the case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as > one would observe star-stuff in every direction. Alternatively, it could, > be destined for some particular absorber - in the sense of the > Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter argument seems to me to better > fit the weight of current experiment from the quantum entanglement > community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment with single > photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase cancellation. No > matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot of the > interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or > right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go > into the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the > usual kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned > "up" one will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will > get only horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly > polarised photons (or we polarise them) either will see, on average, just > half of the incoming photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the > short(ish) scale of current experiment: photons are not emitted of there is > nowhere for them to go. > > Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a lack > of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not > particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know > how it works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, > and investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or > propose counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended > in any way if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I > already know that. > > What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this might > seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in > order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there > must be a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its > past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past, > the other emits only to the future. > > Now move to the third locality - that of the exchange photon itself. Let > us consider what is, and what is not, local for this object. Now, although > the distance is very large for emitter and absorber -billions of light > years, and the time measured by each is huge, though (for Andrew!) of > opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) seen by a > rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers cancel > exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as an > observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the > distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according > to special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an > experiment is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor > observer as (s)he splats against whatever massive body is observing our > hero the photon - but no matter. Darwinian selection. > > Conclusion: if we take special relativity seriously, the photon "locality" > includes both the emission and absorption event at the same (relativistic) > point in space time. > > In any event, for me the "direction" of time is self evident. It is the > direction of energy exchange. Same maths, same thing. It is always from > emitter to absorber. By definition. Emitter emits to future. Observer > observes only past. As is consistent with experiment. No need for any daft > entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or backwards symettrically. We can > not. > > The question is then: is such a standpoint consistent with the whole body > of experimental evidence or not. Discuss. > > Cheers, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, > Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] > *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01 PM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > Chip, Stephen, > > the right reference would be: > > J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the > Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). > > cheers, Martin > > > > *Incidentally,* > > Can anybody send me: Physics Essays > , > Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? > > > > > > 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 *Stephen Leary > *Sent:* vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Hi Chip, > > > > I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some > evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the > reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember > reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can > be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both > photons have somewhere to be absorbed. > > > > Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate > references. > > > Cheers > > Stephen > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > > Hi John Williamson > > > > In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime > scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues > involved. > > > > Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the > universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its > path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point > in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by > the rest of the universe??? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John > Williamson > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Hello John and everyone, > > I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees > "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for > those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all > valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see > is the point. That is the point! > > I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. > Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even > that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to > try ... > > What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and > the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in > space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being > expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only > to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is > very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised > by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame > observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us > (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 > minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion > years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- > this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the > square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of > emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross > section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our > average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) > are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old > universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to > "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially > large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning > to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed > by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian > problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen > process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own > parameters! > > Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans > space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) > tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz > contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to > take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In > that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is > the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on > the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is > (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the > condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique > to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not > matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the > same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) > that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed > in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero > rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In > optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near > field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to > the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of > 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to > be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of > the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It > is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. > > Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are > perfectly spherical!). > > Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have > more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! > > Cheers, John. > > P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard > properties of waves! > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John > Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > John: > > > > Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, > or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of > light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you > wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. > I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about > it: BLAM! > > > > In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence > for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the > quantum eraser experiment > . See this near > the bottom: *?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be > accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. *The next > sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical > mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin > surpasseth all human understanding. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > *From:* Chip Akins > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM > > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > > > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > John Williamson > > > > I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding > the photon. > > > > Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is > frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all > possible paths simultaneously. > > > > It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to > really understand it. > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *John Williamson > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > > > Hello Chip and everyone, > > I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about > the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something > else. Whose then? > > A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my > view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space > time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole > system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null > vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In > this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or > ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in > its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and > all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in > phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in > antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to > follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space > time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of > which are as-observed in experiment. > > Gotta go ... lab ... > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip > Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the > problem > > Hi John and Chandra > > > > In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood > that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane > polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can > take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. > However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but > also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass > through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition > at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There > seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it > may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. > > > > This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon > model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be > plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which > disallows this solution. > > > > John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the > photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do > you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel > there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? > > > > One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the > crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues > are actually physically correct. > > > > Chip > > > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *John Williamson > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem > > > > Gentle people, > > I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough > I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to > the proper argument here. Here goes though ... > > None of us understand and encompass all that is known. > > Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our > judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment > which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual > acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of > the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they > happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different > rooms! > > I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In > particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of > angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left > polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries > exactly none at all (linear polarised). > > Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum > intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been > discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - > Those elementary particle physicists. > > A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. > One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium > (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two > photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the > latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is > incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - > carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus > 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There > you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons > act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary > particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really > no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! > > Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - > linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular > momentum - circular. > > Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - > photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ > by one unit. > > Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly > polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the > angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). > Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. > > Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even > if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead > easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by > the photon... > > Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the > anonymous laureate!) ... > > Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and > circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! > > Regards, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [ > chandra at phys.uconn.edu] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* [General] Photonic electron and spin > > *Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property!* > > > > Chip: > > I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This > has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists > for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. > Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the > mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping > interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart > angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like > responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or > ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We > cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler > and more elegant. > > By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady > orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot > create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. > Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to > each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between > the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular > momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set > of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in > only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally > polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The > dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if > resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition > effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! > Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics > determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the > fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned > detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical > EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in > formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention > this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my > book, ?Causal Physics:?.? > http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 > ] > > > > We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of > interacting material particles to light for well over a century and > diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! > > > > By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic > electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do > not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, > resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you > prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets > (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; > hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY > excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. > It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the > highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? > does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states > of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the > ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to > the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no > physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped > oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning > ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases > of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations > of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical > harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final > reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence > of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these > ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of > their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get > repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous > ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients > in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex > oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified > field. > > > > Chandra. > > > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hi Chandra > > > > Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. > > > > Hi John Williamson > > > > Question: > > > > I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum > to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may > just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin > angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might > explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the > necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon > planar polarization. > > > > Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0] > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *chandra > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM > *To:* general at natureoflightandparticles.org > *Subject:* [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin > > > > general at natureoflightandparticles.org > > This is from Chandra: > > > > If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am > doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these > email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ? > natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions > were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that > email, please, send a separate email to > > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu > > > > > > For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some > ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential > experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very > helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the > SPIE conference. > > ============================= > > Now my response to: > > John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my > personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology > (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and > theoretical formulation thinking. > > > > *Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? * > > Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear > domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the > simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of > all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can > sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR > restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical > validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or > classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our > wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction > process. > > Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical > transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the > square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously > exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) > as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[image: > cid:image002.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0] . This [image: > cid:image003.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0]is the linear susceptibility to > stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude > stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude > only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen > Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [image: > cid:image004.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0]represents detector?s physical > conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule > deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one > ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the > summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [image: > cid:image005.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0]. But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a > narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am > promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the > interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the > conjoint stimulation[image: cid:image006.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0] > > > > Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance > from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency > to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It > can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the > external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF > does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation > energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM > waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire > universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of > Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own > identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to > perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent > energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed > how wave propagates. It is nothing new! > > > > The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group > easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle > duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped > oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes > behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate > that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in > particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are > not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of > different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence > phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi > with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due > to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same > detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector > is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the > conjoint stimulation[image: cid:image002.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0] due to > (now) multiple particles [image: cid:image007.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0]. > This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack > of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be > made into a new confirmed knowledge! > > > > Chandra. > > > > > > *From:* John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com > ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM > *To:* Adam K > *Cc:* John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; > Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, > Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; > Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; > Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Adam: > > > > Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the > refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re > in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: > > > > [image: GravitationalField] > > > > IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature > such that we depict a photon like this: > > > > [image: afield1form]iti > > > > See Wikipedia > : > *?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order > spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the > other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in > time?*. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal > ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? > waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to > one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: > > > > *Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become > nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so > brilliantly confirmed by experience?* > > > > Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a > little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down > the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think > light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. > And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so > bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going > round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an > electron. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light > is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like > resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave > travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v > = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because > it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the > expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). > > > > PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ > > > > > > > > > *From:* Adam K > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM > > *To:* John Duffield > > *Cc:* John Williamson ; chandra > ; Richard Gauthier ; A. > F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary > ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; David Saint John > ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. > ; Jonathan Weaver ; > Rachel ; Robert Hadfield > ; robert hudgins ; Vivian > Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek > ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew > Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green > > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > > > A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): > > > > Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the > 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive > index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. > > > > Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an > oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). > > > > Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become > nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so > brilliantly confirmed by experience? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield > wrote: > > Adam/John: > > > > I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden > Address > Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said > this: > > > > *"empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor > isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the > gravitation potentials g**mn**), has, I think, finally disposed of the > view that space is physically empty*. > > > > He said *space*, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said > it was *inhomogeneous*. Also see this > Baez article where > you can read this: > > > > *Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but > just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature > of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial.* > > > > Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved > Spacetime . Inhomogeneous > space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved > in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of > light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: > > > > > > [image: EinsteinSpeedofLight] > > > > When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see > a curvature of your plot. See this explanation > . Also > see the general relativity section of this Baez page > > written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: > > > > *Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In > the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and > general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, > the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed > here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his > sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental > assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any > unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when > the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This > difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and > floor observers.* > > > > Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic > field, *it is*. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry > is all > about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but > throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, > and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic > field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it > anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now > repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and > anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a > tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s > gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk > rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. > > > > Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, *a wave which is held > together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own > field energy*. What he should have talked about, was an *electron*. > > > > Regards > > John > > > > > > *From:* John Williamson > > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM > > *To:* Adam K ; chandra > > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland > ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; David Saint John > ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. > ; Jonathan Weaver ; > Rachel ; Robert Hadfield > ; robert hudgins ; Vivian > Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek > ; John Duffield ; Mayank > Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg > ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael > Wright ; Nick Green > > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. > > Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to > pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no > respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes > indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one > allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of > course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their > interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the > interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer > to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical > torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in > the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to > the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral > field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very > origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a > torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? > Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked > the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My > own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing > alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and > one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts > that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not > really know. > > The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good > approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy > consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation > (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). > There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is > still too simple. > > However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I > rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque > on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon > from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to > be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of > the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does > appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this > brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for > Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, > however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by > observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for > example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers > "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through > space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. > > Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not > agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking > to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm > picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more > time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me > to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this > discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger > Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of > Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in > the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? > > Regards, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM > *To:* chandra > *Cc:* John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; > Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; > David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert > Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; > Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick > Green > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Hi Chandra, > > > > I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, > Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is > unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my > opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact > that plane waves don't exist. > > > > A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw > > > > I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more > carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would > superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing > something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands > superposition pretty well.) > > > > I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I > think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special > relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical > property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' > properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF > just spacetime? > > > > Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Adam > > > > PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the > hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in > cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time > through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: > > Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain > (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? > is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments > and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the > energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. > This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM > waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable > particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential > gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. > > The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary > reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable > through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and > perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need > a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a > unified field theory of everything. > > The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are > also elaborated in my recent book: > > > http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves > > > > Sincerely, > > Chandra. > > > > *From:* Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM > *To:* John Williamson > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; > wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; > Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar > Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; > ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; > John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; > Michael Wright; Nick Green > > > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hi John, > > Why do you say this? > > space does not support torsion, > > Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point > would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. > > Adam > > On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: > > Hi John, > > Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of > quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that > fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin > "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either > clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL > angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your > measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values > you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for > which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum > (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the > spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. > > What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when > you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. > Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect > to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The > simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and > the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a > tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin > and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a > characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for > half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. > The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space > (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen > atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A > free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must > tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a > frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? > Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is > where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in > 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what > would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? > > This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in > space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not > fully consistent with (all of) experiment. > > Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to > one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt > track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can > aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as > they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational > inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the > Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are > robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a > spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they > may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for > a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track > moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a > rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They > walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a > rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin > their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the > whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track > the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom > counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports > torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole > track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support > torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, > directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to > minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to > Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent > with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. > It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if > one measures the spin. > > Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there > is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic > self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any > particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the > flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect > to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - > whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two > frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz > transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the > other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space > or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round > the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). > It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense > to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow > of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have > interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well > enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often > in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in > this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. > > This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. > Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a > simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple > single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple > momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) > electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference > and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! > > Cheers, John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM > *To:* John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; > Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De > Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin > van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel > O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; > Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > John > > Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is > nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin > angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We > made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, > and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be > spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms > outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your > arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be > moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids > in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, > because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise > or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: > > > > [image: ring_tor1_anim]. > > > > Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is > why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard > scientific evidence says it is. > > As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx > By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t > work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very > essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the > surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged > space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by > suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one > another. They aren?t doing this. They *are* photons. 511keV photons with > a toroidal topology. And see this: *?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J > cross B is a product of fields E and B? *There is no field E or B! Those > are the forces that result from field interactions. > > Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. > > Regards > > John > > > > * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment > > > > > > *From:* John Williamson > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM > > *To:* John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson > ; Andrew Meulenberg > > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil > Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Adam K ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > ; Hans De Raedt ; David > Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; Jonathan Weaver > ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." > ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland > ; Robert Hadfield ; robert > hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy > Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > > *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Hi Guys, > > Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) > than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). > > I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not > get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we > are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start > getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They > are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but > this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the > electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), > > o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a > 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential > (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant > indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge > which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector > quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it > is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a > field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can > squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity > of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible > (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields > with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that > symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where > this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand > what the gauge is and what it is for. > > You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, > not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. > Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other > inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general > have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more > complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. > > Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? > Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are > products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the > paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on > FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case > of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and > B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of > the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of > Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times > four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) > vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. > > Hope this helps, > > John. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM > *To:* Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; > Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De > Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan > Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; > "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; > robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > Andrew: > > > > Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again > at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative > measure of local motion. > > > > Viv/Andrew: > > > > I?d like to stress that the photon is an *electromagnetic* field > variation, and the electron has an *electromagnetic* field. The thing we > call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that > results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about > this, but I really do think it?s important. > > > > All: > > > > I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a > photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about > selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that > matter. > > > > Regards > > John > > > > > > *From:* Vivian Robinson > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM > > *To:* Andrew Meulenberg > > *Cc:* Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil > Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer > ; Adam K ; > ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > ; Hans De Raedt ; David > Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt > ; John Duffield ; John > Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver > ; Mark, Martin van der > ; Mayank Drolia > ; Michael Wright ; Nick > Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." > ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland > ; Robert Hadfield ; robert > hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy > Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com > > *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin > > > > Dear Andrew and all, > > > > I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under > this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at > problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have > had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my > ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved > and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the > physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most > in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What > some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We > know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric > and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed > appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of > the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon > are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length > that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of > conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. > > > > With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an > electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I > wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the > Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics > Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two > revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of > whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is > a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half > hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the > Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the > electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its > radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and > magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the > electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, > positron is mirror image of electron. > > > > > http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU > > > > Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's > spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends > upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are > "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised > because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the > observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until > its spin is measured. > > > > I hope this helps your understanding. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Viv Robinson > > > > On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > > > > Dear Richard, > > You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving > electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, > and even then I think it has to be moving" with: > > "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like > spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the > quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction > of some measurement axis." > > I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that > reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I > anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would > appreciate it. > > > > I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of > discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the > mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be > fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the > deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear > particles and physics. > > I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the > point. > > > > The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is > not a single-cycle creature. It *has* been made that way in special cases > with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 > (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just > the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon > about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on > a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one > view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose > itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform > isotropic *E*-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The > inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a > worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my > papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") > will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. > > This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, > from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, > momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that > there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole > eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges > independent.) > > When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular > momentum in *all* directions. Since the photon is traveling in all > directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a > torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light > speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of > motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the > electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the > relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis > (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the > distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This > then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and > quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. > > Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed > mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of > matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all > electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and > begins with the photon. > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > -- > > Stephen Leary > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.gif Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Sat Feb 21 10:29:13 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:29:13 -0600 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Sat Feb 21 10:35:24 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:35:24 -0600 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <042201d04d1b$86426ba0$92c742e0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422AD2@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <007101d04ddd$3f2bca50$bd835ef0$@gmail.com> <0FE3D028526F457898E2EA2A89EB3798@HPlaptop> <009101d04dec$aade7270$009b5750$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00ba01d04e05$2ca0e7d0$85e2b770$@gmail.com> Dear Andrew Quite interesting. Thank you. I am running some math (using MatLab) to explore these possibilities further. Will let you know whether it appears fruitful, and discuss the results either way. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:26 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Cc: P.G. Vaidya Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Dear Chip, A couple of the papers that John D provided, use the same argument that Feynman used. The emission time gives an indication of the photon length. I don't think it is a good argument. However, I believe that the order of magnitude may not be too bad as an upper limit. The idea that an undisturbed electron can radiate a photon 1E7 cycles (> 1 meter) long makes sense. The argument, which allows some of the decays to occur in a very-much shorter time than the 1/2 life, would allow the early decays to have shorter-length photons than the later ones. I believe that this model would also provide much broader linewidths than observed. The linewidths, and the Fourier transforms necessary to provide them, would give the variation in number of cycles needed to provide the spread in energy (momentum) observed. Someone more familiar with this type problem could make a better guess than I. It is one of the few times that I think Feynman might have been wrong (not just taking a short cut). However, the concept has stuck in my mind, so it might have been a good teaching ploy. Andrew On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 9:46 PM, John Duffield > wrote: Chip: Actually, I don?t know. Maybe I shouldn?t have mentioned it. But maybe it?s to do with emission time and wavepackets. See stuff like this and this: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/photon/photon.html ?In the RF region, a photon would be many kilometres in length. In the IR region, a photon would be several meters in length, and in the visible region it would be many cm to meters in length. It is only in the hard x-ray region that the "photon" would approach the dimensions of an orbital...? There?s also stuff like this http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3364 , but on the other hands there?s also http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596. I tend to think of a photon as a one-wavelength electromagnetic pulse myself, the spatial derivative of which is the sinusoidal ?electric field? variation, the time derivative being the sinusoidal ?magnetic field? variation. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:39 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John Duffield Can you enlighten me about how you calculate the ?length? of a photon? Intuitively, 3 meters seems pretty long to me. Of course the wavelength of visible light is well known and resides in the range from 390nm to 780nm. What, in your view, causes a photon of visible light to be about 5128205128 wavelengths in length? How is this calculated? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:19 AM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John/Chip/All: I just don?t buy this Wheeler/Feynman emitter/absorber stuff. By and large, if I see something with Wheeler?s name on it, I am skeptical. And as for special relativity, see The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. The photon has a wavelength, it isn?t length-contracted to a zero wavelength. It moves at c, it isn?t instant. And IMHO it doesn?t ?see? anything at all. It doesn?t see a light year as no space at all. It doesn?t see a year as no time at all. IMHO a radiating body radiates, it doesn?t care about some absorber light years away. There?s no spooky connection between emitters and absorbers. However the photon from a flourescent light is about three metres long, and you know that a photon can interact with itself. IMHO it can interact with itself in the equipment. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:49 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi All Sorting through implications at the macro level? While this ?single point in spacetime? approach appears to answer the questions raised by experiment, it is still a bit mind warping to try to understand the larger implications. Let?s start with John W?s thought about ?now? for a photon, and let?s then conjecture that the emitters and absorbers are also particles made of photons. In this scenario, virtually all of the photons (and therefore particles) in the universe are feeling practically all of our future and our past. Does this imply then, that using that approach, all photon exchange events are already determined? Otherwise, how can it be that a photon from a distant star, millions of years in the past (in our frame), can know that you will be standing in a specific location, and that a particle in your eye will make a good absorber? If, however, each photon?s ?now?, is defined to begin at the macroscopic time point ?now?, for a particle at rest, and stretch into its own future only, and not into its past, it seems we still have the issues of predetermination of events. Our normal beliefs and experiences indicate to us that all events are not predetermined. It seems to us that we have choices. So where is the illusion? Is it in our perception of freedom of choice, or in our theory, or simply my misinterpretation of the implications? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:19 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Thank you Martin and Stephen, Yes that was precisely the initial reference I had in mind. The paper initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has faded away with time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not understanding all sorts of stuff. To come back to Chip's question ... it is not so much that the photon "looks into the future" but more that one must really, in any theoretical framework, take on board the full implications of the theory, weigh them properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st century this process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories wanting in some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not there yet in understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as it means we can have some fun making new ones up. Lets get back to the narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity in this context. let us also consider three "localities"; that of the emitter, that of the absorber and that of the exchanged photon. Now, for the un-initiated amongst us, the word "local" here has a special meaning. It is the local in quantum non-locality. It is also "local" as opposed to "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance is "stronger" than a "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with gauge theories. To confuse things further, people take these things too seriously sometimes in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local really does or does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using big words or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This comes also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a single photon exchange event. Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame (and we will come back to this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in from the past. This could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far away and long ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is separated by scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the absorber, the emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same velocity (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No matter. Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future. We all do this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could consider this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or perhaps not hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a perfectly valid picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty is that it will hit something. If the probability of eventual absorption by matter elsewhere is unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then the converse should also be true - that wherever one looks one should observe stuff. This is not the case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as one would observe star-stuff in every direction. Alternatively, it could, be destined for some particular absorber - in the sense of the Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter argument seems to me to better fit the weight of current experiment from the quantum entanglement community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment with single photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase cancellation. No matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot of the interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go into the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the usual kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned "up" one will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will get only horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly polarised photons (or we polarise them) either will see, on average, just half of the incoming photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the short(ish) scale of current experiment: photons are not emitted of there is nowhere for them to go. Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a lack of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know how it works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, and investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or propose counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended in any way if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I already know that. What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this might seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there must be a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past, the other emits only to the future. Now move to the third locality - that of the exchange photon itself. Let us consider what is, and what is not, local for this object. Now, although the distance is very large for emitter and absorber -billions of light years, and the time measured by each is huge, though (for Andrew!) of opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) seen by a rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers cancel exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as an observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according to special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an experiment is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor observer as (s)he splats against whatever massive body is observing our hero the photon - but no matter. Darwinian selection. Conclusion: if we take special relativity seriously, the photon "locality" includes both the emission and absorption event at the same (relativistic) point in space time. In any event, for me the "direction" of time is self evident. It is the direction of energy exchange. Same maths, same thing. It is always from emitter to absorber. By definition. Emitter emits to future. Observer observes only past. As is consistent with experiment. No need for any daft entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or backwards symettrically. We can not. The question is then: is such a standpoint consistent with the whole body of experimental evidence or not. Discuss. Cheers, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com ] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Chip, Stephen, the right reference would be: J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, ``Interaction with the absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 17}, 157 (1945). cheers, Martin Incidentally, Can anybody send me: Physics Essays, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 146-164(19)? 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 Stephen Leary Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 18:23 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi Chip, I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver) that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be absorbed. Hopefully someone will correct my memory or find the appropriate references. Cheers Stephen On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi John Williamson In trying to understand the implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon, there seem to be some difficult issues involved. Are you implying that the photon (from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe??? Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson= glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson= glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [ chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson= glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [ chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ? natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [ mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield < johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. _____ From: Adam K [ afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra > wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). :) The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto: afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" > wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. _____ From: John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. _____ From: John Duffield [ johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg < mules333 at gmail.com> wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sleary at vavi.co.uk Sun Feb 22 00:30:12 2015 From: sleary at vavi.co.uk (Stephen Leary) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:30:12 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > *Hi All* > > > > Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? > and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few > questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory > to experiment. > > > > My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the > photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic > properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. > > There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an > approach. > > Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the > suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest > frame in space. Close therefore remarks, *?**What has not been generally > recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature > of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute > space and time.?* > > > > So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively > pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such > an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal > approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John > Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain > issues remain (for me) unresolved. > > > > While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic > interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought > provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire > future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. > While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the > actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other > explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before > accepting any answer to best describe experiment. > > > > *Hi Stephen* > > > > Thank you for the analogy. > > > > Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of > applications of the idea. > > > > I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a > distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or > a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the > ?background? noise floor. > > However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other > words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are > sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony > Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such > an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this > atom. ?*Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the > Hydrogen Atom*? Anthony Fleming 2005. > > > > However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is > not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable > even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not > yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? > by the photon. > > > > *Hi John D. * > > > > Thank you for the references to photon models. > > > > Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and > Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves > questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I > have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the > possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing > multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the > emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration > to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to > explore further. > > > > *Hi Chandra* > > > > I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. > > > > And referring directly to? > > *?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; > we will never find it!?* > > > > The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, > which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look > more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and > therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. > > > > Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. > > > > *All* > > > > It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying > particles) from light. > > If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then > it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes > the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding > of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John > Duffield > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Andrew: > > > > It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. > Einstein said a field is a state of space > . Susskind said the same > in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an > electron is. > > > > As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself > this: *where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton > annihilation to gamma photons? *And ask yourself this: *what is it that > makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c?* Alternatively, imagine > you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. > > > > [image: toroidalphotonsmall] > > > > Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will > find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: > > > > > > [image: trefoil] > > > > It?s made of three parts, three partons. See > http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions > knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left > calling out the crossing-over directions: *up up down*. When you do > eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > *From:* Andrew Meulenberg > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM > > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > > *Subject:* [General] gravitation > > > > Dear John D, > > I wonder why this concept has not been developed? > > > > "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber > sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That > represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." > > I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the > long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the > net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking > (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as > distortions of space & how relativity affects them. > > I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in > August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the > interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic > electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. > > Andrew > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -- Stephen Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Sun Feb 22 03:57:33 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:57:33 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7698A0049ABF4157A8068BD7855225B0@HPlaptop> Chip: The reference rest frame is the CMB frame, see the CMBR dipole anisotropy on Wikipedia. You can use it to gauge your motion with respect to the universe. It isn?t an absolute reference frame in the strict sense, but the universe is as absolute as it gets. As for the length of the photon, I too favour the Drozdov and Stahlhofen idea. But I can appreciate what those other people are saying. For example, I?ve likened the photon to a seismic wave, but when an earthquake occurs, the ground shakes back and forth repeatedly. It doesn?t move left a metre then right a metre and then stop. Or take a look at the hydrogen 22cm line cause by an electron spin flip: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/h21.html. Then get an elastic band and stretch it over your finger and thumb, poke a short pencil through it, flip the pencil over, and let go: dub a dub a dub a dub a dub a dub a dub! Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Sun Feb 22 07:43:12 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 09:43:12 -0600 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Sun Feb 22 07:48:21 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 07:48:21 -0800 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin In-Reply-To: <274C21CCC2424C22B549FA5C2E70386F@HPlaptop> References: <943D82C5-E04B-4510-AD61-3A61882A11AA@etpsemra.com.au> <4FC8C0C9C3C94BFFBCDCE558C8915D2C@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242122B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <6FCC6ED13BCB48709C81F3208B7C797D@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C902422572@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <274C21CCC2424C22B549FA5C2E70386F@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <6D492FD3-BC42-4112-9146-CEC6F9131EC2@gmail.com> Andrew and John, In John?s photograph, the horizontal sideways movement of the helix of light corresponds to the velocity of the electron (v On Feb 21, 2015, at 6:46 AM, John Duffield wrote: > > Andrew: > > I have a very mundane view of time. Like, it?s just a measure of motion. See A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein along with time travel is science fiction . So things like the passage of time or travelling through time leave me cold. Ditto for spin about the time axis I?m afraid. I feel more comfortable with the Einstein-de Haas effect which ?demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics <>?. Maybe the issue is the standing-wave nature of the electron? There?s a rotational action in the photon, and if the photon is itself going round and round just so, the two rotations maybe cancel such that the field variation looks like a standing field. But it isn?t really standing. If you have a standing wave in a cavity and you drop one of the sides, that wave is off like a shot. It moves at c from a ?standing? start. It looked like it was still and stationary and standing and static, but it wasn?t. It was always dynamical. Ditto for the electron. If it wasn?t a dynamical spinor, it wouldn?t go round and round in a magnetic field. Let me put it another way: if it wasn?t spinning, your boomerang wouldn?t come back. > > > > As for an electron moving, IMHO one should start with Compton scattering because that?s the simplest situation. > > > > The way I see it is that the electron ?acquires a slice? of the incident photon, such that the electron?s photonic field is no longer rotationally symmetrical. Hence the electron moves. Draw repeated circles on a piece of paper whilst somebody pulls the paper to the left. Or draw an incomplete circle, then without lifting your pen, draw another and another and another. It has net direction in space. I?m not sure about the 3D spin component that precesses about the velocity vector. I?m struggling to visualize it. Sorry. > > Regards > John D > > > From: Andrew Meulenberg > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:25 AM > To: John Williamson ; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; P.G. Vaidya > Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin > > Dear John W. and John D., > > Have you considered that a 'stationary' electron's spin could be about the time axis? It has no net direction in space until it moves or has a force applied to it. At that point, the electron field (photonic) is relativistically distorted and has a 3-D spin component that precesses about the velocity (or force or field) vector. That precession determines the deBroglie wavelength (and other attributes?). > > Andrew > __________________________ > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:09 AM, John Williamson > wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. >> >> What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? >> >> This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. >> >> Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. >> >> Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. >> >> This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! >> >> Cheers, John. >> >> >> From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] >> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM >> To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg >> Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com >> Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin >> >> John >> >> Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: >> >> >> . >> >> >> Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. >> >> As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. >> >> Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. >> >> Regards >> >> John >> >> >> * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment >> >> >> >> From: John Williamson >> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM >> To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg >> Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com >> Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin >> >> Hi Guys, >> >> Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). >> >> I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), >> >> o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. >> >> You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. >> >> Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> John. >> From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com ] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM >> To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg >> Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com >> Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin >> >> Andrew: >> >> Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. >> >> Viv/Andrew: >> >> I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. >> >> All: >> >> I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. >> >> Regards >> John >> >> >> From: Vivian Robinson >> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM >> To: Andrew Meulenberg >> Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com >> Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin >> >> Dear Andrew and all, >> >> I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. >> >> With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. >> >> http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU >> >> Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. >> >> I hope this helps your understanding. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Viv Robinson >> >> On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: >> >>> Dear Richard, >>> >>> You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: >>> "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." >>> I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. >>> >>> I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. >>> >>> I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. >>> >>> The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. >>> >>> This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) >>> >>> When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. >>> >>> Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Sun Feb 22 08:28:48 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:28:48 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Sun Feb 22 08:36:34 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:36:34 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From sleary at vavi.co.uk Mon Feb 23 02:16:26 2015 From: sleary at vavi.co.uk (Stephen Leary) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:16:26 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > Hi Stephen > > > > Thank you for the insight. > > > > What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be > dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the > local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific > direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be > defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers > are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. > > > > Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an > ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should > it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate > the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, > if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to > an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no > condition for emission would be presented. > > > > What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of > distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to > photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not > seem to be a description of our universe. > > > > For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its > specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all > absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact > fate, was known and established billions of years ago. > > > > Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does > not present this problem? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephen > Leary > *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM > > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Hi Chip, > > > > I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it > fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that > there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that > matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether > they are ever absorbed? > > > > IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see > the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. > > > > Regards > > Stephen > > > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > > *Hi All* > > > > Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? > and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few > questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory > to experiment. > > > > My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the > photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic > properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. > > There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an > approach. > > Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the > suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest > frame in space. Close therefore remarks, *?**What has not been generally > recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature > of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute > space and time.?* > > > > So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively > pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such > an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal > approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John > Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain > issues remain (for me) unresolved. > > > > While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic > interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought > provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire > future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. > While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the > actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other > explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before > accepting any answer to best describe experiment. > > > > *Hi Stephen* > > > > Thank you for the analogy. > > > > Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of > applications of the idea. > > > > I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a > distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or > a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the > ?background? noise floor. > > However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other > words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are > sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony > Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such > an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this > atom. ?*Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the > Hydrogen Atom*? Anthony Fleming 2005. > > > > However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is > not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable > even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not > yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? > by the photon. > > > > *Hi John D. * > > > > Thank you for the references to photon models. > > > > Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and > Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves > questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I > have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the > possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing > multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the > emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration > to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to > explore further. > > > > *Hi Chandra* > > > > I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. > > > > And referring directly to? > > *?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; > we will never find it!?* > > > > The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, > which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look > more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and > therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. > > > > Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. > > > > *All* > > > > It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying > particles) from light. > > If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then > it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes > the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding > of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John > Duffield > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Andrew: > > > > It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. > Einstein said a field is a state of space > . Susskind said the same > in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an > electron is. > > > > As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself > this: *where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton > annihilation to gamma photons? *And ask yourself this: *what is it that > makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c?* Alternatively, imagine > you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. > > > > [image: toroidalphotonsmall] > > > > Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will > find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: > > > > > > [image: trefoil] > > > > It?s made of three parts, three partons. See > http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions > knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left > calling out the crossing-over directions: *up up down*. When you do > eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > *From:* Andrew Meulenberg > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM > > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > > *Subject:* [General] gravitation > > > > Dear John D, > > I wonder why this concept has not been developed? > > > > "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber > sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That > represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." > > I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the > long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the > net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking > (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as > distortions of space & how relativity affects them. > > I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in > August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the > interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic > electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. > > Andrew > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > -- > > Stephen Leary > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -- Stephen Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Mon Feb 23 03:33:55 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:33:55 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Mon Feb 23 05:49:49 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:49:49 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> , <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Hi John (D), What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all theory "speculation" and he was right. John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating this from several different perspectives .. As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy of the ) black hole. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of some of the people propounding the arguments. If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper level. Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out neither should they. Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, reaching us just goes to zero. Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can contribute in an email. Regards, John W. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 05:57:35 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:57:35 -0600 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <016501d04f70$b1369460$13a3bd20$@gmail.com> Hi Martin I think you are right regarding the "edge" of our universe. This has been my perception of the possible sort of "confinement" of our universe as well. So that we, from inside of our universe, would find it hard to perceive an "edge" to this curvature. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 10:37 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a "common" black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further.it is our good old horizon again! 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.natureoflightan dparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn't curved round on itself and if it doesn't go on forever, there's not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it's like, I don't know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there's some kind of event horizon, maybe it's none of the above, I don't know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they're like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o rg] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to. "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 06:09:00 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:09:00 -0600 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of "absorber". In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the "edge" of space is "curved" which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps "infinity paranoia" is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the "inertial" frame of the photon. The photon has no "inertial frame" since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for "time" as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent "solution", to "explain" those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one "solution" which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that "solution" just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to. "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chandra at phys.uconn.edu Mon Feb 23 06:34:21 2015 From: chandra at phys.uconn.edu (chandra) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:34:21 -0500 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <007601d04f75$d0bc8c90$7235a5b0$@phys.uconn.edu> John D.: Thanks for framing this Gedanken Experiment of a laser beam shooting out of a laser pointer. Let me underscore my personal opinion regarding the thinking methodology that is based upon Gedanken Theory; which is also supported by Gedanken Experiment. Creative human minds will always succeed in making self-congruent and defensible representation of nature using Gedanken-only approach. It may model real physical processes in nature; or may not. An example in my mind: the universe as a holographic projection. I can touch my lover?s body or land on the moon. But, an image generated by a real physical hologram can never be felt by humans or other animals. I have underscored earlier that our current successes in exploring and understanding nature has progressed as far as we can go based upon the prevailing approach of Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). This has been the wisest approach for us and we still must stand on the shoulders of our predecessor giants who have developed this platform. But, now that we understand that physics has become stagnant for well over half-a-century; we must add new logic to go beyond modeling measurable data since we now understand that no data ever can give us complete information regarding the ontological physical processes that give rise to the measurable data. This is where comes the gift of our mental evolution ? imagination and visualization. We must start framing our questions, over and above MDM-E, as to how can map the ontological interaction processes that are giving rise to the measurable data. This is Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E). Since a map can never be the real physical territory; we have to keep on iterating all of our MDM-E generated theories with the help of IPM-E to appreciate the ongoing perpetual evolution of the universe. There is no short cut! The immense benefit of incorporating IPM-E to our MDM-E is that engineering innovations, which are driving the evolution from viruses to humans; are essentially emulation of nature allowed processes in different permutations and combinations. Thus, the pro-active insertion of IPM-E on to our current mode of doing science through MDM-E; will also assure that our collective thinking become sustainable evolution congruent. Hence, the ?Urgency of evolution-process-congruent thinking? is necessary in all humans intellectual endeavors. May I then request all of you to come prepared at our August conference to substantiate your theories/models by citing real experiments already done and/or really do-able experiments utilizing current technologies. Gedanken Theories and Gedanken Experiments are the essential mental tools for us to develop the founding postulates behind any ?successful? theory. However, only real experiments anchored by visualized (Gedanken) interaction process maps will keep us anchored to reality. We must consciously exorcise mysticism out of physics; even though it is the sense of our mysticism (our collective ignorance) which drives our enquiring minds to keep on exploring nature! Again, my advance apology, if I am annoying any of you with my personal philosophy. Actually, I am trying to drive your enquiring juices harder! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here . WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here . Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. toroidalphotonsmall Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: trefoil It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Mon Feb 23 08:28:42 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:28:42 +0000 Subject: [General] why doesn't the light get out? In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com>, <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <59EAB82B60254EA48D51842ECB67F042@HPlaptop> John: Imagine we?re in gravity-free space. I shine a laser, and you measure the frequency. Then you accelerate away along the line of the laser and measure the frequency again. Light is experimentally redshifted. But that light didn?t change one jot. Instead, you changed, along with your measuring equipment. Now let?s repeat for the vertical light beam. You measure the frequency at ground level, then you ascend to some great height and measure the frequency again. Light is experimentally redshifted. But that light didn?t change one jot. Instead, you changed, along with your measuring equipment. That isn?t what?s taught, but think about this: if you send a 511keV photon into a black hole, the black hole mass increases by 511kev/c?. Not by any other amount. The descending photon doesn?t gain any energy. Instead, when you descend, you lose it, remember the mass deficit. And when you ascend, you gain it. If I lift you up, I do work on you. I add energy to you. So you measure the photon to be redshifted even though it isn?t. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. Well spotted. Here?s a clue as to why I think that light doesn?t get out: Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 1:49 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi John (D), What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all theory "speculation" and he was right. John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating this from several different perspectives .. As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy of the ) black hole. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of some of the people propounding the arguments. If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper level. Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out neither should they. Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, reaching us just goes to zero. Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can contribute in an email. Regards, John W. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Mon Feb 23 10:20:36 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:20:36 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> , <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000D7A55-30E5-4FE0-B0E5-0116F5C8AE25@philips.com> Dear Chip, I do understand your position, things are confusing and nit arsily explained by a simple e-mail. What you can do best is first study the EPR parodox, understand that this implies problems with locality or causality, and then reconsider. Space-time is not just a simple stage on which the actors play, actors snd stage sometimes (experimentally proven) be intertwined! It is not hoe people like to think, or even i like to think, but it is a fact you simply have to take on board. Good luck! Best, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 23 feb. 2015 om 15:09 heeft "Chip Akins" > het volgende geschreven: Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of ?absorber?. In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the ?edge? of space is ?curved? which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps ?infinity paranoia? is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the ?inertial? frame of the photon. The photon has no ?inertial frame? since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for ?time? as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent ?solution?, to ?explain? those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one ?solution? which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that ?solution? just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 11:46:05 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:46:05 -0600 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: <000D7A55-30E5-4FE0-B0E5-0116F5C8AE25@philips.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> , <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> <000D7A55-30E5-4FE0-B0E5-0116F5C8AE25@philips.com> Message-ID: <019401d04fa1$62cc75c0$28656140$@gmail.com> Hi Martin Thank you for the comments and insight. So many times, since the late 1970's I have revisited the original EPR paradox concept. Physics has in many ways matured since then. Still there seem to be components of the range of possible solutions, which have not been fully explored. Take for example the experiment in the attached paper "Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields". While the speed of light (propagation of EM waves) is apparently not affected by a superluminal Coulomb field, if such properties exist for Coulomb fields, if the implications are fully explored, it might explain many of the experimental observations. My question regarding photon exchange for very large distances is difficult for me to comprehend. Do you have any insight in that area? The way it seems to me, requiring photon exchange, by requiring the absorber be identified prior to emission, also requires that the full current state of the universe was known billions of years ago??? And likewise, the future is predetermined for billions of years because photons are continuously being emitted with destinations across this vast universe. Is this implication invalid? If it is invalid, can you explain why? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:21 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Dear Chip, I do understand your position, things are confusing and nit arsily explained by a simple e-mail. What you can do best is first study the EPR parodox, understand that this implies problems with locality or causality, and then reconsider. Space-time is not just a simple stage on which the actors play, actors snd stage sometimes (experimentally proven) be intertwined! It is not hoe people like to think, or even i like to think, but it is a fact you simply have to take on board. Good luck! Best, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 23 feb. 2015 om 15:09 heeft "Chip Akins" > het volgende geschreven: Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of "absorber". In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the "edge" of space is "curved" which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps "infinity paranoia" is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the "inertial" frame of the photon. The photon has no "inertial frame" since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for "time" as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent "solution", to "explain" those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one "solution" which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that "solution" just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to. "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe _____ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 925967 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Mon Feb 23 13:23:57 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 21:23:57 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Chip, take a deep breath. A photon has a mass. Light is heavy. Energy is exactly the same thing as mass, the units differ by c^2, that is all. E=mc^2 is NOT, I say NOT describing a reaction where energy is converted into mass or vice versa. In the famous Eddington experiment, light from a star is GRAVITATIONALLY deflected by the sun (and the sun is pulled aside by the photon, a very, very tiny little bit) This is really how it is. Photons sometimes are said to have no REST mass. But the buggers just cannot sit still, now can they? It is a rather loose and confusing statement that is only true in some unphysical limit. But photons can be put in a box, and then put on a scale to weigh them: m=hf/c^2 Really, I am not pulling your leg, I just want to spare you a lot of waist of energy... eh mass? ;-) 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: maandag 23 februari 2015 15:09 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of "absorber". In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the "edge" of space is "curved" which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps "infinity paranoia" is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the "inertial" frame of the photon. The photon has no "inertial frame" since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for "time" as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent "solution", to "explain" those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one "solution" which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that "solution" just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to... "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Mon Feb 23 14:11:09 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:11:09 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AFDF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Hello Chip and everyone, Relax. This does not mean the whole universe is pre-determined. The photon does not have to see its whole future. One only requires that the absorber sees all of its past. This is a much less stringent criterion, but means the same thing in terms of causality. Think about it. John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:23 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Chip, take a deep breath. A photon has a mass. Light is heavy. Energy is exactly the same thing as mass, the units differ by c^2, that is all. E=mc^2 is NOT, I say NOT describing a reaction where energy is converted into mass or vice versa. In the famous Eddington experiment, light from a star is GRAVITATIONALLY deflected by the sun (and the sun is pulled aside by the photon, a very, very tiny little bit) This is really how it is. Photons sometimes are said to have no REST mass. But the buggers just cannot sit still, now can they? It is a rather loose and confusing statement that is only true in some unphysical limit. But photons can be put in a box, and then put on a scale to weigh them: m=hf/c^2 Really, I am not pulling your leg, I just want to spare you a lot of waist of energy? eh mass? ;-) 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: maandag 23 februari 2015 15:09 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of ?absorber?. In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the ?edge? of space is ?curved? which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps ?infinity paranoia? is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the ?inertial? frame of the photon. The photon has no ?inertial frame? since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for ?time? as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent ?solution?, to ?explain? those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one ?solution? which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that ?solution? just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 14:19:06 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:19:06 -0600 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01a801d04fb6$c45dace0$4d1906a0$@gmail.com> Hi Martin I am aware of the mass considerations of photons, the effect that gravity has on them, and the photon in a box thought experiment. They (photons) do have these properties, but they do not exhibit inertial mass as particles do. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:24 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Chip, take a deep breath. A photon has a mass. Light is heavy. Energy is exactly the same thing as mass, the units differ by c^2, that is all. E=mc^2 is NOT, I say NOT describing a reaction where energy is converted into mass or vice versa. In the famous Eddington experiment, light from a star is GRAVITATIONALLY deflected by the sun (and the sun is pulled aside by the photon, a very, very tiny little bit) This is really how it is. Photons sometimes are said to have no REST mass. But the buggers just cannot sit still, now can they? It is a rather loose and confusing statement that is only true in some unphysical limit. But photons can be put in a box, and then put on a scale to weigh them: m=hf/c^2 Really, I am not pulling your leg, I just want to spare you a lot of waist of energy. eh mass? ;-) 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.natureoflighta ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 15:09 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of "absorber". In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the "edge" of space is "curved" which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps "infinity paranoia" is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the "inertial" frame of the photon. The photon has no "inertial frame" since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for "time" as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent "solution", to "explain" those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one "solution" which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that "solution" just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to. "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Mon Feb 23 14:31:46 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:31:46 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: <01a801d04fb6$c45dace0$4d1906a0$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> , <01a801d04fb6$c45dace0$4d1906a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1A18FC9C-056E-4120-9E53-7DEF451913BF@philips.com> Hi Chip, again the photon has mass, inertial mass and gravitational mass. It is the equivalence principle. Also p=mc=hf/c=h/lambda !!!!!! You cannot get away from it, it is the same thing again. shake it off! Think again! I can only take you to the water.... I will only respond once more, at the conference, but then it will be beer ? Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 23 feb. 2015 om 23:19 heeft "Chip Akins" > het volgende geschreven: Hi Martin I am aware of the mass considerations of photons, the effect that gravity has on them, and the photon in a box thought experiment. They (photons) do have these properties, but they do not exhibit inertial mass as particles do. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:24 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Chip, take a deep breath. A photon has a mass. Light is heavy. Energy is exactly the same thing as mass, the units differ by c^2, that is all. E=mc^2 is NOT, I say NOT describing a reaction where energy is converted into mass or vice versa. In the famous Eddington experiment, light from a star is GRAVITATIONALLY deflected by the sun (and the sun is pulled aside by the photon, a very, very tiny little bit) This is really how it is. Photons sometimes are said to have no REST mass. But the buggers just cannot sit still, now can they? It is a rather loose and confusing statement that is only true in some unphysical limit. But photons can be put in a box, and then put on a scale to weigh them: m=hf/c^2 Really, I am not pulling your leg, I just want to spare you a lot of waist of energy? eh mass? ;-) 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: maandag 23 februari 2015 15:09 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of ?absorber?. In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the ?edge? of space is ?curved? which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps ?infinity paranoia? is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the ?inertial? frame of the photon. The photon has no ?inertial frame? since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for ?time? as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent ?solution?, to ?explain? those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one ?solution? which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that ?solution? just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ 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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 14:34:24 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:34:24 -0600 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AFDF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AFDF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <01ae01d04fb8$e6abcd20$b4036760$@gmail.com> Hi John W. Thank you once again. This is much easier to envision. All Thank you for bearing with me through the series of questions. It seemed to me, for a while, that something was wrong with the photon exchange theory. But you have all helped me to better understand a causal approach which seems to resolve the issue. Thank you Martin. Thank you Stephen. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:11 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hello Chip and everyone, Relax. This does not mean the whole universe is pre-determined. The photon does not have to see its whole future. One only requires that the absorber sees all of its past. This is a much less stringent criterion, but means the same thing in terms of causality. Think about it. John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl es.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:23 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Chip, take a deep breath. A photon has a mass. Light is heavy. Energy is exactly the same thing as mass, the units differ by c^2, that is all. E=mc^2 is NOT, I say NOT describing a reaction where energy is converted into mass or vice versa. In the famous Eddington experiment, light from a star is GRAVITATIONALLY deflected by the sun (and the sun is pulled aside by the photon, a very, very tiny little bit) This is really how it is. Photons sometimes are said to have no REST mass. But the buggers just cannot sit still, now can they? It is a rather loose and confusing statement that is only true in some unphysical limit. But photons can be put in a box, and then put on a scale to weigh them: m=hf/c^2 Really, I am not pulling your leg, I just want to spare you a lot of waist of energy. eh mass? ;-) 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.natureoflighta ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 15:09 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of "absorber". In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the "edge" of space is "curved" which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps "infinity paranoia" is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the "inertial" frame of the photon. The photon has no "inertial frame" since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for "time" as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent "solution", to "explain" those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one "solution" which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that "solution" just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to. "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Mon Feb 23 14:52:00 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:52:00 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> Message-ID: Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Mon Feb 23 15:01:34 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:01:34 +0000 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: <019401d04fa1$62cc75c0$28656140$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> , <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> <000D7A55-30E5-4FE0-B0E5-0116F5C8AE25@philips.com> <019401d04fa1$62cc75c0$28656140$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Chip, yes the Coulomb field seems to have infinite speed. Seems. Have to come back to that, there is something in the Feynman Lectures about it, there is something with Lienhard Wiechert potentials.... Must reeducate myself. Thanks for the paper. Later! 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: maandag 23 februari 2015 20:46 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Martin Thank you for the comments and insight. So many times, since the late 1970's I have revisited the original EPR paradox concept. Physics has in many ways matured since then. Still there seem to be components of the range of possible solutions, which have not been fully explored. Take for example the experiment in the attached paper "Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields". While the speed of light (propagation of EM waves) is apparently not affected by a superluminal Coulomb field, if such properties exist for Coulomb fields, if the implications are fully explored, it might explain many of the experimental observations. My question regarding photon exchange for very large distances is difficult for me to comprehend. Do you have any insight in that area? The way it seems to me, requiring photon exchange, by requiring the absorber be identified prior to emission, also requires that the full current state of the universe was known billions of years ago??? And likewise, the future is predetermined for billions of years because photons are continuously being emitted with destinations across this vast universe. Is this implication invalid? If it is invalid, can you explain why? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:21 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Dear Chip, I do understand your position, things are confusing and nit arsily explained by a simple e-mail. What you can do best is first study the EPR parodox, understand that this implies problems with locality or causality, and then reconsider. Space-time is not just a simple stage on which the actors play, actors snd stage sometimes (experimentally proven) be intertwined! It is not hoe people like to think, or even i like to think, but it is a fact you simply have to take on board. Good luck! Best, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 23 feb. 2015 om 15:09 heeft "Chip Akins" > het volgende geschreven: Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of "absorber". In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the "edge" of space is "curved" which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps "infinity paranoia" is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the "inertial" frame of the photon. The photon has no "inertial frame" since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for "time" as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent "solution", to "explain" those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one "solution" which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that "solution" just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to... "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Mon Feb 23 15:14:29 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:14:29 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> , <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dear all John's explanation has a lot of good stuff in it, I will look up a few things, and Viv can probably add to it. I would like to add now that we also must not forget that black holes actually radiate thermal (electromagnetic!) radiation depending on their size, the smaller the hotter, the more they radiate, the sooner they evaporate!!!!!! Cheers, Marti n 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 John Williamson Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 14:50 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi John (D), What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all theory "speculation" and he was right. John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating this from several different perspectives .. As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy of the ) black hole. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of some of the people propounding the arguments. If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper level. Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out neither should they. Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, reaching us just goes to zero. Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can contribute in an email. Regards, John W. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a "common" black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further...it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn't curved round on itself and if it doesn't go on forever, there's not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it's like, I don't know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there's some kind of event horizon, maybe it's none of the above, I don't know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they're like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to... "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 18:37:50 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 08:07:50 +0530 Subject: [General] gravitation In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> <000D7A55-30E5-4FE0-B0E5-0116F5C8AE25@philips.com> <019401d04fa1$62cc75c0$28656140$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Martin, John W., John D., Chip, and all, My initial introduction to parts of this discussion was over multiple beers. It probably needs it. However, the concepts from those seeds have grown over the years. I think that we need to go where the Nature of Light series may not have yet tread. Consider EM radiation in 3 forms (in my present view): 1. Source-bound - this is the Maxwell's equations form 2. free - this is the 'classical' photon 3. self-bound - this is the source of all matter. 1. the EM field from an oscillating dipole does not 'radiate' (become unbound) except under special conditions. It remains 'attached' to the source as a standing (evanescent) wave. It also constitutes the relativistic-added mass (and causes relativistic electrons to 'shrink' in size, just as a light wave (photon) can shrink in length with the addition of more frequencies from the Fourier analysis?) 2. the photon does not 'see' time in its own frame. In this version, it can travel either direction in time. It can travel across the universe and its energy can be absorbed with the reemission of the induced photon that, 180 degrees out of phase, travels back along the identical path in time and space 'erasing' itself. I don't completely subscribe to this model. However, it does appear to be self-consistent and creation of a coherent laser beam is not a bad model for the obverse of this action). My preference is for the photon to be a self-propagating (solitonic), resonant, wave that can move w/o loss thru space at a fixed velocity for the medium encountered. 3. the self-bound photon is what we have been discussing as the basis of matter (from my viewpoint becoming the electron positron pair). My ideas are continuing to evolve with these discussions. The wormhole connecting the charge pair, during creation, can eventually 'close' (leaving the charged monopoles), just as the bound EM wave can eventually radiate (producing the photon). The timing and conditions for both are energy and statistics dependent. I do not see how we can discuss light w/o discussing all of its nature, including its self-interaction. Likewise, we cannot discuss matter w/o discussing its origins and characteristics in light. Too many models have been proposed w/o sufficient information. We still may not have all we need to get the full picture. Nevertheless, we are much further along than we were a century ago and should take advantage of that additional knowledge to 'update' our models. Andrew On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Mark, Martin van der < martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote: > Hi Chip, yes the Coulomb field seems to have infinite speed. Seems. Have > to come back to that, there is something in the Feynman Lectures about it, > there is something with Lienhard Wiechert potentials.... Must reeducate > myself. Thanks for the paper. > > Later! > > 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:* maandag 23 februari 2015 20:46 > > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Hi Martin > > > > Thank you for the comments and insight. So many times, since the late > 1970's I have revisited the original EPR paradox concept. Physics has in > many ways matured since then. Still there seem to be components of the > range of possible solutions, which have not been fully explored. Take for > example the experiment in the attached paper "*Measuring Propagation > Speed of Coulomb Fields*". > > > > While the speed of light (propagation of EM waves) is apparently not > affected by a superluminal Coulomb field, if such properties exist for > Coulomb fields, if the implications are fully explored, it might explain > many of the experimental observations. > > > > My question regarding photon exchange for very large distances is > difficult for me to comprehend. Do you have any insight in that area? > > > > The way it seems to me, requiring photon exchange, by requiring the > absorber be identified prior to emission, also requires that the full > current state of the universe was known billions of years ago??? And > likewise, the future is predetermined for billions of years because photons > are continuously being emitted with destinations across this vast universe. > > > > Is this implication invalid? If it is invalid, can you explain why? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der > *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 12:21 PM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Dear Chip, > > I do understand your position, things are confusing and nit arsily > explained by a simple e-mail. What you can do best is first study the EPR > parodox, understand that this implies problems with locality or causality, > and then reconsider. Space-time is not just a simple stage on which the > actors play, actors snd stage sometimes (experimentally proven) be > intertwined! It is not hoe people like to think, or even i like to think, > but it is a fact you simply have to take on board. > > Good luck! > > Best, Martin > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > > > Op 23 feb. 2015 om 15:09 heeft "Chip Akins" het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi Stephen > > > > Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which > can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at > the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety > of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of > possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set > of beliefs are, is this also not science? > > > > Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they > lead us. > > > > The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons > are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe > it depends on the definition of "absorber". In my opinion it is entirely > acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the > "edge" of space is "curved" which preserves the conservation of energy. > > > > When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, > it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. > > > > For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may > well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. > > > > One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our > theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a > tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt > the infinite solution, if another solution exists. > > OK, perhaps "infinity paranoia" is an appropriate description. > > > > If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity > would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical > laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of > light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the > speed of light. > > > > The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from > light, particles are made from photons. > > > > Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of > particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that > sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying > mechanism which creates time. > > > > Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then > becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the "inertial" frame of > the photon. The photon has no "inertial frame" since it has no mass and no > therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the > same thing. > > Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter > reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same > rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the > cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and > cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. > > > > As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a > particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the > free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. > The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The > photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass > term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is > part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is > part of the definition of the property of time. > > > > So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot > be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite > naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property > of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their > natural reactions within particles. > > > > Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make > up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the > circumstances for "time" as we know it, and create the principle of > relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these > waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be > an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. > > > > It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one > form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I > feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So > then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent > forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and > spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties > of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, > polarization, etc. > > > > I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the > photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent "solution", to > "explain" those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us > to find one "solution" which implies that emitters and absorbers are > identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that "solution" > just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue > to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And > yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one > of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we > change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all > criteria of the observable. > > > > > > > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *Stephen Leary > *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Hi Chip, > > > > There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is > dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a > requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and > eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You > seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that > supports your beliefs. That is not science. > > > > Regards > > Stephen > > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > > Hi Stephen > > > > Thank you for the insight. > > > > What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be > dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the > local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific > direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be > defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers > are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. > > > > Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an > "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should > it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate > the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, > if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to > an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no > condition for emission would be presented. > > > > What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of > distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to > photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not > seem to be a description of our universe. > > > > For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its > specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all > absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact > fate, was known and established billions of years ago. > > > > Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does > not present this problem? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephen > Leary > *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM > > > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Hi Chip, > > > > I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it > fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that > there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that > matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether > they are ever absorbed? > > > > IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see > the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. > > > > Regards > > Stephen > > > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > > *Hi All* > > > > Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" > and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few > questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory > to experiment. > > > > My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the > photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic > properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. > > There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an > approach. > > Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the > suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest > frame in space. Close therefore remarks, *"**What has not been generally > recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature > of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute > space and time."* > > > > So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively > pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such > an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal > approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John > Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain > issues remain (for me) unresolved. > > > > While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic > interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought > provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire > future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. > While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the > actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other > explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before > accepting any answer to best describe experiment. > > > > *Hi Stephen* > > > > Thank you for the analogy. > > > > Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of > applications of the idea. > > > > I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a > distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or > a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the > "background" noise floor. > > However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other > words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are > sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony > Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such > an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this > atom. "*Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the > Hydrogen Atom*" Anthony Fleming 2005. > > > > However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is > not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable > even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not > yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" > by the photon. > > > > *Hi John D. * > > > > Thank you for the references to photon models. > > > > Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and > Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves > questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I > have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the > possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing > multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the > emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration > to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to > explore further. > > > > *Hi Chandra* > > > > I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. > > > > And referring directly to... > > *"If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; > we will never find it!"* > > > > The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, > which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look > more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and > therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. > > > > Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. > > > > *All* > > > > It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying > particles) from light. > > If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then > it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes > the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding > of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John > Duffield > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Andrew: > > > > It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. > Einstein said a field is a state of space > . Susskind said the same > in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an > electron is. > > > > As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself > this: *where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton > annihilation to gamma photons? *And ask yourself this: *what is it that > makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c?* Alternatively, imagine > you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. > > > > > > > > Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will > find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: > > > > > > > > > > It's made of three parts, three partons. See > http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions > knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left > calling out the crossing-over directions: *up up down*. When you do > eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > *From:* Andrew Meulenberg > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM > > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > > *Subject:* [General] gravitation > > > > Dear John D, > > I wonder why this concept has not been developed? > > > > "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber > sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That > represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." > > I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the > long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the > net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking > (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as > distortions of space & how relativity affects them. > > I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in > August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the > interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic > electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. > > Andrew > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > -- > > Stephen Leary > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > -- > > Stephen Leary > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 21:37:17 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:07:17 +0530 Subject: [General] why doesn't the light get out? In-Reply-To: <59EAB82B60254EA48D51842ECB67F042@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <59EAB82B60254EA48D51842ECB67F042@HPlaptop> Message-ID: Dear John D., You have posed some interesting ideas/models/scenarios. let us try a few answers. 1. The light emitted from inside a black hole is like going from a high refractive index to a lower one as you move out. As the mass of the potential well, or the depth of emission within a black hole, increases the critical angle for total internal reflection decreases and, from the center of a black hole, the light will reflect (like a wave from a beach) even when aimed straight out. 2. The black hole mass increases by 511 keV/c^2 when an electron, or a photon of that energy, falls into it. A photon is blue-shifted (frequency & energy increase) when going into a black hole (its wavelength decreases in another view). Frequency changes because time changes as you descend into the black hole. 3. Your description of gaining mass energy as you 'ascend' is the proper description of the increase of mass & charge during the creation of the electron-positron pair from a photon (a white hole?). Food for much discussion. Andrew _______________________________, On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:58 PM, John Duffield wrote: > John: > > Imagine we're in gravity-free space. I shine a laser, and you measure the > frequency. Then you accelerate away along the line of the laser and measure > the frequency again. Light is experimentally redshifted. But that light > didn't change one jot. Instead, *you* changed, along with your measuring > equipment. Now let's repeat for the vertical light beam. You measure the > frequency at ground level, then you ascend to some great height and measure > the frequency again. Light is experimentally redshifted. But *that light > didn't change one jot. *Instead, *you *changed, along with your measuring > equipment. > > That isn't what's taught, but think about this: if you send a 511keV > photon into a black hole, the black hole mass increases by 511kev/c?. Not > by any other amount. The descending photon *doesn't* gain any energy. > Instead, when you descend, you lose it, remember the mass deficit. And when > you ascend, you gain it. If I lift you up, I do work on you. I add energy > to you. So you measure the photon to be redshifted even though it isn't. > > > *At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black > hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists > portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, > more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height > (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular > "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for > radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a > black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to > having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please.* > Well spotted. Here's a clue as to why I think that light doesn't get out: > > [image: EinsteinSpeedofLight] > > Regards > John > > > *From:* John Williamson > *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 1:49 PM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > *Subject:* Re: [General] the edge of the universe > > Hi John (D), > > What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the > argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are > not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all > theory "speculation" and he was right. > > John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial > experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works > against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is > the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but > is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. > > This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any > knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating > this from several different perspectives .. > > As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting > redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I > have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. > > Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to > zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) > energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy > of the ) black hole. > > At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black > hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists > portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, > more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height > (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular > "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for > radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a > black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to > having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. > > The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a > hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be > wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like > to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. > I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious > problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a > lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual > calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the > basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly > astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of > some of the people propounding the arguments. > > If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into > further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths > correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... > though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths > looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work > seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points > in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper > level. > > Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the > interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out > neither should they. > > Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a > whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole > boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a > while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The > "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant > redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, > reaching us just goes to zero. > > Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv > Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant > paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense > widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in > science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to > mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is > (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts > from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a > gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I > think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the > intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this > published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite > as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been > experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last > few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. > Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. > I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! > > On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps > worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and > comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are > likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can > contribute in an email. > > Regards, John W. > ------------------------------ > *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson= > glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John > Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] the edge of the universe > > Martin: > > I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my > humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually > described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to > tease it out: > > You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. > The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It > goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and > more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it > ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The > light *still* doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall > down. I make the planet *even* denser and more massive, and take it to > the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve > round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So *why doesn't the > light get out?* > > Regards > John D > > > *From:* Mark, Martin van der > *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > *Subject:* Re: [General] the edge of the universe > > > Guys, > > The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, > nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going > outwards but is held back just as in a "common" black hole. > > It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there > somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further...it is our good old horizon > again! > > 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 *John > Duffield > *Sent:* zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] the edge of the universe > > > > Chip: > > > > Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I > wrote something speculative about it here > . > WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any > curvature or any toroidal topology , and > IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then > the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn't > curved round on itself and if it doesn't go on forever, there's not a lot > of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no > space beyond this edge, there *is* no beyond it. As for what it's like, I > don't know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like > mentioned here . > Maybe there's some kind of event horizon, maybe it's none of the above, I > don't know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a > sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no > evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that > they're like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in > ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. > Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world *with* an edge. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > *From:* Chip Akins > > *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM > > *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > > > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Hi Stephen > > > > Thank you for the insight. > > > > What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be > dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the > local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific > direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be > defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers > are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. > > > > Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an > "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should > it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate > the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, > if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to > an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no > condition for emission would be presented. > > > > What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of > distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to > photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not > seem to be a description of our universe. > > > > For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its > specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all > absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact > fate, was known and established billions of years ago. > > > > Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does > not present this problem? > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [ > mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > ] > *On Behalf Of *Stephen Leary > *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Hi Chip, > > > > I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it > fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that > there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that > matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether > they are ever absorbed? > > > > IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see > the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. > > > > Regards > > Stephen > > > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: > > *Hi All* > > > > Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" > and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few > questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory > to experiment. > > > > My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the > photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic > properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. > > There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an > approach. > > Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the > suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest > frame in space. Close therefore remarks, *"What has not been generally > recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature > of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute > space and time."* > > > > So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively > pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such > an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal > approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John > Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain > issues remain (for me) unresolved. > > > > While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic > interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought > provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire > future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. > While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the > actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other > explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before > accepting any answer to best describe experiment. > > > > *Hi Stephen* > > > > Thank you for the analogy. > > > > Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of > applications of the idea. > > > > I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a > distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or > a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the > "background" noise floor. > > However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other > words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are > sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony > Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such > an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this > atom. "*Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the > Hydrogen Atom*" Anthony Fleming 2005. > > > > However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is > not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable > even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not > yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" > by the photon. > > > > *Hi John D. * > > > > Thank you for the references to photon models. > > > > Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and > Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves > questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I > have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the > possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing > multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the > emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration > to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to > explore further. > > > > *Hi Chandra* > > > > I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. > > > > And referring directly to... > > *"If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; > we will never find it!"* > > > > The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, > which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look > more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and > therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. > > > > Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. > > > > *All* > > > > It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying > particles) from light. > > If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then > it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes > the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding > of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. > > > > Chip > > > > *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins= > gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John > Duffield > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation > > > > Andrew: > > > > It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. > Einstein said a field is a state of space > . Susskind said the same > in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an > electron is. > > > > As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself > this: *where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton > annihilation to gamma photons? *And ask yourself this: *what is it that > makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c?* Alternatively, imagine > you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. > > > > [image: toroidalphotonsmall] > > > > Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will > find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: > > > > > > [image: trefoil] > > > > It's made of three parts, three partons. See > http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions > knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left > calling out the crossing-over directions: *up up down*. When you do > eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. > > > > Regards > > John D > > > > > > *From:* Andrew Meulenberg > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM > > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > > *Subject:* [General] gravitation > > > > Dear John D, > > I wonder why this concept has not been developed? > > > > "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber > sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That > represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." > > I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the > long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the > net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking > (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as > distortions of space & how relativity affects them. > > I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in > August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the > interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic > electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. > > Andrew > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > -- > > Stephen Leary > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > ------------------------------ > 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EinsteinSpeedofLight[3].jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Tue Feb 24 00:37:55 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 08:37:55 +0000 Subject: [General] Space, time and gravitation Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242B05D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Good morning all, I have the sense that there is still at least one mis-conception within the group which has bearing on, not only this discussion but also on some of the the other threads we are following - and this is the proper nature of time and space themselves and our understanding of them. Hence the change in title of the thread. Between us, we are beginning to cover some of the main issues. Perhaps we should, collectively write a (draft) paper with the title above. I do not think it will necessarily be considered any good within the cosmology crowd as I do not think any of us are within that category - but it could be good to help our thinking get away from the very wooly. I like the three-form categorisation from Andrew. I find no fault in his explanations and agree with him even to the detail of the "I don't completely subscribe to this model" statement in the second category. I think the problem lies - not in the consistency with experiment - light does what it does, but in the struggle to understand what it means in terms of the conventional (in my view very limited) human view of space, time and causality. What I will try to explain is very hard to think about conceptually - precisely because the words one needs to use to decribe it in our monkey-view of 3-d space do not exist and must be invented. We think in terms of our experience, but one needs to realise that our experience is not of space and time directly but of interactions. We then construct our view of reality to make sense of these interactions. We all possess, for example a table. It is, and looks 3-d and not 4-d. One can walk round it, climb up on it or jump off it in 3-d but not in 4-d. If we come back a bit later both we and it have travelled forwards immense human distances in time (by breakfast the next morning you have both travelled 25900000000 kilometres). Luckily, most of this distance was round and round in circles within the particles (Andrew's category 3 photons) of which we are composed and both we, and the table, look very similar the next day. However, these processes are all very slow compared to the natural clock frequencies of those particles - and it is this that colours our perceptions of the universe. This kind of thinking is very very hard to get away from. Even in trained professional physicists (who should know better) - it keeps appearing - though when we are reminded we , bashfully, acknowledge there there is something in all this relativistic stuff and we should take account of it. Logically, to complete the set for thinking purposes, I would propose a fourth form to add to Andrew's three:- 1. Source-bound - this is the Maxwell's equations form 2. free - this is the 'classical' photon 3. self-bound - this is the source of all matter. 4. observer-bound - this is also in the Maxwell equation form 4. This is all that we see, all that we touch all that we taste and all that we feel. In the sense of Hume, this is all we have as input to create the (second world of Popper) in which we live. The other thing that humans do is to try to make sense of nature. So far we have been trying to this and write it down traceably in the western tradition, for a few thousand years. A little longer for the Chinese and Indo-European traditions of course - and these have merged to some extent- though not as much as they should have as I am sure Richard and Chandra will agree. It is worth noting that in none of the traditions are we there yet. This is partly because we try to over-simplify things to make sense of them. That table, for example is much more complicated than merely 3-d. Our chief interaction is that the 3-d fields of the table impinge and interfere with our own 3-d fields. The the problem is that, really, there are not three of them but far more. If we restrict ourselves to the electric and magnetic field componenents there are 6. In any given frame (the breakfast frame for example) these appear as two sets of three, the magnetic set and the electric set. Note that they are not sets of 4. This is, pretty much, why the table looks 3d and not 4-d. For the purposes of jumping and climbing the two sets may be considered to be in the same place at the same time. However, neither of these two sets of three is responsible for the integrity of the table. One set (electric) of the three tries to explode the elementary particles of which it is composed, the other (magnetic) may or may not be part of what is holding it together. It is another set of three that is primarily responsible for it not just collapsing. This is whatever is responsible for the thing we call the Pauli exclusion principle. I do not think it is a principle, I think it is a force (as I argued at MENDEL 2012). That set of three is the triple of spin. Three more (axial) dimensions, again superimposed on the 3-d-seeming table. Now we have nine. None of them are yet space or time themselves. Now we come to space and time. In the context of the Maxwell equations these are things appearing in the derivatives we use to make sense of much of nature. But what do they mean. John D has said for him that time is motion. For me this is not correct. Time is no more motion than space is motion. To get motion we divide space by time. Conventionally a little bit of space by a little bit of time, dx/dt. Now this is not as simple a thing as it appears to most people, as we are dividing one thing (a bit of space) by another (a bit of time) when we should know (as professional physicists) that space and time are related. As Stephen put in his thesis for example "One man's space is another man's time". Understanding this is so important that Martin and I devoted several years of our lives to try to understand exctly how this worked in a properly relativistic algebra this. We wrote a paper on it called "Division and the algebra of reality". We have tried to submit it a few times but it remains unpublished. The last referee claiming it was completely useless as there was no conceivable practical application (we submitted it to a maths-physics journal so, even if it was true (which it isn't) it should have been no impediment. Ho hum. This is pretty complicated, so I am not going to have time to go into it today. Actually it is a Martin-John paper and , if peoole are interested, it could (possibly) go in in August. Martin and I initially thought not, because it is not directly related to light per-se. What do you think Martin? Unfortunately- though the story is far from complete I am going to have to stop now as I have a lecture (actually three in a row) coming up, followed by exams in the afternoon as well a Masters thesis to read and mark and documention to produce for accreditation in Civil engineering. Still need to write a few exams before Martin comes for a visit in a couple of weeks.They keep me busy. I really ought to stop talking to you guys altogether. At this rate you may all have to wait for next week's exciting episode.... Including inversion of space and time, Penrose twistors and time for photons... Gotta go ..... Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2:37 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Dear Martin, John W., John D., Chip, and all, My initial introduction to parts of this discussion was over multiple beers. It probably needs it. However, the concepts from those seeds have grown over the years. I think that we need to go where the Nature of Light series may not have yet tread. Consider EM radiation in 3 forms (in my present view): 1. Source-bound - this is the Maxwell's equations form 2. free - this is the 'classical' photon 3. self-bound - this is the source of all matter. 1. the EM field from an oscillating dipole does not 'radiate' (become unbound) except under special conditions. It remains 'attached' to the source as a standing (evanescent) wave. It also constitutes the relativistic-added mass (and causes relativistic electrons to 'shrink' in size, just as a light wave (photon) can shrink in length with the addition of more frequencies from the Fourier analysis?) 2. the photon does not 'see' time in its own frame. In this version, it can travel either direction in time. It can travel across the universe and its energy can be absorbed with the reemission of the induced photon that, 180 degrees out of phase, travels back along the identical path in time and space 'erasing' itself. I don't completely subscribe to this model. However, it does appear to be self-consistent and creation of a coherent laser beam is not a bad model for the obverse of this action). My preference is for the photon to be a self-propagating (solitonic), resonant, wave that can move w/o loss thru space at a fixed velocity for the medium encountered. 3. the self-bound photon is what we have been discussing as the basis of matter (from my viewpoint becoming the electron positron pair). My ideas are continuing to evolve with these discussions. The wormhole connecting the charge pair, during creation, can eventually 'close' (leaving the charged monopoles), just as the bound EM wave can eventually radiate (producing the photon). The timing and conditions for both are energy and statistics dependent. I do not see how we can discuss light w/o discussing all of its nature, including its self-interaction. Likewise, we cannot discuss matter w/o discussing its origins and characteristics in light. Too many models have been proposed w/o sufficient information. We still may not have all we need to get the full picture. Nevertheless, we are much further along than we were a century ago and should take advantage of that additional knowledge to 'update' our models. Andrew On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Mark, Martin van der > wrote: Hi Chip, yes the Coulomb field seems to have infinite speed. Seems. Have to come back to that, there is something in the Feynman Lectures about it, there is something with Lienhard Wiechert potentials?. Must reeducate myself. Thanks for the paper. Later! 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: maandag 23 februari 2015 20:46 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Martin Thank you for the comments and insight. So many times, since the late 1970?s I have revisited the original EPR paradox concept. Physics has in many ways matured since then. Still there seem to be components of the range of possible solutions, which have not been fully explored. Take for example the experiment in the attached paper ?Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields?. While the speed of light (propagation of EM waves) is apparently not affected by a superluminal Coulomb field, if such properties exist for Coulomb fields, if the implications are fully explored, it might explain many of the experimental observations. My question regarding photon exchange for very large distances is difficult for me to comprehend. Do you have any insight in that area? The way it seems to me, requiring photon exchange, by requiring the absorber be identified prior to emission, also requires that the full current state of the universe was known billions of years ago??? And likewise, the future is predetermined for billions of years because photons are continuously being emitted with destinations across this vast universe. Is this implication invalid? If it is invalid, can you explain why? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:21 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Dear Chip, I do understand your position, things are confusing and nit arsily explained by a simple e-mail. What you can do best is first study the EPR parodox, understand that this implies problems with locality or causality, and then reconsider. Space-time is not just a simple stage on which the actors play, actors snd stage sometimes (experimentally proven) be intertwined! It is not hoe people like to think, or even i like to think, but it is a fact you simply have to take on board. Good luck! Best, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 23 feb. 2015 om 15:09 heeft "Chip Akins" > het volgende geschreven: Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of ?absorber?. In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the ?edge? of space is ?curved? which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps ?infinity paranoia? is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the ?inertial? frame of the photon. The photon has no ?inertial frame? since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for ?time? as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent ?solution?, to ?explain? those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one ?solution? which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that ?solution? just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Tue Feb 24 01:02:43 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:02:43 +0000 Subject: [General] Space, time and gravitation In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242B05D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242B05D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: John, well done! Yes that division paper, the dust should be taken off. Incidentally, talked to Dick Bouwmeester yesterday... Will book a flight this afternoon to come and see you 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 John Williamson Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 9:38 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg Subject: [General] Space, time and gravitation Good morning all, I have the sense that there is still at least one mis-conception within the group which has bearing on, not only this discussion but also on some of the the other threads we are following - and this is the proper nature of time and space themselves and our understanding of them. Hence the change in title of the thread. Between us, we are beginning to cover some of the main issues. Perhaps we should, collectively write a (draft) paper with the title above. I do not think it will necessarily be considered any good within the cosmology crowd as I do not think any of us are within that category - but it could be good to help our thinking get away from the very wooly. I like the three-form categorisation from Andrew. I find no fault in his explanations and agree with him even to the detail of the "I don't completely subscribe to this model" statement in the second category. I think the problem lies - not in the consistency with experiment - light does what it does, but in the struggle to understand what it means in terms of the conventional (in my view very limited) human view of space, time and causality. What I will try to explain is very hard to think about conceptually - precisely because the words one needs to use to decribe it in our monkey-view of 3-d space do not exist and must be invented. We think in terms of our experience, but one needs to realise that our experience is not of space and time directly but of interactions. We then construct our view of reality to make sense of these interactions. We all possess, for example a table. It is, and looks 3-d and not 4-d. One can walk round it, climb up on it or jump off it in 3-d but not in 4-d. If we come back a bit later both we and it have travelled forwards immense human distances in time (by breakfast the next morning you have both travelled 25900000000 kilometres). Luckily, most of this distance was round and round in circles within the particles (Andrew's category 3 photons) of which we are composed and both we, and the table, look very similar the next day. However, these processes are all very slow compared to the natural clock frequencies of those particles - and it is this that colours our perceptions of the universe. This kind of thinking is very very hard to get away from. Even in trained professional physicists (who should know better) - it keeps appearing - though when we are reminded we , bashfully, acknowledge there there is something in all this relativistic stuff and we should take account of it. Logically, to complete the set for thinking purposes, I would propose a fourth form to add to Andrew's three:- 1. Source-bound - this is the Maxwell's equations form 2. free - this is the 'classical' photon 3. self-bound - this is the source of all matter. 4. observer-bound - this is also in the Maxwell equation form 4. This is all that we see, all that we touch all that we taste and all that we feel. In the sense of Hume, this is all we have as input to create the (second world of Popper) in which we live. The other thing that humans do is to try to make sense of nature. So far we have been trying to this and write it down traceably in the western tradition, for a few thousand years. A little longer for the Chinese and Indo-European traditions of course - and these have merged to some extent- though not as much as they should have as I am sure Richard and Chandra will agree. It is worth noting that in none of the traditions are we there yet. This is partly because we try to over-simplify things to make sense of them. That table, for example is much more complicated than merely 3-d. Our chief interaction is that the 3-d fields of the table impinge and interfere with our own 3-d fields. The the problem is that, really, there are not three of them but far more. If we restrict ourselves to the electric and magnetic field componenents there are 6. In any given frame (the breakfast frame for example) these appear as two sets of three, the magnetic set and the electric set. Note that they are not sets of 4. This is, pretty much, why the table looks 3d and not 4-d. For the purposes of jumping and climbing the two sets may be considered to be in the same place at the same time. However, neither of these two sets of three is responsible for the integrity of the table. One set (electric) of the three tries to explode the elementary particles of which it is composed, the other (magnetic) may or may not be part of what is holding it together. It is another set of three that is primarily responsible for it not just collapsing. This is whatever is responsible for the thing we call the Pauli exclusion principle. I do not think it is a principle, I think it is a force (as I argued at MENDEL 2012). That set of three is the triple of spin. Three more (axial) dimensions, again superimposed on the 3-d-seeming table. Now we have nine. None of them are yet space or time themselves. Now we come to space and time. In the context of the Maxwell equations these are things appearing in the derivatives we use to make sense of much of nature. But what do they mean. John D has said for him that time is motion. For me this is not correct. Time is no more motion than space is motion. To get motion we divide space by time. Conventionally a little bit of space by a little bit of time, dx/dt. Now this is not as simple a thing as it appears to most people, as we are dividing one thing (a bit of space) by another (a bit of time) when we should know (as professional physicists) that space and time are related. As Stephen put in his thesis for example "One man's space is another man's time". Understanding this is so important that Martin and I devoted several years of our lives to try to understand exctly how this worked in a properly relativistic algebra this. We wrote a paper on it called "Division and the algebra of reality". We have tried to submit it a few times but it remains unpublished. The last referee claiming it was completely useless as there was no conceivable practical application (we submitted it to a maths-physics journal so, even if it was true (which it isn't) it should have been no impediment. Ho hum. This is pretty complicated, so I am not going to have time to go into it today. Actually it is a Martin-John paper and , if peoole are interested, it could (possibly) go in in August. Martin and I initially thought not, because it is not directly related to light per-se. What do you think Martin? Unfortunately- though the story is far from complete I am going to have to stop now as I have a lecture (actually three in a row) coming up, followed by exams in the afternoon as well a Masters thesis to read and mark and documention to produce for accreditation in Civil engineering. Still need to write a few exams before Martin comes for a visit in a couple of weeks.They keep me busy. I really ought to stop talking to you guys altogether. At this rate you may all have to wait for next week's exciting episode.... Including inversion of space and time, Penrose twistors and time for photons... Gotta go ..... Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2:37 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Dear Martin, John W., John D., Chip, and all, My initial introduction to parts of this discussion was over multiple beers. It probably needs it. However, the concepts from those seeds have grown over the years. I think that we need to go where the Nature of Light series may not have yet tread. Consider EM radiation in 3 forms (in my present view): 1. Source-bound - this is the Maxwell's equations form 2. free - this is the 'classical' photon 3. self-bound - this is the source of all matter. 1. the EM field from an oscillating dipole does not 'radiate' (become unbound) except under special conditions. It remains 'attached' to the source as a standing (evanescent) wave. It also constitutes the relativistic-added mass (and causes relativistic electrons to 'shrink' in size, just as a light wave (photon) can shrink in length with the addition of more frequencies from the Fourier analysis?) 2. the photon does not 'see' time in its own frame. In this version, it can travel either direction in time. It can travel across the universe and its energy can be absorbed with the reemission of the induced photon that, 180 degrees out of phase, travels back along the identical path in time and space 'erasing' itself. I don't completely subscribe to this model. However, it does appear to be self-consistent and creation of a coherent laser beam is not a bad model for the obverse of this action). My preference is for the photon to be a self-propagating (solitonic), resonant, wave that can move w/o loss thru space at a fixed velocity for the medium encountered. 3. the self-bound photon is what we have been discussing as the basis of matter (from my viewpoint becoming the electron positron pair). My ideas are continuing to evolve with these discussions. The wormhole connecting the charge pair, during creation, can eventually 'close' (leaving the charged monopoles), just as the bound EM wave can eventually radiate (producing the photon). The timing and conditions for both are energy and statistics dependent. I do not see how we can discuss light w/o discussing all of its nature, including its self-interaction. Likewise, we cannot discuss matter w/o discussing its origins and characteristics in light. Too many models have been proposed w/o sufficient information. We still may not have all we need to get the full picture. Nevertheless, we are much further along than we were a century ago and should take advantage of that additional knowledge to 'update' our models. Andrew On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Mark, Martin van der > wrote: Hi Chip, yes the Coulomb field seems to have infinite speed. Seems. Have to come back to that, there is something in the Feynman Lectures about it, there is something with Lienhard Wiechert potentials.... Must reeducate myself. Thanks for the paper. Later! 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: maandag 23 februari 2015 20:46 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Martin Thank you for the comments and insight. So many times, since the late 1970's I have revisited the original EPR paradox concept. Physics has in many ways matured since then. Still there seem to be components of the range of possible solutions, which have not been fully explored. Take for example the experiment in the attached paper "Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields". While the speed of light (propagation of EM waves) is apparently not affected by a superluminal Coulomb field, if such properties exist for Coulomb fields, if the implications are fully explored, it might explain many of the experimental observations. My question regarding photon exchange for very large distances is difficult for me to comprehend. Do you have any insight in that area? The way it seems to me, requiring photon exchange, by requiring the absorber be identified prior to emission, also requires that the full current state of the universe was known billions of years ago??? And likewise, the future is predetermined for billions of years because photons are continuously being emitted with destinations across this vast universe. Is this implication invalid? If it is invalid, can you explain why? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:21 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Dear Chip, I do understand your position, things are confusing and nit arsily explained by a simple e-mail. What you can do best is first study the EPR parodox, understand that this implies problems with locality or causality, and then reconsider. Space-time is not just a simple stage on which the actors play, actors snd stage sometimes (experimentally proven) be intertwined! It is not hoe people like to think, or even i like to think, but it is a fact you simply have to take on board. Good luck! Best, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 23 feb. 2015 om 15:09 heeft "Chip Akins" > het volgende geschreven: Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of "absorber". In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the "edge" of space is "curved" which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps "infinity paranoia" is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the "inertial" frame of the photon. The photon has no "inertial frame" since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for "time" as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent "solution", to "explain" those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one "solution" which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that "solution" just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to... "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Tue Feb 24 05:14:04 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:14:04 +0000 Subject: [General] Mass In-Reply-To: <01a801d04fb6$c45dace0$4d1906a0$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> <01a801d04fb6$c45dace0$4d1906a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7559264A2EA746F3A055FB983C694F31@HPlaptop> Chip: I?d like to back up what Martin?s saying. Take a look at Einstein?s E=mc? paper and note the last line: ?If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies.? The photon conveys inertia, such that the radiating body loses mass, and the absorbing body gains it. Hence the photon has a non-zero ?inertial mass?. This is a somewhat archaic term, in that mass nowadays tends to mean ?rest mass?. That doesn?t apply to the photon, because it?s moving at c. But inertia does. Of course, you can?t make a photon speed up or slow down, so you might think the photon doesn?t exhibit inertia at all. But take a look at Compton scattering: The photon isn?t slowed down, but it is decelerated in the vector sense. It changes direction as it loses energy. In similar vein one component of the circulating photon that is the electron changes direction as it gains energy, and as a result, the electron moves. Broadly speaking, photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave moving linearly at c, while electron mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c. See light is heavy and think of the electron as ?a photon in a box of its own making?. Electron-positron annihilation is like opening one box with another, whereupon each is a radiating body losing mass. All of it. And then it isn?t there any more. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:19 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Martin I am aware of the mass considerations of photons, the effect that gravity has on them, and the photon in a box thought experiment. They (photons) do have these properties, but they do not exhibit inertial mass as particles do. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:24 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Chip, take a deep breath. A photon has a mass. Light is heavy. Energy is exactly the same thing as mass, the units differ by c^2, that is all. E=mc^2 is NOT, I say NOT describing a reaction where energy is converted into mass or vice versa. In the famous Eddington experiment, light from a star is GRAVITATIONALLY deflected by the sun (and the sun is pulled aside by the photon, a very, very tiny little bit) This is really how it is. Photons sometimes are said to have no REST mass. But the buggers just cannot sit still, now can they? It is a rather loose and confusing statement that is only true in some unphysical limit. But photons can be put in a box, and then put on a scale to weigh them: m=hf/c^2 Really, I am not pulling your leg, I just want to spare you a lot of waist of energy? eh mass? ;-) 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: maandag 23 februari 2015 15:09 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of ?absorber?. In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the ?edge? of space is ?curved? which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps ?infinity paranoia? is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the ?inertial? frame of the photon. The photon has no ?inertial frame? since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for ?time? as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent ?solution?, to ?explain? those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one ?solution? which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that ?solution? just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 8784 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Tue Feb 24 05:39:56 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:39:56 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop> Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PhysRevLett.13.789.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 269840 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Tue Feb 24 05:47:58 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:47:58 -0600 Subject: [General] Mass In-Reply-To: <7559264A2EA746F3A055FB983C694F31@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><016b01d04f72$4b70e3e0$e252aba0$@gmail.com> <01a801d04fb6$c45dace0$4d1906a0$@gmail.com> <7559264A2EA746F3A055FB983C694F31@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <022101d05038$8791bbd0$96b53370$@gmail.com> Hi John D My description for the mass of a photon was brief and incomplete. I should have been more precise regarding the ?rest? mass of the photon. We are all quite familiar with the mass-like properties, and the momentum of the photon. And I think that we all make sense of it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:14 AM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Mass Chip: I?d like to back up what Martin?s saying. Take a look at Einstein?s E=mc? paper and note the last line: ?If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies.? The photon conveys inertia, such that the radiating body loses mass, and the absorbing body gains it. Hence the photon has a non-zero ?inertial mass?. This is a somewhat archaic term, in that mass nowadays tends to mean ?rest mass?. That doesn?t apply to the photon, because it?s moving at c. But inertia does. Of course, you can?t make a photon speed up or slow down, so you might think the photon doesn?t exhibit inertia at all. But take a look at Compton scattering: The photon isn?t slowed down, but it is decelerated in the vector sense. It changes direction as it loses energy. In similar vein one component of the circulating photon that is the electron changes direction as it gains energy, and as a result, the electron moves. Broadly speaking, photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave moving linearly at c, while electron mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c. See light is heavy and think of the electron as ?a photon in a box of its own making?. Electron-positron annihilation is like opening one box with another, whereupon each is a radiating body losing mass. All of it. And then it isn?t there any more. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:19 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Martin I am aware of the mass considerations of photons, the effect that gravity has on them, and the photon in a box thought experiment. They (photons) do have these properties, but they do not exhibit inertial mass as particles do. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:24 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Chip, take a deep breath. A photon has a mass. Light is heavy. Energy is exactly the same thing as mass, the units differ by c^2, that is all. E=mc^2 is NOT, I say NOT describing a reaction where energy is converted into mass or vice versa. In the famous Eddington experiment, light from a star is GRAVITATIONALLY deflected by the sun (and the sun is pulled aside by the photon, a very, very tiny little bit) This is really how it is. Photons sometimes are said to have no REST mass. But the buggers just cannot sit still, now can they? It is a rather loose and confusing statement that is only true in some unphysical limit. But photons can be put in a box, and then put on a scale to weigh them: m=hf/c^2 Really, I am not pulling your leg, I just want to spare you a lot of waist of energy? eh mass? ;-) 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: maandag 23 februari 2015 15:09 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the critique. I really appreciate the belief aspect which can cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities, rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are, is this also not science? Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead us. The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber. Maybe it depends on the definition of ?absorber?. In my opinion it is entirely acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the ?edge? of space is ?curved? which preserves the conservation of energy. When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe, it seems to be appropriate to question that theory. For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment. One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our theories. It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt the infinite solution, if another solution exists. OK, perhaps ?infinity paranoia? is an appropriate description. If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from light, particles are made from photons. Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism which creates time. Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the ?inertial? frame of the photon. The photon has no ?inertial frame? since it has no mass and no therefore no inertia. Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the same thing. Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of creation for the property of time, may be an error. As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2. The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter. The photon however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of the definition of the property of time. So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural reactions within particles. Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances for ?time? as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2. It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves. Likewise I feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime. It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc. I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon, and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent ?solution?, to ?explain? those behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one ?solution? which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to emission. The vast implications of that ?solution? just simply do not seem to describe our universe. So yes, I will continue to search for other possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is motivated in part by belief. But I suspect that is one of the motivations behind almost all research. The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs, once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the observable. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that supports your beliefs. That is not science. Regards Stephen On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 8784 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Tue Feb 24 05:56:29 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:56:29 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> <2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop> Message-ID: Thanks John! But I am not yet convinced about light stopping, it leads to problems, but I will have to come up with a good explanation first. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 14:40 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: [blackhole_smaller_300x225] But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Tue Feb 24 05:57:39 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:57:39 -0600 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> <2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com> Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy . Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor ? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here . WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here . Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Tue Feb 24 06:01:26 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:01:26 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com>, <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: Martin: Have you ever read the ?given explanation? of Hawking radiation? We have this mystic pair-production going on, wherein particles are popping into existence like magic, despite the near-infinite gravitation time dilation and the near-zero coordinate speed of light. And despite the fact that virtual particles are field quanta rather than short-lived real particles. (The electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom are not spitting photons at one another, their fields interact). Then one of these particles conveniently falls into the black hole while the other one escapes. Since it?s Hawking radiation the escapee is a photon... that was produced via pair production. And the particle that fell into the black hole is a negative-energy particle. Have you seen any negative-energy particles recently? Didn?t think so. It?s a fairy tale. A myth. A hypothesis that has remained unproven for so long that everybody takes it for granted. Regards John From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:14 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear all John?s explanation has a lot of good stuff in it, I will look up a few things, and Viv can probably add to it. I would like to add now that we also must not forget that black holes actually radiate thermal (electromagnetic!) radiation depending on their size, the smaller the hotter, the more they radiate, the sooner they evaporate!!!!!! Cheers, Marti n 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 John Williamson Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 14:50 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi John (D), What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all theory "speculation" and he was right. John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating this from several different perspectives .. As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy of the ) black hole. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of some of the people propounding the arguments. If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper level. Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out neither should they. Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, reaching us just goes to zero. Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can contribute in an email. Regards, John W. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Tue Feb 24 06:26:22 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:26:22 +0000 Subject: [General] why doesn't the light get out? In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><59EAB82B60254EA48D51842ECB67F042@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <04D06506C66D415F897980ACA67F34BB@HPlaptop> Andrew: 1. If you shine a light straight at a block of glass, it goes straight through. If you were inside the glass shining your light, it would shine straight out. There is no total internal reflection. Here?s Professor Tom Moore?s reply to the question: As the planet's mass approaches the black hole limit, the signal emitted from the surface will seem to move more and more slowly away from the surface (and will also be seen to be increasingly red-shifted as observed from infinity). When the surface of the planet coincides with the black hole's event horizon, the signal will stop moving outward from the surface (and the redshift observed at infinity will go to infinity). So light no longer escapes". 2. Frequency changes because time changes as you descend into the black hole, but how do you define time? Let?s start with the second. It?s defined as the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. In essence you sit there counting 9192631770 microwaves going past you, then you jump up and say that?s a second. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 where Magueijo and Moffat talked about the tautology. We define the second and the metre using the local motion of light, then use them to measure the local motion of light, and it always comes out as 299,792,458 m/s. Duh! 3. When you lift an electron you do work on it. You add energy to it. You increase its mass. Because it?s a photon going round and round, and at the higher altitude it?s going round faster. Draw it as light going round a square path to understand what happens when you drop it. Light curves downwards because ?the speed of light is spatially variable?. So the horizontals curve down and the electron falls down. Note that only the horizontals are curved, which is why matter is deflected half as much as light. And that the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy. , See Albrecht Geise describing it here: http://ag-physics.org/gravity/. I don?t quite agree with everything he says, but it?s the same elephant. Regards John From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:37 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; Andrew Meulenberg Subject: Re: [General] why doesn't the light get out? Dear John D., You have posed some interesting ideas/models/scenarios. let us try a few answers. 1.. The light emitted from inside a black hole is like going from a high refractive index to a lower one as you move out. As the mass of the potential well, or the depth of emission within a black hole, increases the critical angle for total internal reflection decreases and, from the center of a black hole, the light will reflect (like a wave from a beach) even when aimed straight out. 2.. The black hole mass increases by 511 keV/c^2 when an electron, or a photon of that energy, falls into it. A photon is blue-shifted (frequency & energy increase) when going into a black hole (its wavelength decreases in another view). Frequency changes because time changes as you descend into the black hole. 3.. Your description of gaining mass energy as you 'ascend' is the proper description of the increase of mass & charge during the creation of the electron-positron pair from a photon (a white hole?). Food for much discussion. Andrew _______________________________, On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:58 PM, John Duffield wrote: John: Imagine we?re in gravity-free space. I shine a laser, and you measure the frequency. Then you accelerate away along the line of the laser and measure the frequency again. Light is experimentally redshifted. But that light didn?t change one jot. Instead, you changed, along with your measuring equipment. Now let?s repeat for the vertical light beam. You measure the frequency at ground level, then you ascend to some great height and measure the frequency again. Light is experimentally redshifted. But that light didn?t change one jot. Instead, you changed, along with your measuring equipment. That isn?t what?s taught, but think about this: if you send a 511keV photon into a black hole, the black hole mass increases by 511kev/c?. Not by any other amount. The descending photon doesn?t gain any energy. Instead, when you descend, you lose it, remember the mass deficit. And when you ascend, you gain it. If I lift you up, I do work on you. I add energy to you. So you measure the photon to be redshifted even though it isn?t. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. Well spotted. Here?s a clue as to why I think that light doesn?t get out: Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 1:49 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi John (D), What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all theory "speculation" and he was right. John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating this from several different perspectives .. As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy of the ) black hole. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of some of the people propounding the arguments. If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper level. Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out neither should they. Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, reaching us just goes to zero. Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can contribute in an email. Regards, John W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 7490 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Tue Feb 24 06:48:14 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:48:14 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop> <022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop> Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That?s Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? Well, guess what? It can?t keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron?s falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can?t go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something?s got to give. And there?s only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper attached. It?s about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you?d never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn?t possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WinterbergGRB.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1439269 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Tue Feb 24 07:19:30 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:19:30 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com>, <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: John, Chip, First Chip: good comment, that is one of the problems I see with John D?s explanation, lack of energy conservation. John surely I know all of that and I am strongly inclined to agree with you on the explanation of Hawking radiation! Still, it is a blackbody with all of its Planckian features. But as I said I am still studying the black hole, before judging too firmly. 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 John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:01 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: Have you ever read the ?given explanation? of Hawking radiation? We have this mystic pair-production going on, wherein particles are popping into existence like magic, despite the near-infinite gravitation time dilation and the near-zero coordinate speed of light. And despite the fact that virtual particles are field quanta rather than short-lived real particles. (The electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom are not spitting photons at one another, their fields interact). Then one of these particles conveniently falls into the black hole while the other one escapes. Since it?s Hawking radiation the escapee is a photon... that was produced via pair production. And the particle that fell into the black hole is a negative-energy particle. Have you seen any negative-energy particles recently? Didn?t think so. It?s a fairy tale. A myth. A hypothesis that has remained unproven for so long that everybody takes it for granted. Regards John From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:14 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear all John?s explanation has a lot of good stuff in it, I will look up a few things, and Viv can probably add to it. I would like to add now that we also must not forget that black holes actually radiate thermal (electromagnetic!) radiation depending on their size, the smaller the hotter, the more they radiate, the sooner they evaporate!!!!!! Cheers, Marti n 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 John Williamson Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 14:50 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi John (D), What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all theory "speculation" and he was right. John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating this from several different perspectives .. As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy of the ) black hole. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of some of the people propounding the arguments. If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper level. Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out neither should they. Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, reaching us just goes to zero. Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can contribute in an email. Regards, John W. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Tue Feb 24 07:55:14 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:55:14 -0600 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com>, <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <025401d0504a$4c10dd40$e43297c0$@gmail.com> Hi Martin and John D It may be quite enlightening when we understand better the nature of ?black holes? for several obvious reasons. Take for example the concept of gravity as it relates to a black hole. Something is extending beyond the black hole or we could not feel its gravity. So how is it that space around the black hole is affected by the mass in the black hole if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and the speed of light is zero at the horizon of the black hole? If, as some have speculated, gravity is another ?shadow? manifestation of the EM fields, or is caused by the interaction of fields changing permittivity and permeability (the index of refraction), then there must be a component to those fields which is faster than c. Perhaps the Coulomb force referenced in the article sent earlier? Thoughts? From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:20 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe John, Chip, First Chip: good comment, that is one of the problems I see with John D?s explanation, lack of energy conservation. John surely I know all of that and I am strongly inclined to agree with you on the explanation of Hawking radiation! Still, it is a blackbody with all of its Planckian features. But as I said I am still studying the black hole, before judging too firmly. 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 John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:01 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: Have you ever read the ?given explanation? of Hawking radiation? We have this mystic pair-production going on, wherein particles are popping into existence like magic, despite the near-infinite gravitation time dilation and the near-zero coordinate speed of light. And despite the fact that virtual particles are field quanta rather than short-lived real particles. (The electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom are not spitting photons at one another, their fields interact). Then one of these particles conveniently falls into the black hole while the other one escapes. Since it?s Hawking radiation the escapee is a photon... that was produced via pair production. And the particle that fell into the black hole is a negative-energy particle. Have you seen any negative-energy particles recently? Didn?t think so. It?s a fairy tale. A myth. A hypothesis that has remained unproven for so long that everybody takes it for granted. Regards John From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:14 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear all John?s explanation has a lot of good stuff in it, I will look up a few things, and Viv can probably add to it. I would like to add now that we also must not forget that black holes actually radiate thermal (electromagnetic!) radiation depending on their size, the smaller the hotter, the more they radiate, the sooner they evaporate!!!!!! Cheers, Marti n 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 John Williamson Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 14:50 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi John (D), What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all theory "speculation" and he was right. John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating this from several different perspectives .. As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy of the ) black hole. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of some of the people propounding the arguments. If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper level. Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out neither should they. Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, reaching us just goes to zero. Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can contribute in an email. Regards, John W. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here . WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here . Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Tue Feb 24 10:24:11 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:24:11 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: <025401d0504a$4c10dd40$e43297c0$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com>, <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <025401d0504a$4c10dd40$e43297c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0003A5FE62434A6AB109B400F6C1FDF4@HPlaptop> Martin: Lack of energy conservation? I?m a bit of a stickler for energy conservation. Chip: Space around the black hole is affected by the mass because like Einstein said, mass is a measure of energy-content. And because energy is pressure x volume and because a gravitational field is an energy-pressure gradient in space. And because space isn?t nothing. It?s kind of like this gin-clear ghostly elastic, hence there?s a shear-stress term in the stress-energy-momentum tensor: Imagine space is some big old block of elastic jelly, and you use a hypodermic needle to inject more jelly into the middle. This pushes out on the surrounding jelly, creating a pressure gradient in it, such that the speed of light is spatially variable, and therefore light curves. Only if you keep on injecting jelly, the pressure in the middle goes so high that the speed of light in the middle is zero. Then you?ve got a black hole. That?s how I see it anyway. I don?t see that there?s any component faster than c. Check out the elastic continuum theory of nature by G S Sandhu. When a wave moves through space, space waves. These waves go straight and/or round and round, and that?s just about it. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:55 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi Martin and John D It may be quite enlightening when we understand better the nature of ?black holes? for several obvious reasons. Take for example the concept of gravity as it relates to a black hole. Something is extending beyond the black hole or we could not feel its gravity. So how is it that space around the black hole is affected by the mass in the black hole if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and the speed of light is zero at the horizon of the black hole? If, as some have speculated, gravity is another ?shadow? manifestation of the EM fields, or is caused by the interaction of fields changing permittivity and permeability (the index of refraction), then there must be a component to those fields which is faster than c. Perhaps the Coulomb force referenced in the article sent earlier? Thoughts? From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:20 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe John, Chip, First Chip: good comment, that is one of the problems I see with John D?s explanation, lack of energy conservation. John surely I know all of that and I am strongly inclined to agree with you on the explanation of Hawking radiation! Still, it is a blackbody with all of its Planckian features. But as I said I am still studying the black hole, before judging too firmly. 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 John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:01 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: Have you ever read the ?given explanation? of Hawking radiation? We have this mystic pair-production going on, wherein particles are popping into existence like magic, despite the near-infinite gravitation time dilation and the near-zero coordinate speed of light. And despite the fact that virtual particles are field quanta rather than short-lived real particles. (The electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom are not spitting photons at one another, their fields interact). Then one of these particles conveniently falls into the black hole while the other one escapes. Since it?s Hawking radiation the escapee is a photon... that was produced via pair production. And the particle that fell into the black hole is a negative-energy particle. Have you seen any negative-energy particles recently? Didn?t think so. It?s a fairy tale. A myth. A hypothesis that has remained unproven for so long that everybody takes it for granted. Regards John From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:14 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear all John?s explanation has a lot of good stuff in it, I will look up a few things, and Viv can probably add to it. I would like to add now that we also must not forget that black holes actually radiate thermal (electromagnetic!) radiation depending on their size, the smaller the hotter, the more they radiate, the sooner they evaporate!!!!!! Cheers, Marti n 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 John Williamson Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 14:50 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi John (D), What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all theory "speculation" and he was right. John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating this from several different perspectives .. As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy of the ) black hole. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of some of the people propounding the arguments. If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper level. Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out neither should they. Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, reaching us just goes to zero. Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can contribute in an email. Regards, John W. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20043 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Tue Feb 24 11:25:59 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:25:59 +0000 Subject: [General] the edge of the universe In-Reply-To: <0003A5FE62434A6AB109B400F6C1FDF4@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com>, <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242AF58@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <025401d0504a$4c10dd40$e43297c0$@gmail.com>, <0003A5FE62434A6AB109B400F6C1FDF4@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <4366E8C5-043E-42B8-974A-B25024351C25@philips.com> John D, good so am I, that is why i want to make sure energy is conserved. It may not alwsys be straight forward to tell in curved space?, so i must find what is going on. Cheers, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 24 feb. 2015 om 19:26 heeft "John Duffield" > het volgende geschreven: Martin: Lack of energy conservation? I?m a bit of a stickler for energy conservation. Chip: Space around the black hole is affected by the mass because like Einstein said, mass is a measure of energy-content. And because energy is pressure x volume and because a gravitational field is an energy-pressure gradient in space. And because space isn?t nothing. It?s kind of like this gin-clear ghostly elastic, hence there?s a shear-stress term in the stress-energy-momentum tensor: Imagine space is some big old block of elastic jelly, and you use a hypodermic needle to inject more jelly into the middle. This pushes out on the surrounding jelly, creating a pressure gradient in it, such that the speed of light is spatially variable, and therefore light curves. Only if you keep on injecting jelly, the pressure in the middle goes so high that the speed of light in the middle is zero. Then you?ve got a black hole. That?s how I see it anyway. I don?t see that there?s any component faster than c. Check out the elastic continuum theory of nature by G S Sandhu. When a wave moves through space, space waves. These waves go straight and/or round and round, and that?s just about it. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:55 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi Martin and John D It may be quite enlightening when we understand better the nature of ?black holes? for several obvious reasons. Take for example the concept of gravity as it relates to a black hole. Something is extending beyond the black hole or we could not feel its gravity. So how is it that space around the black hole is affected by the mass in the black hole if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and the speed of light is zero at the horizon of the black hole? If, as some have speculated, gravity is another ?shadow? manifestation of the EM fields, or is caused by the interaction of fields changing permittivity and permeability (the index of refraction), then there must be a component to those fields which is faster than c. Perhaps the Coulomb force referenced in the article sent earlier? Thoughts? From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:20 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe John, Chip, First Chip: good comment, that is one of the problems I see with John D?s explanation, lack of energy conservation. John surely I know all of that and I am strongly inclined to agree with you on the explanation of Hawking radiation! Still, it is a blackbody with all of its Planckian features. But as I said I am still studying the black hole, before judging too firmly. 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 John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:01 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: Have you ever read the ?given explanation? of Hawking radiation? We have this mystic pair-production going on, wherein particles are popping into existence like magic, despite the near-infinite gravitation time dilation and the near-zero coordinate speed of light. And despite the fact that virtual particles are field quanta rather than short-lived real particles. (The electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom are not spitting photons at one another, their fields interact). Then one of these particles conveniently falls into the black hole while the other one escapes. Since it?s Hawking radiation the escapee is a photon... that was produced via pair production. And the particle that fell into the black hole is a negative-energy particle. Have you seen any negative-energy particles recently? Didn?t think so. It?s a fairy tale. A myth. A hypothesis that has remained unproven for so long that everybody takes it for granted. Regards John From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:14 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear all John?s explanation has a lot of good stuff in it, I will look up a few things, and Viv can probably add to it. I would like to add now that we also must not forget that black holes actually radiate thermal (electromagnetic!) radiation depending on their size, the smaller the hotter, the more they radiate, the sooner they evaporate!!!!!! Cheers, Marti n 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 John Williamson Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 14:50 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Hi John (D), What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all theory "speculation" and he was right. John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space. This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating this from several different perspectives .. As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster. Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive) energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy of the ) black hole. At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture, more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please. The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!. I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of some of the people propounding the arguments. If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ... though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper level. Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out neither should they. Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle, reaching us just goes to zero. Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!). One of his ideas is (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press. Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen. I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys! On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can contribute in an email. Regards, John W. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: StressEnergyTensor_contravariant_svg[2].png Type: image/png Size: 20043 bytes Desc: StressEnergyTensor_contravariant_svg[2].png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Tue Feb 24 13:56:09 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:56:09 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop> <022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com> <79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop> Message-ID: Chip, if John is confusing you, don?t worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That?s for later. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That?s Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? [electronfall] Well, guess what? It can?t keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron?s falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can?t go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something?s got to give. And there?s only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper attached. It?s about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you?d never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn?t possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: [blackhole_smaller_300x225] But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Wed Feb 25 02:06:00 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:06:00 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop> Message-ID: Martin: With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is constant, but it?s a tautology, a myth, and it contradicts Einstein, and Irwin Shapiro, and others. See for example this Baez page where Don Koks says this: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Or see Ned Wright?s deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light?. Light doesn?t curve because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position. It curves like sonar waves curve. Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You?ll be aware that the NIST optical clock goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity. The lower clock goes slower. And there is no actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in the picture below. Are they going at the same speed? The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip, if John is confusing you, don?t worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That?s for later. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That?s Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? Well, guess what? It can?t keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron?s falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can?t go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something?s got to give. And there?s only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper attached. It?s about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you?d never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn?t possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Wed Feb 25 04:55:19 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:55:19 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop> , Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C246@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Dear all, I think this discussion illustrates why why people have trouble with physics. They just cannot seem to agree on basic things such as what time, space and velocity really are. Tut-tut! Now this is a very interesting discussion. Which I do not have time (or space) to go into (properly) at the moment. Both the standpoint that John and that Martin is taking, has merit. But I think this is exactly what I mean by saying that we, as a group, have to get precise about our thinking. My personal opinion is that I think you are quite wrong though, John - but for pretty much exactly the right reasons. Here is why... I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure (what else would one do?). Then the (correct, but partial), argument that you are making about what everyone else believes and why it is wrong breaks down. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well (this is what Martin and I mean by the ruler-clock (rock) module. The difference between frequency and time needs also to be looked at. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential - with respect to clocks at a higher potential. This happens as all the little oscillators inside them wind down. Also clocks wind up (or down) as one accellerates or decelerates. This is , I think, why the "postulate of equivalence" holds. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. This is the same fallacy (in my view where it is the rulers and the clocks and not the velocity that change) as the example you used about machines being taken up a hill but light not having changed. Yes it is true that the machines have changed .. but so has the light (in exactly the same way - just as you say) -otherwise one would, indeed, measure a different velocity. I suppose I ought to write a paper on this entitled something like "on the reason for the postulate of equivalence". Bit short of time at the mo - any takers on a co-authorship? Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up (where else could it go - what else have you got?). Now if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower and as you go higher higher go faster -indeed. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. I'm not talking about what we think, or make up, or argue or theorise. I'm talking about what we as humans have MEASURED. Experiment. Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Let s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. Reasonable starting point I hope. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant -in vacuo. I beleive (but am willing to be contradicted if one has a counter-example) that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? You guys are (some of the) the optics/photonics experts (not me). You should know! Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion.Motion is motion. (anyone else read "and yet it moves"). Motion is space divided by time. Ok? Take distance (s) and time (t) and velocity (v). Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. Now this may seem as though I am saying that you are wrong (John D). No! You are so right! the arguments you make are good ... it is just what you ascribe to what is confusing! Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? Is something else primary? Is anything missing. If something is missing what is it. Can we even know, in principle, if anything is still missing even if we find some missing bits? Bad news. No. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. This has to do with rulers and clocks and frequency and time and relativity and quantum mechanics and (one of the) papers I'm going to present in August. Briefly -relativistically the clocks slow down as the frequency goes up. Think about it. How can they do both? They do do both, but how? This relates to a (good but again missing something argument Richard made in one of his contributions to this discussion( where he spoke along the lines of they must either do this or do that and I thought .. no they must exactly do both!). Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. I think I have read a good fraction (if not most) of what he wrote - and he was just like us guys. He kept trying different things, thinking from another end, contradicting his earlier ways of thinking. He would have been the first to agree that just because he said something it wasn't necessarily right! WE need to keep thinking - and not just relying on what other people have said - no matter how clever. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed or a change in the sizes of the rulers and clocks of space time. Same thing. Different meaning for the words though. I think he perhaps did mean velocity (and not speed) when he said it though (though I would need to look at the context). In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. Sorry I am going to have to bail again ... Labs .... Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin: With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is constant, but it?s a tautology, a myth, and it contradicts Einstein, and Irwin Shapiro, and others. See for example this Baez page where Don Koks says this: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Or see Ned Wright?s deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light?. Light doesn?t curve because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position. It curves like sonar waves curve. Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You?ll be aware that the NIST optical clock goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity. The lower clock goes slower. And there is no actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in the picture below. Are they going at the same speed? [parallel] The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip, if John is confusing you, don?t worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That?s for later. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That?s Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? [electronfall] Well, guess what? It can?t keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron?s falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can?t go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something?s got to give. And there?s only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper attached. It?s about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you?d never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn?t possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: [blackhole_smaller_300x225] But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: parallel[1].gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: parallel[1].gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Wed Feb 25 05:09:44 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:09:44 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop> , Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C260@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> John D .. Just checked the Baez page you refer to. The first thing it says is .. "The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it." Just as I said! This would have saved me the trouble of writing some of that shit if I had looked at it before! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin: With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is constant, but it?s a tautology, a myth, and it contradicts Einstein, and Irwin Shapiro, and others. See for example this Baez page where Don Koks says this: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Or see Ned Wright?s deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light?. Light doesn?t curve because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position. It curves like sonar waves curve. Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You?ll be aware that the NIST optical clock goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity. The lower clock goes slower. And there is no actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in the picture below. Are they going at the same speed? [parallel] The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip, if John is confusing you, don?t worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That?s for later. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That?s Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? [electronfall] Well, guess what? It can?t keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron?s falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can?t go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something?s got to give. And there?s only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper attached. It?s about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you?d never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn?t possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: [blackhole_smaller_300x225] But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: parallel[1].gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: parallel[1].gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Wed Feb 25 05:26:49 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:26:49 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C260@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop> , , <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C260@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C27F@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> My Fault ... should have read the reference ... So should you all. I think it pretty much correct and with some useful content- with the possible exception that the author ascribes Einstien's use of "velocity" to mean "speed". I do not think so - I think Einstein was just having a little joke and forcing his reader to do a bit of thinking. He did that quite a lot! I had better have a look at it in the German before I make up my mind. The other thing worth noting is that author seems to be ignorant of the distinction and opposite transformation properties of time and frequency and hence is a bit sloppy when he talks about "accelleration". The good news is that a warning is coming up but turns out to be for an admin meeting not a lab .... I'm too busy to realise its is a (lab -free) Wednesday!). Yippee .. I have two hours more than I thought today ... Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:09 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John D .. Just checked the Baez page you refer to. The first thing it says is .. "The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it." Just as I said! This would have saved me the trouble of writing some of that shit if I had looked at it before! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin: With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is constant, but it?s a tautology, a myth, and it contradicts Einstein, and Irwin Shapiro, and others. See for example this Baez page where Don Koks says this: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Or see Ned Wright?s deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light?. Light doesn?t curve because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position. It curves like sonar waves curve. Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You?ll be aware that the NIST optical clock goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity. The lower clock goes slower. And there is no actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in the picture below. Are they going at the same speed? [parallel] The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip, if John is confusing you, don?t worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That?s for later. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That?s Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? [electronfall] Well, guess what? It can?t keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron?s falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can?t go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something?s got to give. And there?s only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper attached. It?s about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you?d never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn?t possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: [blackhole_smaller_300x225] But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: parallel[1].gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: parallel[1].gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Wed Feb 25 05:43:15 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:43:15 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C260@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C260@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <2E8610A077D5457B8AC0C6EDDBB500C9@HPlaptop> John: If you were right next to the upper parallel-mirror light clock, you would measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. If you were right next to the lower parallel-mirror light clock, you would measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. But those two speeds are not the same. If they were, the clocks would stay synchronised, and they don?t. You say the speeds are the same because you define your distance and time using the local motion of light. Then you use them to measure... the local motion of light! As for the Don Koks article, he wrote it after I contacted him about the previous version. Here it is: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html. See this in the general relativity section: ?Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity.? And see the final line: Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies. Only it does. The speed of light varies in the room you?re in. If it didn?t, light would curve and your pencil wouldn?t fall down. And this is one of the most important things in physics. I?ll answer your other email later. The issue all to do with what clocks measure. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:09 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John D .. Just checked the Baez page you refer to. The first thing it says is .. "The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it." Just as I said! This would have saved me the trouble of writing some of that shit if I had looked at it before! Cheers, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin: With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is constant, but it?s a tautology, a myth, and it contradicts Einstein, and Irwin Shapiro, and others. See for example this Baez page where Don Koks says this: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Or see Ned Wright?s deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light?. Light doesn?t curve because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position. It curves like sonar waves curve. Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You?ll be aware that the NIST optical clock goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity. The lower clock goes slower. And there is no actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in the picture below. Are they going at the same speed? The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip, if John is confusing you, don?t worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That?s for later. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That?s Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? Well, guess what? It can?t keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron?s falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can?t go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something?s got to give. And there?s only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper attached. It?s about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you?d never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn?t possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 06:19:58 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:19:58 -0600 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C246@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop> , <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C246@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <002b01d05106$26ba1f90$742e5eb0$@gmail.com> Hi John W. The "harmony of phases" issue seems relatively simple doesn't it? Frequency increases because energy has increased. With an increase in energy the "binding forces" are likewise increased, radius is smaller, frequency is higher. Ok some details missing there but understood. Time slows because the average reaction distance (photon exchange distance) for the traveler has become longer. The vector sum of the velocity and a distance vector perpendicular to velocity. So that due to velocity it takes more time for the particles to react with each other. Lots of stuff missing there, but this is a very basic approximation. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 6:55 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Dear all, I think this discussion illustrates why why people have trouble with physics. They just cannot seem to agree on basic things such as what time, space and velocity really are. Tut-tut! Now this is a very interesting discussion. Which I do not have time (or space) to go into (properly) at the moment. Both the standpoint that John and that Martin is taking, has merit. But I think this is exactly what I mean by saying that we, as a group, have to get precise about our thinking. My personal opinion is that I think you are quite wrong though, John - but for pretty much exactly the right reasons. Here is why... I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure (what else would one do?). Then the (correct, but partial), argument that you are making about what everyone else believes and why it is wrong breaks down. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well (this is what Martin and I mean by the ruler-clock (rock) module. The difference between frequency and time needs also to be looked at. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential - with respect to clocks at a higher potential. This happens as all the little oscillators inside them wind down. Also clocks wind up (or down) as one accellerates or decelerates. This is , I think, why the "postulate of equivalence" holds. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. This is the same fallacy (in my view where it is the rulers and the clocks and not the velocity that change) as the example you used about machines being taken up a hill but light not having changed. Yes it is true that the machines have changed .. but so has the light (in exactly the same way - just as you say) -otherwise one would, indeed, measure a different velocity. I suppose I ought to write a paper on this entitled something like "on the reason for the postulate of equivalence". Bit short of time at the mo - any takers on a co-authorship? Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up (where else could it go - what else have you got?). Now if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower and as you go higher higher go faster -indeed. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. I'm not talking about what we think, or make up, or argue or theorise. I'm talking about what we as humans have MEASURED. Experiment. Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Let s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. Reasonable starting point I hope. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant -in vacuo. I beleive (but am willing to be contradicted if one has a counter-example) that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? You guys are (some of the) the optics/photonics experts (not me). You should know! Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion.Motion is motion. (anyone else read "and yet it moves"). Motion is space divided by time. Ok? Take distance (s) and time (t) and velocity (v). Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. Now this may seem as though I am saying that you are wrong (John D). No! You are so right! the arguments you make are good ... it is just what you ascribe to what is confusing! Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? Is something else primary? Is anything missing. If something is missing what is it. Can we even know, in principle, if anything is still missing even if we find some missing bits? Bad news. No. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. This has to do with rulers and clocks and frequency and time and relativity and quantum mechanics and (one of the) papers I'm going to present in August. Briefly -relativistically the clocks slow down as the frequency goes up. Think about it. How can they do both? They do do both, but how? This relates to a (good but again missing something argument Richard made in one of his contributions to this discussion( where he spoke along the lines of they must either do this or do that and I thought .. no they must exactly do both!). Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. I think I have read a good fraction (if not most) of what he wrote - and he was just like us guys. He kept trying different things, thinking from another end, contradicting his earlier ways of thinking. He would have been the first to agree that just because he said something it wasn't necessarily right! WE need to keep thinking - and not just relying on what other people have said - no matter how clever. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed or a change in the sizes of the rulers and clocks of space time. Same thing. Different meaning for the words though. I think he perhaps did mean velocity (and not speed) when he said it though (though I would need to look at the context). In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. Sorry I am going to have to bail again ... Labs .... Cheers, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl es.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin: With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is constant, but it's a tautology , a myth, and it contradicts Einstein , and Irwin Shapiro , and others. See for example this Baez page where Don Koks says this: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Or see Ned Wright's deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light". Light doesn't curve because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position . It curves like sonar waves curve . Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You'll be aware that the NIST optical clock goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity . The lower clock goes slower. And there is no actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in the picture below. Are they going at the same speed? The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip, if John is confusing you, don't worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That's for later. 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.natureoflighta ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article . See the mention of Winterberg? That's Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable , and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? Well, guess what? It can't keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron's falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can't go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something's got to give. And there's only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg's paper attached. It's about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you'd never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn't possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding. "The reason light doesn't get out of the black hole isn't because it's redshifted to oblivion. But because it's stopped." It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy . Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein's general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor ? A gravitational field is akin to an "energy-pressure gradient in space" that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they're lower. John: I've talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I'm happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn't like it, but I think it's correct. At the event horizon, the "coordinate" speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn't get out of the black hole isn't because it's redshifted to oblivion. But because it's stopped. And it can't go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there's no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn't stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a "frozen star" universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al.. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out. I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole's event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon. 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.natureoflighta ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a "common" black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further.it is our good old horizon again! 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.natureoflighta ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here . WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn't curved round on itself and if it doesn't go on forever, there's not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it's like, I don't know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here . Maybe there's some kind of event horizon, maybe it's none of the above, I don't know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they're like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to. "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 06:22:07 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:22:07 -0800 Subject: [General] electrophotonics as technological applications of charged photons In-Reply-To: <007601d04f75$d0bc8c90$7235a5b0$@phys.uconn.edu> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com> <010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com> <4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop> <007601d04f75$d0bc8c90$7235a5b0$@phys.uconn.edu> Message-ID: <1620C9D0-C281-4DF3-8C11-EF5F5385E3B4@gmail.com> I have started thinking about possible technological applications of charged photon models of the electron. The general idea is that if an electron is a charged photon (in whatever model?EM or photon or both or otherwise), creating technological applications of this concept can be called electrophotonics. Already there are important applications of electrons which make use of their wave properties ? think electron microscope. There is also the engineering application making use of the wave property of protons in proton microscopy. And light holography has already been extended to electron holography. Re-conceiving electrons as charged photons may generate new thinking about possible technological applications of the light-like properties of electrons such as interference, diffraction, superposition, double-slit phenomena, coherent electron group phenomena (similar to lasers), electron entanglement etc. If electrons are charged photons with the de Broglie wavelength which depends on the electron?s speed, then many technological applications of photons (photonics) could also be done by electrons, taking into account however that charged photons (electrons) are fermions instead of bosons. What could be done with a coherent plane wave composed of electrons instead of photons? And how can such a coherent plane wave of electrons be generated? Within a conductor? There are already many studies of electron phase coherence. Perhaps this work could be expanded and generalized using charged photon models of the electron. Also, a new branch of photonics would be of possible interest at SPIE, if backed up with novel applications of the charged photon concept. > Chandra wrote: > > May I then request all of you to come prepared at our August conference to substantiate your theories/models by citing real experiments already done and/or really do-able experiments utilizing current technologies. Gedanken Theories and Gedanken Experiments are the essential mental tools for us to develop the founding postulates behind any ?successful? theory. However, only real experiments anchored by visualized (Gedanken) interaction process maps will keep us anchored to reality. We must consciously exorcise mysticism out of physics; even though it is the sense of our mysticism (our collective ignorance) which drives our enquiring minds to keep on exploring nature! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Wed Feb 25 22:59:43 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:59:43 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <2E8610A077D5457B8AC0C6EDDBB500C9@HPlaptop> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C260@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <2E8610A077D5457B8AC0C6EDDBB500C9@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C338@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Look that is exactly the point. The local motion of light is just what the speed of light is. Always. Experimentally. In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid fixed fixed fixed no fixed fixed varies yes fixed varies varies no fixed varies fixed no varies fixed fixed no varies fixed varies no varies varies varies no varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both if you wish to remain consistent with experiment. You can EITHER have space and time fixed to some absolute frame and the speed of light varying all over the place OR the speed c fixed and space and time varying. I do not really mind either way. If you want to have the first though, you need to choose in which frame you would like to fix your standard of space and time. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. you could choose spacelab, which has the advantage that its in freefall, but the disadvantage that your reference frame keeps rotating. You could choose the "fixed" stars. Now you are talking - and this would appear to to be a proper frame - at least for rotations. We need a lab at the north or south pole with a platform rotating once every 23 hours 54 mins (is it?) to approximate this most closely. .. And a very tall lift on it - so we can do all our experiments in freefall. Obviously need to write a grant application. Probably get rejected though as some smart-arse will point out the earths rotation is not in the plane of the ecliptic... The critical point is though .... unless one is crystal clear exactly WHICH of the valid frames of reference of thought and language (and science) one is using one will get very confused! At least I will! Look .. I think there is an absolute frame - at the very least for rotations and probably also something like Chandra's CTF is needed to deal with such things as the zero energy universe problem but you do need to be careful just what you take a-priori and what level of importance you attach to it. For me energy linearity (conservation) comes top, then field linearity (NIW) then relativity (which I think can be derived from these two principles-and that may be one of the papers that should be presented in August) then space and time ... which can (and in my view should) be derived from the first three. Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:43 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: If you were right next to the upper parallel-mirror light clock, you would measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. If you were right next to the lower parallel-mirror light clock, you would measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. [parallel] But those two speeds are not the same. If they were, the clocks would stay synchronised, and they don?t. You say the speeds are the same because you define your distance and time using the local motion of light. Then you use them to measure... the local motion of light! As for the Don Koks article, he wrote it after I contacted him about the previous version. Here it is: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html. See this in the general relativity section: ?Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity.? And see the final line: Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies. Only it does. The speed of light varies in the room you?re in. If it didn?t, light would curve and your pencil wouldn?t fall down. And this is one of the most important things in physics. I?ll answer your other email later. The issue all to do with what clocks measure. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:09 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John D .. Just checked the Baez page you refer to. The first thing it says is .. "The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it." Just as I said! This would have saved me the trouble of writing some of that shit if I had looked at it before! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin: With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is constant, but it?s a tautology, a myth, and it contradicts Einstein, and Irwin Shapiro, and others. See for example this Baez page where Don Koks says this: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Or see Ned Wright?s deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light?. Light doesn?t curve because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position. It curves like sonar waves curve. Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You?ll be aware that the NIST optical clock goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity. The lower clock goes slower. And there is no actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in the picture below. Are they going at the same speed? [parallel] The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip, if John is confusing you, don?t worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That?s for later. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That?s Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? [electronfall] Well, guess what? It can?t keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron?s falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can?t go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something?s got to give. And there?s only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper attached. It?s about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you?d never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn?t possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: [blackhole_smaller_300x225] But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: parallel[1].gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: parallel[1].gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: parallel[1].gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: parallel[1].gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Thu Feb 26 00:12:19 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:12:19 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C338@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C260@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <2E8610A077D5457B8AC0C6EDDBB500C9@HPlaptop> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C338@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: John, very well done. Thank you 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 John Williamson Sent: donderdag 26 februari 2015 8:00 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Look that is exactly the point. The local motion of light is just what the speed of light is. Always. Experimentally. In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid fixed fixed fixed no fixed fixed varies yes fixed varies varies no fixed varies fixed no varies fixed fixed no varies fixed varies no varies varies varies no varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both if you wish to remain consistent with experiment. You can EITHER have space and time fixed to some absolute frame and the speed of light varying all over the place OR the speed c fixed and space and time varying. I do not really mind either way. If you want to have the first though, you need to choose in which frame you would like to fix your standard of space and time. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. you could choose spacelab, which has the advantage that its in freefall, but the disadvantage that your reference frame keeps rotating. You could choose the "fixed" stars. Now you are talking - and this would appear to to be a proper frame - at least for rotations. We need a lab at the north or south pole with a platform rotating once every 23 hours 54 mins (is it?) to approximate this most closely. .. And a very tall lift on it - so we can do all our experiments in freefall. Obviously need to write a grant application. Probably get rejected though as some smart-arse will point out the earths rotation is not in the plane of the ecliptic... The critical point is though .... unless one is crystal clear exactly WHICH of the valid frames of reference of thought and language (and science) one is using one will get very confused! At least I will! Look .. I think there is an absolute frame - at the very least for rotations and probably also something like Chandra's CTF is needed to deal with such things as the zero energy universe problem but you do need to be careful just what you take a-priori and what level of importance you attach to it. For me energy linearity (conservation) comes top, then field linearity (NIW) then relativity (which I think can be derived from these two principles-and that may be one of the papers that should be presented in August) then space and time ... which can (and in my view should) be derived from the first three. Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:43 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: If you were right next to the upper parallel-mirror light clock, you would measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. If you were right next to the lower parallel-mirror light clock, you would measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. [parallel] But those two speeds are not the same. If they were, the clocks would stay synchronised, and they don't. You say the speeds are the same because you define your distance and time using the local motion of light. Then you use them to measure... the local motion of light! As for the Don Koks article, he wrote it after I contacted him about the previous version. Here it is: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html. See this in the general relativity section: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity." And see the final line: Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies. Only it does. The speed of light varies in the room you're in. If it didn't, light would curve and your pencil wouldn't fall down. And this is one of the most important things in physics. I'll answer your other email later. The issue all to do with what clocks measure. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:09 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John D .. Just checked the Baez page you refer to. The first thing it says is .. "The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it." Just as I said! This would have saved me the trouble of writing some of that shit if I had looked at it before! Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin: With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is constant, but it's a tautology, a myth, and it contradicts Einstein, and Irwin Shapiro, and others. See for example this Baez page where Don Koks says this: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Or see Ned Wright's deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light". Light doesn't curve because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position. It curves like sonar waves curve. Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You'll be aware that the NIST optical clock goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity. The lower clock goes slower. And there is no actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in the picture below. Are they going at the same speed? [parallel] The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip, if John is confusing you, don't worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That's for later. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That's Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? [electronfall] Well, guess what? It can't keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron's falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can't go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something's got to give. And there's only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg's paper attached. It's about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you'd never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn't possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding... "The reason light doesn't get out of the black hole isn't because it's redshifted to oblivion. But because it's stopped." It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein's general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an "energy-pressure gradient in space" that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they're lower. John: I've talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I'm happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: [blackhole_smaller_300x225] But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn't like it, but I think it's correct. At the event horizon, the "coordinate" speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn't get out of the black hole isn't because it's redshifted to oblivion. But because it's stopped. And it can't go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there's no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn't stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a "frozen star" universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al.... Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out... I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole's event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon... 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a "common" black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further...it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn't curved round on itself and if it doesn't go on forever, there's not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it's like, I don't know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there's some kind of event horizon, maybe it's none of the above, I don't know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they're like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an "edge" to the universe (meaning an "edge" of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an "edge" should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon "exchange". I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon "exchange" which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield's comments regarding photon's relation to "time" and reading "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity", still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, "What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time." So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the "one point in spacetime" approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the "background" noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. "Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom" Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon "exchange" is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already "known" by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to... "If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!" The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It's a mystery to me why people don't know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren't two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it's supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it's elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can't pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It's made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don't see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don't quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom's gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: image003.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Thu Feb 26 00:20:02 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:20:02 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <002b01d05106$26ba1f90$742e5eb0$@gmail.com> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop> , <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C246@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <002b01d05106$26ba1f90$742e5eb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C37B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Yes Chip you are right ... For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. It is properly (in the relativistic sense) coherent and resonant. If this is true, this is why it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. The harmony can only be the case if the two frequencies vary as x and 1/x about the speed of light. They then have characteristic (phase - vp) velocities of xc and (group- vg) velocities of c/x such that vp times vg is c squared. This is true for Dirac quantum mechanics and there is an argument (due to Pauli i think) that it should be so for any relativistic theory. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. The speed we measure is then just due to the inner harmony of the particles of which our rulers and clocks are made scaling space and time accordingly to force this harmony. Space and time themselves are a consequence of Harmony. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. Infinite remains infinite. Clock rates would change and ruler lengths would change by just the factor of 2 needed to make no measurable difference at all. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. It is also the base idea behind the argument as to why the electron appears point-like in high energy physics interactions - even though it is far larger than this - in our 1997 paper. Again, there is no-one who has come back to me saying -- yes I get the point! You had anyone Martin? I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wanted to give a set of talks on this amongst other things (also the extension of classical electromagnetism you were interested in - which I argue leads to allowed solutions being quantised) this spring and just post them .. and I may still find time to do this. I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching such things as vectors and complex numbers to first year students. I don't really have the time to do anything properly at all. Bad management here at the moment ... all the good guys are leaving and the workload keeps increasing for those few who remain. Speaking of which ... gotta go .... urgent admin beckons. I have just been instructed by a secretary in the teaching office that the correct university procedure in disseminating the recent class-test results to the 400 or so first year students I have just tested on their knowledge of complex numbers and vectors is to email each one individually. I am also supposed, apparently, to fill in a paper form for each one as well explaining where they have done ok and where they need to make more effort. That should keep my busy for most of the rest of the week and the weekend and next week as well then. What a good use of my time and what fun! First need to see if i can first find a list of their names as all I have is their numbers (we mark anonymously). I do not suppose they will feel feel very loved if they get an email saying something like ... Dear 201423163 - you have scored three out of twelve. This is not a very good mark for a four-option multiple choice test. You did ok on the vectors scoring 3/6, but badly on the complex numbers - getting nothing at all. You must try harder not to be quite so random next time. I have a horrible feeling that it is not going to make them feel much better if they get much the same message on the A4 feedback form - even if I write it using a nice colour of ink. Cheerio, John. P.S. dont think I'm depressed - I'm a naturally very happy person! ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 2:19 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John W. The ?harmony of phases? issue seems relatively simple doesn?t it? Frequency increases because energy has increased. With an increase in energy the ?binding forces? are likewise increased, radius is smaller, frequency is higher. Ok some details missing there but understood. Time slows because the average reaction distance (photon exchange distance) for the traveler has become longer. The vector sum of the velocity and a distance vector perpendicular to velocity. So that due to velocity it takes more time for the particles to react with each other. Lots of stuff missing there, but this is a very basic approximation. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 6:55 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Dear all, I think this discussion illustrates why why people have trouble with physics. They just cannot seem to agree on basic things such as what time, space and velocity really are. Tut-tut! Now this is a very interesting discussion. Which I do not have time (or space) to go into (properly) at the moment. Both the standpoint that John and that Martin is taking, has merit. But I think this is exactly what I mean by saying that we, as a group, have to get precise about our thinking. My personal opinion is that I think you are quite wrong though, John - but for pretty much exactly the right reasons. Here is why... I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure (what else would one do?). Then the (correct, but partial), argument that you are making about what everyone else believes and why it is wrong breaks down. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well (this is what Martin and I mean by the ruler-clock (rock) module. The difference between frequency and time needs also to be looked at. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential - with respect to clocks at a higher potential. This happens as all the little oscillators inside them wind down. Also clocks wind up (or down) as one accellerates or decelerates. This is , I think, why the "postulate of equivalence" holds. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. This is the same fallacy (in my view where it is the rulers and the clocks and not the velocity that change) as the example you used about machines being taken up a hill but light not having changed. Yes it is true that the machines have changed .. but so has the light (in exactly the same way - just as you say) -otherwise one would, indeed, measure a different velocity. I suppose I ought to write a paper on this entitled something like "on the reason for the postulate of equivalence". Bit short of time at the mo - any takers on a co-authorship? Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up (where else could it go - what else have you got?). Now if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower and as you go higher higher go faster -indeed. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. I'm not talking about what we think, or make up, or argue or theorise. I'm talking about what we as humans have MEASURED. Experiment. Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Let s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. Reasonable starting point I hope. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant -in vacuo. I beleive (but am willing to be contradicted if one has a counter-example) that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? You guys are (some of the) the optics/photonics experts (not me). You should know! Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion.Motion is motion. (anyone else read "and yet it moves"). Motion is space divided by time. Ok? Take distance (s) and time (t) and velocity (v). Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. Now this may seem as though I am saying that you are wrong (John D). No! You are so right! the arguments you make are good ... it is just what you ascribe to what is confusing! Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? Is something else primary? Is anything missing. If something is missing what is it. Can we even know, in principle, if anything is still missing even if we find some missing bits? Bad news. No. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. This has to do with rulers and clocks and frequency and time and relativity and quantum mechanics and (one of the) papers I'm going to present in August. Briefly -relativistically the clocks slow down as the frequency goes up. Think about it. How can they do both? They do do both, but how? This relates to a (good but again missing something argument Richard made in one of his contributions to this discussion( where he spoke along the lines of they must either do this or do that and I thought .. no they must exactly do both!). Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. I think I have read a good fraction (if not most) of what he wrote - and he was just like us guys. He kept trying different things, thinking from another end, contradicting his earlier ways of thinking. He would have been the first to agree that just because he said something it wasn't necessarily right! WE need to keep thinking - and not just relying on what other people have said - no matter how clever. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed or a change in the sizes of the rulers and clocks of space time. Same thing. Different meaning for the words though. I think he perhaps did mean velocity (and not speed) when he said it though (though I would need to look at the context). In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. Sorry I am going to have to bail again ... Labs .... Cheers, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin: With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is constant, but it?s a tautology, a myth, and it contradicts Einstein, and Irwin Shapiro, and others. See for example this Baez page where Don Koks says this: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Or see Ned Wright?s deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light?. Light doesn?t curve because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position. It curves like sonar waves curve. Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You?ll be aware that the NIST optical clock goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity. The lower clock goes slower. And there is no actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in the picture below. Are they going at the same speed? [parallel] The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip, if John is confusing you, don?t worry. It is a mixture of half arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10 Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important one. The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to inhomogeneities like this. That?s for later. 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] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia Firewall article. See the mention of Winterberg? That?s Friedwardt Winterberg. You know how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy? [electronfall] Well, guess what? It can?t keep doing this forever. There comes a point when the electron?s falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can?t go faster than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating, because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something?s got to give. And there?s only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper attached. It?s about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you?d never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff you hear about the elephant being in two places at once is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn?t possibly comment. Regards John From: Chip Akins Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John D Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light cannot be slowed. Regarding? ?The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped.? It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is not the correct word.) Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Martin/John/All: This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy. Spit. It is popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein?s general relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? A gravitational field is akin to an ?energy-pressure gradient in space? that alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they?re lower. John: I?ve talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I?m happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and very very massive in the centre of our galaxy: [blackhole_smaller_300x225] But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn?t like it, but I think it?s correct. At the event horizon, the ?coordinate? speed of light is zero. The reason light doesn?t get out of the black hole isn?t because it?s redshifted to oblivion. But because it?s stopped. And it can?t go slower than stopped. And since gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there?s no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity. Martin: in our universe light isn?t stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a ?frozen star? universe, inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this was a good read. And the gravastar catches my eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion years ago, the whole universe was like that. Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Dear John, That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from people and think John has said something about it in the mean time. In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes that is not understood at al?. Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get out? I will first think some more. And look a few things up. Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole?s event horizon is that position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss you a line. Must look up the general relativity event horizon? 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 John Duffield Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Martin: I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out? Regards John D From: Mark, Martin van der Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Guys, The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a ?common? black hole. It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further?it is our good old horizon again! 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 John Duffield Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe Chip: Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn?t curved round on itself and if it doesn?t go on forever, there?s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it?s like, I don?t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there?s some kind of event horizon, maybe it?s none of the above, I don?t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they?re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Stephen Thank you for the insight. What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter. Since we do not yet know if there is an ?edge? to the universe (meaning an ?edge? of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an ?edge? should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented. What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon ?exchange?. I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago. Is there another way to look at long distance photon ?exchange? which does not present this problem? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Hi Chip, I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed? IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. Regards Stephen On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi All Following John Duffield?s comments regarding photon?s relation to ?time? and reading ?The Other Meaning of Special Relativity?, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment. My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure. There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach. Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, ?What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.? So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach. But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved. While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking. In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the ?one point in spacetime? approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment. Hi Stephen Thank you for the analogy. Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea. I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the ?background? noise floor. However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances. In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange. Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. ?Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom? Anthony Fleming 2005. However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon ?exchange? is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already ?known? by the photon. Hi John D. Thank you for the references to photon models. Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model. But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered. However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength. Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further. Hi Chandra I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest. And referring directly to? ?If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!? The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner. Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process. All It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light. If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] gravitation Andrew: It?s a mystery to me why people don?t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren?t two states of space where an electron is. As for the strong force, it?s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. [toroidalphotonsmall] Imagine it?s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can?t pull this kiddie apart either: [trefoil] It?s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don?t see three things flying free. Regards John D From: Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] gravitation Dear John D, I wonder why this concept has not been developed? "The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field." I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them. I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks. Andrew ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk Click here to unsubscribe -- Stephen Leary ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ 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 johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6271 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 676788 bytes Desc: image003.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 20056 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 28369 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Thu Feb 26 11:57:13 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:57:13 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C37B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C246@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <002b01d05106$26ba1f90$742e5eb0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C37B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: John: I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me: I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure. This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it?s some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It?s always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is ?clock up? some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don?t measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. I?m not. I?m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it?s because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it?s an optical clock. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well. We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it?s a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you?re lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that?s just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies. Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn?t happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn?t slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up Agreed. if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower Agreed. But let?s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. When you measure a change, it?s either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don?t measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too. Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That?s a space. That?s what space is. Now waggle your hands. That?s motion. That?s empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. Let?s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo. It?s a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? No. You aren?t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion. Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button? Motion is space divided by time. OK? No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn?t. Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Yes. Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? No. Einstein didn?t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. Is something else primary? Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. I?m guessing that Andrew Worsley discovered it too. Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don?t see time flowing through it. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed I?ve read the original German. It?s a change in speed. That?s why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email: In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid 1 fixed fixed fixed no 2 fixed fixed varies yes 3 fixed varies varies no 4 fixed varies fixed no 5 varies fixed fixed no 6 varies fixed varies no 7 varies varies varies no 8 varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn?t mention radial length contraction. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn?t apply to the room you?re in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it?s not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn?t. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email: For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. You must read Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the ?coordinate? speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don?t think things are harmonious any more. it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. But the experiment says it does. If it didn?t vary, optical clocks wouldn?t go slower when they?re lower. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. But experiment says it isn?t. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it?s circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching... Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. Regards John D * the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The ?force of gravity?. ** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There?s some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they?re lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Thu Feb 26 23:34:50 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:34:50 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C246@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <002b01d05106$26ba1f90$742e5eb0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C37B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C49C@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me: I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure. This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it?s some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It?s always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is ?clock up? some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don?t measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. I?m not. I?m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it?s because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it?s an optical clock. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well. We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it?s a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you?re lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that?s just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies. Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn?t happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn?t slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up Agreed. if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower Agreed. But let?s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. When you measure a change, it?s either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don?t measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too. Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That?s a space. That?s what space is. Now waggle your hands. That?s motion. That?s empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. Let?s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo. It?s a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? No. You aren?t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion. Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button? Motion is space divided by time. OK? No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn?t. Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Yes. Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? No. Einstein didn?t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. Is something else primary? Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. I?m guessing that Andrew Worsley discovered it too. Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don?t see time flowing through it. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed I?ve read the original German. It?s a change in speed. That?s why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email: In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid 1 fixed fixed fixed no 2 fixed fixed varies yes 3 fixed varies varies no 4 fixed varies fixed no 5 varies fixed fixed no 6 varies fixed varies no 7 varies varies varies no 8 varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn?t mention radial length contraction. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn?t apply to the room you?re in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it?s not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn?t. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email: For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. You must read Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the ?coordinate? speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don?t think things are harmonious any more. it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. But the experiment says it does. If it didn?t vary, optical clocks wouldn?t go slower when they?re lower. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. But experiment says it isn?t. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it?s circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching... Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. Regards John D * the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The ?force of gravity?. ** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There?s some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they?re lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. [parallel] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Fri Feb 27 00:56:21 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:56:21 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C49C@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C246@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <002b01d05106$26ba1f90$742e5eb0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C37B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, , <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C49C@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Hello everyone, In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations! One man's time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ... but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course. In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is. The diagram shows two boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the two boxes picture. The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch would say, a mouthful of teeth. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible - one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz -- those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would have said) its not worth talking about. Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light! I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is! What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be constant. If you do. That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light means. Light is motion. The motion is constant. Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0. At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally. Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length -agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle. Comments below ... (in Red) ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me: I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure. This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it?s some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It?s always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is ?clock up? some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don?t measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. Really they equally display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion = distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the rocks) that Martin mentioned. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. I?m not. I?m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. Good enough -- an absolute ruler then You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable. There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it?s because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it?s an optical clock. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well. We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about Kanatchikow) have tried this. We have to look at the whole of physics - all at once - and get something self-consistent. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it?s a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you?re lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that?s just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies. That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper). Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn?t happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn?t slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up Agreed. if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower Agreed. But let?s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. When you measure a change, it?s either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don?t measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too. That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed. ... gota go Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That?s a space. That?s what space is. Now waggle your hands. That?s motion. That?s empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. Let?s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo. It?s a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? No. You aren?t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion. Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button? Motion is space divided by time. OK? No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn?t. Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Yes. Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? No. Einstein didn?t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. Is something else primary? Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. I?m guessing that Andrew Worsley discovered it too. Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don?t see time flowing through it. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed I?ve read the original German. It?s a change in speed. That?s why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email: In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid 1 fixed fixed fixed no 2 fixed fixed varies yes 3 fixed varies varies no 4 fixed varies fixed no 5 varies fixed fixed no 6 varies fixed varies no 7 varies varies varies no 8 varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn?t mention radial length contraction. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn?t apply to the room you?re in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it?s not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn?t. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email: For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. You must read Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the ?coordinate? speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don?t think things are harmonious any more. it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. But the experiment says it does. If it didn?t vary, optical clocks wouldn?t go slower when they?re lower. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. But experiment says it isn?t. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it?s circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching... Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. Regards John D * the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The ?force of gravity?. ** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There?s some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they?re lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. [parallel] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 04:31:26 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:31:26 -0600 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C246@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <002b01d05106$26ba1f90$742e5eb0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C37B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, , <7D C02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C49C@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <006f01d05289$52d7b590$f88720b0$@gmail.com> Hi John W and John D I think you are both saying the same thing regarding the actual physics, but differing in your language, and in your definitions. Regarding a gravitational frame where the gravity has increased. >From the local reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and the speed of light remains the same. >From an observer's reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and since light has less distance to travel in more time, light gets slower. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:56 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hello everyone, In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations! One man's time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ... but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course. In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is. The diagram shows two boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the two boxes picture. The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch would say, a mouthful of teeth. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible - one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz -- those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would have said) its not worth talking about. Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light! I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is! What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be constant. If you do. That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light means. Light is motion. The motion is constant. Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0. At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally. Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length -agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle. Comments below ... (in Red) _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl es.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl es.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me: I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure. This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it's some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It's always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is "clock up" some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don't measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. Really they equally display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion = distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the rocks) that Martin mentioned. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. I'm not. I'm pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. Good enough -- an absolute ruler then You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable. There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it's because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it's an optical clock. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well. We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about Kanatchikow) have tried this. We have to look at the whole of physics - all at once - and get something self-consistent. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it's a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you're lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that's just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn't changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn't changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies. That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper). Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn't happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn't slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up Agreed. if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower Agreed. But let's make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. When you measure a change, it's either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don't measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too. That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed. ... gota go Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That's a space. That's what space is. Now waggle your hands. That's motion. That's empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. Let's make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo. It's a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? No. You aren't wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion. Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button? Motion is space divided by time. OK? No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn't. Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Yes. Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? No. Einstein didn't. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. Is something else primary? Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. I'm guessing that Andrew Worsley discovered it too. Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don't see time flowing through it. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed I've read the original German. It's a change in speed. That's why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email: In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid 1 fixed fixed fixed no 2 fixed fixed varies yes 3 fixed varies varies no 4 fixed varies fixed no 5 varies fixed fixed no 6 varies fixed varies no 7 varies varies varies no 8 varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn't mention radial length contraction. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn't apply to the room you're in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it's not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn't. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email: For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. You must read Friedwardt Winterberg's paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the "coordinate" speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don't think things are harmonious any more. it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. But the experiment says it does. If it didn't vary, optical clocks wouldn't go slower when they're lower. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. But experiment says it isn't. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it's circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching... Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. Regards John D * the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The "force of gravity". ** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There's some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they're lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 05:52:27 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:52:27 -0600 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <00af01d04e04$4fa78a00$eef69e00$@gmail.com><010e01d04eb6$4939bf00$dbad3d00$@gmail.com><4994ACC86FF844AD96FAE97549F13A57@HPlaptop><2FF68913228C4F44803746D528871E98@HPlaptop><022701d05039$de9ca470$9bd5ed50$@gmail.com><79605F9F57B14CBFA59DF0154AEE3C1D@HPlaptop>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C246@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <002b01d05106$26ba1f90$742e5eb0$@gmail.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C37B@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, , <7D C02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C49C@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <007b01d05294$a487e030$ed97a090$@gmail.com> Hi All Regarding the photon exchange conjecture. I have taken some time to read, understand the concept, and run the math. Let's do a thought experiment to try to establish what is possible. If we are instantly accelerated to the speed of light, what can we see? With the proper equipment to compensate for redshift, if we are just below the speed of light, we could see our past. We could see back to the point of acceleration, and we would view it as principally being now. But the rest of the universe does not see it this way. However when we reach the speed of light we could not see our past any longer. This is simply because there is no energy available for us to see our past when we are at the speed of light. All information has been redshifted to oblivion. Zero frequency is zero energy. At this point all "fields" from our past have become static. Due to our velocity we are inhibited from sensing what the rest of the universe can sense. Time has become infinitely slow. So that time is not changing for us. But for an observer that is of course not the case. An observer could sense our velocity and measure it in his time frame. The fact that time has stopped for us does not mean we can see everything at once from the observer's point of view. Nor does it mean that we can sense the future and choose our destination from the start of our journey. Even though time has stopped for us, it has not stopped for the rest of the universe. If we view a photon, as an observer, we can therefore understand that the photon is incapable of "looking into its future". We can also see, from discussion like the above, that the photon cannot "see its past". At the speed of light there is no longer any energy to sense from its past. I feel we have "toyed" with the math of relativity, to try to extract from it a reason for the observable, experimental results, we have obtained. But we have not really uncovered the reason for the phenomena. I have now run the math and, when viewed in its entirety, cannot find a viable solution using the current photon exchange thinking. In my view, it is warping and misapplying the math, which even makes it seem to be a possible explanation, under the current approach. Velocity limits our perception of time and of other fields in the universe, as viewed from a "stationary" observer. I am thinking that there is an answer which actually and accurately describes these experiments, running the math on that one now. It will take some time. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:56 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hello everyone, In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations! One man's time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ... but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course. In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is. The diagram shows two boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the two boxes picture. The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch would say, a mouthful of teeth. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible - one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz -- those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would have said) its not worth talking about. Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light! I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is! What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be constant. If you do. That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light means. Light is motion. The motion is constant. Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0. At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally. Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length -agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle. Comments below ... (in Red) _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl es.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl es.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me: I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure. This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it's some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It's always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is "clock up" some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don't measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. Really they equally display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion = distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the rocks) that Martin mentioned. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. I'm not. I'm pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. Good enough -- an absolute ruler then You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable. There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it's because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it's an optical clock. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well. We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about Kanatchikow) have tried this. We have to look at the whole of physics - all at once - and get something self-consistent. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it's a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you're lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that's just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn't changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn't changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies. That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper). Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn't happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn't slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up Agreed. if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower Agreed. But let's make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. When you measure a change, it's either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don't measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too. That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed. ... gota go Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That's a space. That's what space is. Now waggle your hands. That's motion. That's empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. Let's make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo. It's a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? No. You aren't wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion. Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button? Motion is space divided by time. OK? No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn't. Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Yes. Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? No. Einstein didn't. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. Is something else primary? Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. I'm guessing that Andrew Worsley discovered it too. Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don't see time flowing through it. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed I've read the original German. It's a change in speed. That's why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email: In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid 1 fixed fixed fixed no 2 fixed fixed varies yes 3 fixed varies varies no 4 fixed varies fixed no 5 varies fixed fixed no 6 varies fixed varies no 7 varies varies varies no 8 varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn't mention radial length contraction. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn't apply to the room you're in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it's not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn't. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email: For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. You must read Friedwardt Winterberg's paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the "coordinate" speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don't think things are harmonious any more. it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. But the experiment says it does. If it didn't vary, optical clocks wouldn't go slower when they're lower. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. But experiment says it isn't. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it's circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching... Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. Regards John D * the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The "force of gravity". ** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There's some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they're lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Fri Feb 27 10:18:51 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:18:51 +0000 Subject: [General] Photon exchange conjecture In-Reply-To: <007b01d05294$a487e030$ed97a090$@gmail.com> References: C02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C49C@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <007b01d05294$a487e030$ed97a090$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9D497163FE16466E89A2ABCE0FEBA322@HPlaptop> Chip: I concur with your view. Imagine you hold up your torch and point it into your face, then turn it on just as I accelerate you to the speed of light. The light from your torch doesn?t make it to your eye. It would have to go faster than light to do that. So you don?t see it. You don?t see everything happening at once. You don?t see anything. Ditto for the photon. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:52 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi All Regarding the photon exchange conjecture. I have taken some time to read, understand the concept, and run the math. Let?s do a thought experiment to try to establish what is possible. If we are instantly accelerated to the speed of light, what can we see? With the proper equipment to compensate for redshift, if we are just below the speed of light, we could see our past. We could see back to the point of acceleration, and we would view it as principally being now. But the rest of the universe does not see it this way. However when we reach the speed of light we could not see our past any longer. This is simply because there is no energy available for us to see our past when we are at the speed of light. All information has been redshifted to oblivion. Zero frequency is zero energy. At this point all ?fields? from our past have become static. Due to our velocity we are inhibited from sensing what the rest of the universe can sense. Time has become infinitely slow. So that time is not changing for us. But for an observer that is of course not the case. An observer could sense our velocity and measure it in his time frame. The fact that time has stopped for us does not mean we can see everything at once from the observer?s point of view. Nor does it mean that we can sense the future and choose our destination from the start of our journey. Even though time has stopped for us, it has not stopped for the rest of the universe. If we view a photon, as an observer, we can therefore understand that the photon is incapable of ?looking into its future?. We can also see, from discussion like the above, that the photon cannot ?see its past?. At the speed of light there is no longer any energy to sense from its past. I feel we have ?toyed? with the math of relativity, to try to extract from it a reason for the observable, experimental results, we have obtained. But we have not really uncovered the reason for the phenomena. I have now run the math and, when viewed in its entirety, cannot find a viable solution using the current photon exchange thinking. In my view, it is warping and misapplying the math, which even makes it seem to be a possible explanation, under the current approach. Velocity limits our perception of time and of other fields in the universe, as viewed from a ?stationary? observer. I am thinking that there is an answer which actually and accurately describes these experiments, running the math on that one now. It will take some time. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:56 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hello everyone, In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations! One man's time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ... but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course. In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is. The diagram shows two boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the two boxes picture. The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch would say, a mouthful of teeth. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible - one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz -- those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would have said) its not worth talking about. Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light! I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is! What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be constant. If you do. That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light means. Light is motion. The motion is constant. Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0. At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally. Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length -agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle. Comments below ... (in Red) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me: I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure. This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it?s some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It?s always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is ?clock up? some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don?t measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. Really they equally display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion = distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the rocks) that Martin mentioned. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. I?m not. I?m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. Good enough -- an absolute ruler then You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable. There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it?s because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it?s an optical clock. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well. We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about Kanatchikow) have tried this. We have to look at the whole of physics - all at once - and get something self-consistent. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it?s a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you?re lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that?s just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies. That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper). Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn?t happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn?t slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up Agreed. if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower Agreed. But let?s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. When you measure a change, it?s either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don?t measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too. That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed. ... gota go Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That?s a space. That?s what space is. Now waggle your hands. That?s motion. That?s empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. Let?s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo. It?s a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? No. You aren?t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion. Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button? Motion is space divided by time. OK? No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn?t. Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Yes. Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? No. Einstein didn?t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. Is something else primary? Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. I?m guessing that Andrew Worsley discovered it too. Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don?t see time flowing through it. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed I?ve read the original German. It?s a change in speed. That?s why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email: In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid 1 fixed fixed fixed no 2 fixed fixed varies yes 3 fixed varies varies no 4 fixed varies fixed no 5 varies fixed fixed no 6 varies fixed varies no 7 varies varies varies no 8 varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn?t mention radial length contraction. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn?t apply to the room you?re in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it?s not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn?t. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email: For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. You must read Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the ?coordinate? speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don?t think things are harmonious any more. it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. But the experiment says it does. If it didn?t vary, optical clocks wouldn?t go slower when they?re lower. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. But experiment says it isn?t. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it?s circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching... Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. Regards John D * the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The ?force of gravity?. ** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There?s some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they?re lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Fri Feb 27 10:30:48 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:30:48 +0000 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <006f01d05289$52d7b590$f88720b0$@gmail.com> References: C02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C49C@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <006f01d05289$52d7b590$f88720b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <44D9C0E7919C4599BC67CEC35CC81EF6@HPlaptop> Chip: I don?t think we?re quite saying the same thing, but I reckon it?s nothing a few beers couldn?t sort out. Somehow I find that actually talking face to face with people is much better for seeing the common ground than emails. When you don?t talk face to face, it?s all too easy to spend all your time talking about the things you differ on, and making a big deal about it. >From the local reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and the speed of light remains the same. Yep. You go slower, everything goes slower. So we say time slows down. And the guy who measures slow light with a slow clock and a slowed-down brain will say the speed of light remains the same. >From an observer?s reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and since light has less distance to travel in more time, light gets slower. IMHO that?s not quite right. Light slows, along with all other electromagnetic phenomena, including the piezo-electric vibrations in your watch, and the electrochemical signals in your brain. The second is bigger because the light slows down. Then the metre is the distance travelled by light in 1/299792458th of a second. The light goes slower so the second is bigger, but they cancel each other out leaving the metre unchanged. Regards JohnD From: Chip Akins Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 12:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John W and John D I think you are both saying the same thing regarding the actual physics, but differing in your language, and in your definitions. Regarding a gravitational frame where the gravity has increased? >From the local reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and the speed of light remains the same. >From an observer?s reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and since light has less distance to travel in more time, light gets slower. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:56 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hello everyone, In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations! One man's time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ... but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course. In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is. The diagram shows two boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the two boxes picture. The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch would say, a mouthful of teeth. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible - one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz -- those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would have said) its not worth talking about. Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light! I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is! What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be constant. If you do. That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light means. Light is motion. The motion is constant. Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0. At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally. Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length -agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle. Comments below ... (in Red) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me: I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure. This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it?s some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It?s always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is ?clock up? some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don?t measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. Really they equally display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion = distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the rocks) that Martin mentioned. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. I?m not. I?m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. Good enough -- an absolute ruler then You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable. There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it?s because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it?s an optical clock. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well. We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about Kanatchikow) have tried this. We have to look at the whole of physics - all at once - and get something self-consistent. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it?s a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you?re lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that?s just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies. That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper). Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn?t happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn?t slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up Agreed. if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower Agreed. But let?s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. When you measure a change, it?s either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don?t measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too. That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed. ... gota go Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That?s a space. That?s what space is. Now waggle your hands. That?s motion. That?s empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. Let?s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo. It?s a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? No. You aren?t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion. Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button? Motion is space divided by time. OK? No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn?t. Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Yes. Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? No. Einstein didn?t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. Is something else primary? Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. I?m guessing that Andrew Worsley discovered it too. Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don?t see time flowing through it. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed I?ve read the original German. It?s a change in speed. That?s why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email: In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid 1 fixed fixed fixed no 2 fixed fixed varies yes 3 fixed varies varies no 4 fixed varies fixed no 5 varies fixed fixed no 6 varies fixed varies no 7 varies varies varies no 8 varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn?t mention radial length contraction. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn?t apply to the room you?re in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it?s not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn?t. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email: For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. You must read Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the ?coordinate? speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don?t think things are harmonious any more. it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. But the experiment says it does. If it didn?t vary, optical clocks wouldn?t go slower when they?re lower. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. But experiment says it isn?t. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it?s circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching... Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. Regards John D * the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The ?force of gravity?. ** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There?s some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they?re lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 10:57:24 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:57:24 -0600 Subject: [General] Black holes In-Reply-To: <44D9C0E7919C4599BC67CEC35CC81EF6@HPlaptop> References: C02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C49C@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <006f01d05289$52d7b590$f88720b0$@gmail.com> <44D9C0E7919C4599BC67CEC35CC81EF6@HPlaptop> Message-ID: <00a001d052bf$3e09df90$ba1d9eb0$@gmail.com> Hi John D Yes. You are right. Time slows (our light clock slows) because light has to travel farther in its round trip due to forward velocity in the moving frame. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 12:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Chip: I don?t think we?re quite saying the same thing, but I reckon it?s nothing a few beers couldn?t sort out. Somehow I find that actually talking face to face with people is much better for seeing the common ground than emails. When you don?t talk face to face, it?s all too easy to spend all your time talking about the things you differ on, and making a big deal about it. >From the local reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and the speed of light remains the same. Yep. You go slower, everything goes slower. So we say time slows down. And the guy who measures slow light with a slow clock and a slowed-down brain will say the speed of light remains the same. >From an observer?s reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and since light has less distance to travel in more time, light gets slower. IMHO that?s not quite right. Light slows, along with all other electromagnetic phenomena, including the piezo-electric vibrations in your watch, and the electrochemical signals in your brain. The second is bigger because the light slows down. Then the metre is the distance travelled by light in 1/299792458th of a second. The light goes slower so the second is bigger, but they cancel each other out leaving the metre unchanged. Regards JohnD From: Chip Akins Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 12:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi John W and John D I think you are both saying the same thing regarding the actual physics, but differing in your language, and in your definitions. Regarding a gravitational frame where the gravity has increased? >From the local reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and the speed of light remains the same. >From an observer?s reference frame, time slows, distance gets shorter, and since light has less distance to travel in more time, light gets slower. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:56 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hello everyone, In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations! One man's time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ... but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course. In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is. The diagram shows two boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the two boxes picture. The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch would say, a mouthful of teeth. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible - one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz -- those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would have said) its not worth talking about. Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light! I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is! What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be constant. If you do. That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light means. Light is motion. The motion is constant. Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0. At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally. Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length -agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle. Comments below ... (in Red) _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me: I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure. This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it?s some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It?s always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is ?clock up? some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don?t measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. Really they equally display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion = distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the rocks) that Martin mentioned. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. I?m not. I?m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. Good enough -- an absolute ruler then You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable. There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it?s because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it?s an optical clock. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well. We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about Kanatchikow) have tried this. We have to look at the whole of physics - all at once - and get something self-consistent. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it?s a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you?re lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that?s just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies. That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper). Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn?t happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn?t slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up Agreed. if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower Agreed. But let?s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. When you measure a change, it?s either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don?t measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too. That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed. ... gota go Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That?s a space. That?s what space is. Now waggle your hands. That?s motion. That?s empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. Let?s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo. It?s a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? No. You aren?t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion. Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button? Motion is space divided by time. OK? No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn?t. Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Yes. Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? No. Einstein didn?t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. Is something else primary? Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. I?m guessing that Andrew Worsley discovered it too. Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don?t see time flowing through it. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed I?ve read the original German. It?s a change in speed. That?s why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email: In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid 1 fixed fixed fixed no 2 fixed fixed varies yes 3 fixed varies varies no 4 fixed varies fixed no 5 varies fixed fixed no 6 varies fixed varies no 7 varies varies varies no 8 varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn?t mention radial length contraction. The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn?t apply to the room you?re in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it?s not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn?t. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email: For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. You must read Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the ?coordinate? speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don?t think things are harmonious any more. it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. But the experiment says it does. If it didn?t vary, optical clocks wouldn?t go slower when they?re lower. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. But experiment says it isn?t. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it?s circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching... Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. Regards John D * the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The ?force of gravity?. ** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There?s some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they?re lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. _____ _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 21:10:25 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:10:25 -0800 Subject: [General] double-loop electron model discussion In-Reply-To: <00a001d052bf$3e09df90$ba1d9eb0$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <>> <006f01d05289$52d7b590$f88720b0$@gmail.com> <44D9C0E7919C4599BC67CEC35CC81EF6@HPlaptop> <00a001d052bf$3e09df90$ba1d9eb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <881463BC-F6CD-49CA-842D-799DE48AD711@gmail.com> I would like to start a thread that focuses on comparing and contrasting the various double-loop electron models, mainly John and Martin?s (J/M's), Chip?s, Vivian's and mine, and any others that people may know of, to find any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference. I think we are all agreed that the resting electron in our various models has spin 1/2 hbar. Chip?s model is based on J/M's model. I?d like to ask Chip, if I might, what commonalities and differences exist between J/M?s electron model and Chip's electron model. We can go on from there, if that?s agreeable. Richard From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Fri Feb 27 22:29:11 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 06:29:11 +0000 Subject: [General] Light, relativity, space and time. Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C593@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Hello Chip, Good you are getting to grips with this. You are (at least very nearly) right, in my view, of "what the photon sees". Indeed the photon is "redshifted to oblivion". As one rides with the photon one sees nothing changing. One rides with the phase front at a fixed phase. At this limit, though, the photon energy has gone to virtually zero (precisely zero if the photon is "on mass shell" i.e. has zero rest mass). Just as you reach the limit the photon seems not there at all, energy wise. This is what the meaning of a "null vector" is - a 4-vector where one can find a frame where beginning and end are at the same point in some space-time frame. This needs a rest-massless (and hence chargeless) pure field object. Just the sort of thing described by the Maxwell equations. The reason I say "very nearly right" and not "completely right" is that real photons are always, even if only slightly, just off mass-shell. If one looks at this from the point of view of the simple properties of waves, the limit is approached more closely as the length of the photon wave train becomes longer and longer. Real photons are not infinitely long (although they would not "mind" this as the whole train is anyway, for them, at (very nearly) the same space-time point (that is the point!). The photon is , even in this limit, not really not there - even if it now has zero energy. It is defiend by the "box" of its emission and absorption. Suddenly - clunk - it meets its absorber (which it sees as sweeping towards it at (very nearly) lightspeed, as far as it is concerned. It then gains the energy consistent with that relative velocity - a (very important) fraction off lightspeed. That is, indeed, off and not of! What the absorber (observer) sees is "the light". You can do this yourself on a nice starry night! It always brings the hairs upon the back of my neck to feel that wonderful connection with the rest of the universe! Hope this helps! Cheers, John. P.S more comments below on John's comments I did not have time to finish in yesterdays (18 hour!) workday .. in green. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:52 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hi All Regarding the photon exchange conjecture. I have taken some time to read, understand the concept, and run the math. Let?s do a thought experiment to try to establish what is possible. If we are instantly accelerated to the speed of light, what can we see? With the proper equipment to compensate for redshift, if we are just below the speed of light, we could see our past. We could see back to the point of acceleration, and we would view it as principally being now. But the rest of the universe does not see it this way. However when we reach the speed of light we could not see our past any longer. This is simply because there is no energy available for us to see our past when we are at the speed of light. All information has been redshifted to oblivion. Zero frequency is zero energy. At this point all ?fields? from our past have become static. Due to our velocity we are inhibited from sensing what the rest of the universe can sense. Time has become infinitely slow. So that time is not changing for us. But for an observer that is of course not the case. An observer could sense our velocity and measure it in his time frame. The fact that time has stopped for us does not mean we can see everything at once from the observer?s point of view. Nor does it mean that we can sense the future and choose our destination from the start of our journey. Even though time has stopped for us, it has not stopped for the rest of the universe. If we view a photon, as an observer, we can therefore understand that the photon is incapable of ?looking into its future?. We can also see, from discussion like the above, that the photon cannot ?see its past?. At the speed of light there is no longer any energy to sense from its past. I feel we have ?toyed? with the math of relativity, to try to extract from it a reason for the observable, experimental results, we have obtained. But we have not really uncovered the reason for the phenomena. I have now run the math and, when viewed in its entirety, cannot find a viable solution using the current photon exchange thinking. In my view, it is warping and misapplying the math, which even makes it seem to be a possible explanation, under the current approach. Velocity limits our perception of time and of other fields in the universe, as viewed from a ?stationary? observer. I am thinking that there is an answer which actually and accurately describes these experiments, running the math on that one now. It will take some time. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:56 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes Hello everyone, In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations! One man's time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ... but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course. In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is. The diagram shows two boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the two boxes picture. The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch would say, a mouthful of teeth. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible - one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz -- those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would have said) its not worth talking about. Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light! I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is! What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be constant. If you do. That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light means. Light is motion. The motion is constant. Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0. At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally. Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length -agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle. Comments below ... (in Red) ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Black holes John: I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one. You are blue. Bear with me: I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what clocks measure. This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A World Without Time is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing through it like it?s some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a pendulum*. And so on. It?s always something moving, usually in some regular cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement. What clocks do, is ?clock up? some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don?t measure time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. Really they equally display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion = distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the rocks) that Martin mentioned. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and that is not what relativity is about. I?m not. I?m pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said. Good enough -- an absolute ruler then You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we observe here. Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable. There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the clock goes slower, it?s because that motion goes slower. There is no time flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when it?s an optical clock. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well. We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger second to define the metre, they cancel each other out. Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about Kanatchikow) have tried this. We have to look at the whole of physics - all at once - and get something self-consistent. Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational potential That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it?s a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go slower when you?re lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower. Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that?s just a figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it hasn?t changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies. That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper). Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn?t happen to a photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn?t slow down. And nor does the descending photon speed up. It, indeed, does not go slower. It remains at the speed of light. It does, however, lose energy (and momentum) in going up, and gains it on going down. If it did not it would violate the mass-energy equivalence of light energy injected into a perfectly reflecting box. The momentum gain means our little friend hits the bottom of the box a little harder than the top, precisely accounting for the increase of the total weight of the box as indicated by a (sensitive) balance. The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body up Agreed. if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower Agreed. But let?s make them light clocks. They go slower because the light goes slower. That is one view, but not the only one. However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a constant. When you measure a change, it?s either because the thing you measured changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you don?t measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be because the thing you measured changed and you changed too. That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have changed. ... gota go Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between them? That?s a space. That?s what space is. Now waggle your hands. That?s motion. That?s empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try showing me time. Yes - but the space between your hands is not much space. It is about three nano-seconds worth of space. At this length (time) scale you cannot see the motion of your hands. They do not wiggle much over three nanoseconds, so you do not see your fingers apparently bend as you would do if they were a lot longer. THis is because we are not only very small compared to human-perceptable time (about a tenth of a second - equivalent to roughly 3 times ten the four kilometer- about the size of planet earth), but also very slow when it comes to the frequencies of the ruler-clock particles of which we are composed. Actually you can see both space and time. You cannot see much (ruler-measureable) space though, because it is very big. When you look up into the night sky you can seen (back) thousands of years worth of (clock) time. With the help of the Hubble telescope, billions of years worth. This is also (kind of) looking at a lot of space. You are limited in which bits of space or time you can see in that they are all at ct^2-r^2= 0 interval from your precise present moment. That precise present is ,for you, at the cutting point of time at the absolute centre of your universe. Scary stuff! Let?s make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space. We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time, and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the gist. Yep -and you do have a very good point! That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of light is then a constant - in vacuo. It?s a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light. Exactly. I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong? No. You aren?t wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to measure the speed of clockwork will say the same. Too true! Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion. Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button? Yes - twice. No else notices. Motion is space divided by time. OK? No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn?t. Not my personal favourite starting point. Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed of light. You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Yes. Exactly. Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Yes. No. Neither did Godel or Einstein. Their argument was not that there is no time , but that time may (and for Godel -should) not be primary. the argument is that it (and space) may be derivable from a deeper principle. A clue to what that deeper principle might be is already apparent in the conservation of energy equation, the continuity equation. It is div (E) = -dE/dt. This is an equation relating spatial derivatives to temporal derivatives. This relates and constrains the relationship between space and time - if you wish to see conservation of energy as primary. Of course the media has picked up the massage that "scientist says there is no such thing as time". What do you expect? Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary? No. Einstein didn?t. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright, nor Koks, nor me. Me neither --- it is also derivable (in my view) from a deeper principle --- that of linearity. This is the theme of the paper I am working on at the moment, and hope to talk about (amongst oither things) in August. Is something else primary? Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But they just moved. Motion is more primary - but it is still not the prime mover. However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another, (quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. I?m guessing that Andrew Worsley discovered it too. Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority. The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this: when you open up a clock, you don?t see time flowing through it. Agree about experiment - not about not "seeing" time. The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed I?ve read the original German. It?s a change in speed. That?s why he referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity, you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves. Yep. Einstein knew that (general) relativity was not complete. This is essentially because the "curvature" is ascribed to mass without any mechanism for it. It is just postulated. Now that is a good postulate. Genrel and QED are the only two theories we have not flatly contradicted by some experiment or other (as far as I know). Even QED disagrees with precise measurements of the fine structure constant at the 4 sigma level. In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example. You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second email: Agreed. An important question though is the absolute sign of the circulation. Nature appears to be handed (to allow only left turns or right turns - corresponding to left deflation or right deflation). Conventional is that it is right (clock) I think it should probably be left anticlock (as in the generally accepted positive direction for line and path integrals. Sigh - if we choose a sign why do we always seem to get the wrong one? In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as = space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints (consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz: space time speed valid 1 fixed fixed fixed no 2 fixed fixed varies yes 3 fixed varies varies no 4 fixed varies fixed no 5 varies fixed fixed no 6 varies fixed varies no 7 varies varies varies no 8 varies varies fixed yes Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both Actually I think .... ultimately ... one can have only one of the above, but that more (including the absolute relative direction of the rotation of fields and spins) is required. Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only I didn?t mention radial length contraction. Don't get this one ; space fixed and radial contraction? The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g. I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn?t apply to the room you?re in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it?s not the same as standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light appears to curve, but actually, it doesn?t. In the latter situation, it does. Your third email: For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency is lower too. Yes: this is true for electrons. It is also true, however, for photons. In my view. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. You must read Friedwardt Winterberg?s paper. When you drop an electron into a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the ?coordinate? speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate speed of light is halved, I don?t think things are harmonious any more. it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. But the experiment says it does. If it didn?t vary, optical clocks wouldn?t go slower when they?re lower. What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. But experiment says it isn?t. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it?s circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not infinite. It is indefinite. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be doubled. Exactly. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was zero. I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space. Don't be sorry. You are absolutely right to insist on looking at every speculative possibility. I am looking forwards to the discussion over the wine or the beer. We need to end up with a theory, however that describes ALL of experiment. That is we need to solve Hilbert's sixth problem. While special realivity is not the whole answer to this (one also needs The Maxwell equations, and explanation for the origin of the curvature in General relativity, a complete consistency with QED and a proper theory of the strong and weak interaction - which is not there yet - see the xkcd cartoon from last Friday). My own view is that a proper consistincy with special relativity will remain as a part of the puzzle. In the meantime I need the concept of time to write down the differential equations in the new theory of light and matter I am developing. To describe the dynamics in other words. I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO. I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would we talk about? Too true! I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching... Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy. Yes: but this is getting so bad it is affecting my sleep and my health. I'm contracted for 35 hours but am pulling more like 90, including all the idiot admin - plus writing stupidly long emails to you lot in the early hours of a Saturday morning (that is the fun bit). Lunch is something that happens only four days out of seven. Weaver has even more than I do. If I did not know better I would guess the university was trying to drive us all away. (Tim is already leaving- and we have just learned there will be, in total, five less of us teaching next year - another 30 percent increase in teaching workload). There you go.... Regards JGW. Regards John D * the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational potential. The ?force of gravity?. ** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep looking at it. There?s some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein people insist that clocks go slower when they?re lower because time goes slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or turns of a cog. [parallel] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 27799 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Sat Feb 28 06:47:22 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 08:47:22 -0600 Subject: [General] double-loop electron model discussion In-Reply-To: <881463BC-F6CD-49CA-842D-799DE48AD711@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <>> <006f01d05289$52d7b590$f88720b0$@gmail.com> <44D9C0E7919C4599BC67CEC35CC81EF6@HPlaptop> <00a001d052bf$3e09df90$ba1d9eb0$@gmail.com> <881463BC-F6CD-49CA-842D-799DE48AD711@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00de01d05365$79f16590$6dd430b0$@gmail.com> Hi Richard and ALL You asked for a comparison of electron models. Since 1986, while having lunch with a mathematician, Eric Peterson, I have felt that the electron was made up of EM waves, or a photon. Several of us have come to the same conclusion. When I saw your model from 2005 many things started to make sense. That is why I was so excited and interested to fully pursue the math to try to deeply understand your TEQ model. It was quite informative and inspiring to see your work. Since that time, principally due to an Occam's razor argument, I have returned to the view that TEQ's are not required to model the electron. While I still feel that it may be possible that TEQ's exist, I do not find, in my view, that it is required for the modeling of the photon and electron. When I later saw John W and Martin's work from 1997 I was again very interested, principally because they were saying the same thing I was thinking, in general. While running the math and testing the model from John W and Martin, it occurred to me that we had to have some sort of photon model to build the electron from. So I produced the simplest model I could imagine which would fulfill what I felt then was the basic criteria. My view of the basic criteria has since changed due to this collaboration, so I am working now to update my electron model. However it seems most of the electron model remains intact. The fundamental differences between my model and John W. and Martin's model are as follows: I found that wave interference may be precisely the cause for the exact value of the magnetic moment anomaly, and the cause for the exact value for the elementary charge. That wave interference, incidentally, produces a new view of the fine structure constant in the electron. My motivation, in part, to do this work, was because we have to provide an electron model which is simple in comparison, and competes with current theory and models in accuracy, before such a model will be considered a viable alternative. My model currently falls short of some of the goals that I feel we will need, in order for our work to be considered noteworthy and to be eventually accepted. My model also demonstrates the cause for inertial mass, but I think John W. and Martin's model may illustrate the same property. And in fact, all confined photon models may show the same attribute of inertial mass. There are implications of the work we are doing which we also need to discuss. If Matter is made from light, when you think about its implications on relativity, leads to the existence of a preferred reference rest frame in space, leading us toward Chandra's view and CTF. Working with all of you is both enlightening and inspiring. Chip -----Original Message----- From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:10 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] double-loop electron model discussion I would like to start a thread that focuses on comparing and contrasting the various double-loop electron models, mainly John and Martin?s (J/M's), Chip?s, Vivian's and mine, and any others that people may know of, to find any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference. I think we are all agreed that the resting electron in our various models has spin 1/2 hbar. Chip?s model is based on J/M's model. I?d like to ask Chip, if I might, what commonalities and differences exist between J/M?s electron model and Chip's electron model. We can go on from there, if that?s agreeable. Richard _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at chipakins at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe From richgauthier at gmail.com Sat Feb 28 21:47:08 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:47:08 -0800 Subject: [General] double-loop electron model discussion In-Reply-To: <00de01d05365$79f16590$6dd430b0$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242C4C9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <>> <006f01d05289$52d7b590$f88720b0$@gmail.com> <44D9C0E7919C4599BC67CEC35CC81EF6@HPlaptop> <00a001d052bf$3e09df90$ba1d9eb0$@gmail.com> <881463BC-F6CD-49CA-842D-799DE48AD711@gmail.com> <00de01d05365$79f16590$6dd430b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Chip, Thank you for your thoughtful as well as personal history comments about your interest in modeling the electron. My own interest in the structure and composition of the electron dates back to the late 1980?s. My spiritual guru gave some new ideas in 1986 about how matter might be formed by a kind of life principle transmitted through subtle vibrating life-energy entities that have both a mental and a physical portion. That idea intrigued me and soon I tried to apply the idea to make a model of a photon as being composed of millions of these oscillating life-particles. I had mainly my intuition to guide me. My photon model soon contained a single circulating energy entity (a superluminal energy quantum) traveling helically at a 45 degree angle with the speed c sqrt(2) and a total momentum along a helical trajectory of (h/lambda) sqrt(2). The energy quantum's helical radius is the photon?s wavelength lambda divided by 2 pi. This result came out of the requirement that the photon model should have its experimental value of spin hbar (or minus hbar) generated by the transverse component of the superluminal energy quantum's total momentum along its helical trajectory, while having the transluminal energy quantum?s longitudinal component of momentum be the photon's linear momentum p=h/lambda. I then modeled the electron as a closed charged photon-like object. I knew very little about the Dirac equation except its prediction of antimatter and that the electron has a 4pi rotational symmetry. I also found that a single closed-loop of one wavelength of a photon (the Compton wavelength h/mc) with the electron?s rest energy mc^2 yields a spin of 1 hbar ? twice the value of the electron?s spin. It hit me that making a double-loop of a single wavelength photon produces an electron model with a spin of 1/2 hbar. While making my electron model I realized that it should also have the electron?s magnetic moment M ? approximately the magnitude of the Bohr magneton (e hbar)/2m. I set the electron model to have the Bohr magneton for its magnetic moment by adjusting the radius of the closed helical path of the helically moving charged superluminal energy quantum so that its helically circulating charge generates the Dirac equation electron's Bohr magneton for the electron model. (Choosing a slightly larger helical radius generates the electron?s exact experimental value of magnetic moment which is a little larger than the Bohr magneton?s magnitude.) Later I started analyzing other people?s cyclical models of the electron more closely. I found that Dirac had claimed that electrons actually move at the speed of light, but that only a sub-luminal speed can be observed. I found two analyses of the Dirac equation that suggested that the path of a moving electron?s charge can be described as light-speed along an open helix. This gave me the idea to fit my model of the circulating charged photon for a resting electron to this light-speed helical approach. I realized that the circulating photon in the electron model would have an increased frequency f corresponding to its increased total energy gamma mc^2 when the electron moves forward, and that the corresponding wavelength of this circulating charged photon would decrease with this increasing frequency, in order to keep the speed of light of the circulating charged photon constant. The radius of the charged photon?s helix was found to decrease with increasing electron velocity by the factor gamma^2 in order for the photon?s wavelength to decrease as described as the frequency of the charged photon increases with increasing electron speed and total energy. All the math worked out nicely, including the generation of the electron?s spin 1/2 hbar for a slow moving electron from the tangential component mc of the charged photon?s total momentum gamma mc along its helical axis, multiplied by the radius hbar/2mc of the charged photon?s helical axis for a slow moving electron. And I realized that any speed-of-light double-looping photon model for an electron should also follow a corresponding helical path whose radius decreases in the same way with the electron?s increase speed. This is because the result only depends on the relations E=hf, p=h/lambda , and c= lambda f , the basic quantum energy and momentum equations for a photon and the equation for wave motion with speed c. Although I knew that any acceptable electron model would have to generate the relativistic de Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma mv) , I was quite surprised that this result falls out so easily from the circulating charged photon model of a moving electron, where the longitudinal component of the circulating charged photon?s wave vector k yields the wave number that corresponds to the relativistic de Broglie wavelength. Furthermore, this simple result for the origin of the electron?s de Broglie wavelength suggests that the quantum wave functions for a moving electron, which depend heavily on the electron's de Broglie wavelength, are produced mathematically from the waves generated by the circulating charged photon that models the electron. Richard > On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:47 AM, Chip Akins wrote: > > Hi Richard and ALL > > You asked for a comparison of electron models. > > Since 1986, while having lunch with a mathematician, Eric Peterson, I have felt that the electron was made up of EM waves, or a photon. > > Several of us have come to the same conclusion. > > When I saw your model from 2005 many things started to make sense. That is why I was so excited and interested to fully pursue the math to try to deeply understand your TEQ model. It was quite informative and inspiring to see your work. > > Since that time, principally due to an Occam's razor argument, I have returned to the view that TEQ's are not required to model the electron. While I still feel that it may be possible that TEQ's exist, I do not find, in my view, that it is required for the modeling of the photon and electron. > > When I later saw John W and Martin's work from 1997 I was again very interested, principally because they were saying the same thing I was thinking, in general. > > While running the math and testing the model from John W and Martin, it occurred to me that we had to have some sort of photon model to build the electron from. So I produced the simplest model I could imagine which would fulfill what I felt then was the basic criteria. My view of the basic criteria has since changed due to this collaboration, so I am working now to update my electron model. However it seems most of the electron model remains intact. > > The fundamental differences between my model and John W. and Martin's model are as follows: > > I found that wave interference may be precisely the cause for the exact value of the magnetic moment anomaly, and the cause for the exact value for the elementary charge. > > That wave interference, incidentally, produces a new view of the fine structure constant in the electron. > > My motivation, in part, to do this work, was because we have to provide an electron model which is simple in comparison, and competes with current theory and models in accuracy, before such a model will be considered a viable alternative. > > My model currently falls short of some of the goals that I feel we will need, in order for our work to be considered noteworthy and to be eventually accepted. > > My model also demonstrates the cause for inertial mass, but I think John W. and Martin's model may illustrate the same property. And in fact, all confined photon models may show the same attribute of inertial mass. > > There are implications of the work we are doing which we also need to discuss. If Matter is made from light, when you think about its implications on relativity, leads to the existence of a preferred reference rest frame in space, leading us toward Chandra's view and CTF. > > Working with all of you is both enlightening and inspiring. > > Chip > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:10 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] double-loop electron model discussion > > I would like to start a thread that focuses on comparing and contrasting the various double-loop electron models, mainly John and Martin?s (J/M's), Chip?s, Vivian's and mine, and any others that people may know of, to find any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference. I think we are all agreed that the resting electron in our various models has spin 1/2 hbar. Chip?s model is based on J/M's model. I?d like to ask Chip, if I might, what commonalities and differences exist between J/M?s electron model and Chip's electron model. We can go on from there, if that?s agreeable. > Richard > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at chipakins at gmail.com > Click here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > From johnduffield at btconnect.com Fri Feb 20 08:01:33 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:01:33 +0000 Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem In-Reply-To: <041a01d04d15$ac225ed0$04671c70$@gmail.com> References: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C90242282D@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, <035f01d04c44$2b9a8b60$82cfa220$@gmail.com><7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024228CA@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk><038701d04c58$49324a50$db96def0$@gmail.com>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024229A7@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <041a01d04d15$ac225ed0$04671c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0C1A95B17E3C4408B87B703C7A6BF4EA@HPlaptop> Chip, Re: It seems there have been experiments where plane polarized photons were passed through a polarizer and the spin of those photons measured after the polarizer. As I understand it the spin was still +/- h bar. Has this actually been done? How can that be explained casually? Even in consideration of the relativistic photon time and distance transformations, I cannot causally justify this experiment, unless the photon in this case, is a plane wave, with a spin angular moment force component, and not a physical spin. Thoughts anyone? I recommend you start with water waves. You can imagine a vertical polarization in that the wave goes up and down, not side to side. But it isn?t just up and down, the red test particle goes round and round. There?s still an h-bar rotation that relates to the wave height. Imagine the wave height is always the same. It?s a sine wave, but the rotation is perfectly real, that spin isn?t imaginary, it?s physical. As regards photons and their paths, if you crop the above and then copy and invert, you can maybe get the gist of a photon in space. It isn?t some point-particle thing that travels along some line. It has an E=hf wave nature, it?s a surging rotating extended-entity spacewarp wave thing that takes many paths. Not ideal I know, but at least it demonstrates the need for animations. Anyway, don?t think of the photon in the double-slit experiment as some red dot that goes through one slit or the other. Imagine the image above is a tank of water and you dunk the double-slit experiment in it. Only then IMHO do you start to get the gist of this displacement current thing. When you make the photon go round and round just right, the space isn?t displacing round and round, it?s displaced, skewed, twisted round. Then what you?ve got is an electromagnetic field rather than an electromagnetic wave. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:00 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John Williamson, John Duffield and All A burning desire to answer the many remaining unanswered questions drives me to try to understand the details of the physical behavior of the universe wherever that leads. Sorry for the confusing language about the photon being ?frozen? in time. It was just a partially conveyed thought. While the time and distance transformations are well established, I had not really connected it all in that way, for the photon, until John W. mentioned it. Now, to me, many issues are much clearer and easier to understand. I have no problem with the harmonic resonator, quantized view of particles, principally because we can see an assignable cause. Recent research has also led me to believe that photons are quantized, even though I vehemently fought against that concept, and tried to find ways to deny it for many years. In my view the term quantized needs to better defined, so that we speak of exactly what is quantized for any given item. In that sense I feel that massive spin ? particles are probably quantized in more clearly understandable ways than photons. At this point I feel that photons are individual energy quanta. I have however, not yet proven, to my own satisfaction, that photons are the only form of electromagnetic radiation. Still working on that one. I do feel that photons are one primary means of energy transfer between separate particles, and in that context, are quantized. The question arises regarding whether the quantization is inherent to the photon, or is apparent quantization, due to the nature of the emitters and absorbers. My current feeling is that energy density, total energy content, and frequency, are quantized for the photon in that context, and that frequency is quantized for the photon, due to energy density, and new field equations, providing for the spin angular momentum terms. While I really do not like the Copenhagen interpretation and the ensuing stagnation of causal findings in physics, due in part to that philosophy, I am quite willing to accept the evidence of experiment, and work from there to discover the answers, wherever that leads. What has led us all to this point, is the unexplained ?bizarre? behaviors of certain physical phenomena. Understanding the cause for each behavior is paramount, in my opinion, in order for physics to actually do its job and provide the real answers. The math of QED has been successful at predicting and accurately calculating many items. This is heralded as a tremendous success on those grounds. To me it is obvious that an empirically derived set of equations will do exactly what QED has done. But the three issues that give me pause regarding that approach are: 1) we still don?t know why, and 2) since we don?t know why, the math for the theory is incomplete and in certain ways inaccurate. 3) We already know the math has problems in certain areas, how can we really fully rely on it to disclose the remaining secrets? Those are my concerns regarding the math, but my concerns regarding the basic philosophy which got us here are far deeper. I am still having problems understanding an issue. It seems there have been experiments where plane polarized photons were passed through a polarizer and the spin of those photons measured after the polarizer. As I understand it the spin was still +/- h bar. Has this actually been done? How can that be explained casually? Even in consideration of the relativistic photon time and distance transformations, I cannot causally justify this experiment, unless the photon in this case, is a plane wave, with a spin angular moment force component, and not a physical spin. Thoughts anyone? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello John and everyone, I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length (interval). All you see is the point. That is the point! I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ... What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single, unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system. Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago. Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters! Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local". This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment. Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety, for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time. Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!). Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week! Cheers, John. P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John: Whilst I ?root for relativity?, I don?t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn?t tell the difference) you wouldn?t see everything at once. Instead you wouldn?t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn?t know anything about it: BLAM! In fact, taking a lead from Martin?s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for ?quantum mysticism? is actually rather thin. See for example the quantum eraser experiment. See this near the bottom: ?A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave?. The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding. Regards John D From: Chip Akins Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem John Williamson I don?t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon. Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon?s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously. It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hello Chip and everyone, I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then? A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time. Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment. Gotta go ... lab ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Hi John and Chandra In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum can take on either +or ? directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the ?superposition? of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions. This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and ?carries? (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument which disallows this solution. John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition? One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem Gentle people, I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ... None of us understand and encompass all that is known. Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms! I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised). Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists. A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon! Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular. Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit. Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon. Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon... Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ... Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed! Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property! Chip: I am with you 100% that photons cannot ?carry? spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of ?Interference of Waves?, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called ?circular? or ?elliptically? polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant. By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an ?angular momentum? like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not ?incoherent?! Light is never ?incoherent?; the detector?s response characteristics determine the beams? correlation property, or the ?viability of the fringes?. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors? physical properties as ?Optical Coherence? properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones? matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the ?polarization? chapter in my book, ?Causal Physics:?.? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ] We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction! By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase ?photonic electron?. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this ?c-velocity? does not make them ?photons?. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the ?push-away? into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical ?mass?. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the ?particle? world is so elusive. Assigning ?plane wave? concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these ?particles?. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the ?particles? ?fall? or ?get repulsed? by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous ?four forces? of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein?s unified field. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra Thank you for the note about replying to ?general?. Hi John Williamson Question: I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization. Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM To: general at natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin general at natureoflightandparticles.org This is from Chandra: If all of you consistently send out the emails to the ?general? as I am doing now and always reply to the same ?general?, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the ?natureoflightandparticles.org?. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some ?engineering thinking? along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference. ============================= Now my response to: John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to ?Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking. Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell?s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process. Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism. . This is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger?s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This represents detector?s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one ?stimulation? when we take out the ?detector constant? ? out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able . But, ? CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting ?engineering thinking? for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is ?energy transfer? as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF?s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent ?nirvana? only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its ?local? quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new! The concept of ?photonic electron? being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by ?Pilot Waves?. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation due to (now) multiple particles . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge! Chandra. From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM To: Adam K Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Adam: Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you?re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this: IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this: iti See Wikipedia: ?the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time?. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal ?electric? waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal ?magnetic? waveform. But there aren?t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It?s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question: Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn?t interact with light. But note that its path wasn?t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn?t call it a photon any more, you?d call it an electron. Regards John D * It?s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = ?(?0/?0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = ?(G/?). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it?s a ?how pliable? measure as opposed to a ?how stiff? measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = ?(1/?0?0). PS: I?ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/ From: Adam K Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: John Duffield Cc: John Williamson ; chandra ; Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested): Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out. Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether). Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience? Thanks, Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield wrote: Adam/John: I think it?s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this: "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. He said space, not spacetime, and he didn?t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this Baez article where you can read this: Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn?t curved in the room you?re in. Instead it?s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks: Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers. Space isn?t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron?s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton?s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don?t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom?s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron. Regards John From: John Williamson Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM To: Adam K ; chandra Cc: Richard Gauthier ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Stephen Leary ; Ralph Penland ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt ; Mark, Martin van der ; David Saint John ; Timothy Drysdale ; CSc. ; Jonathan Weaver ; Rachel ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Vivian Robinson ; ninasobieraj ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek ; John Duffield ; Mayank Drolia ; Andrew Meulenberg ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone. Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know. The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple. However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word. Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone? Regards, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adam K [afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM To: chandra Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Hi Chandra, I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.) I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend? Best wishes, Adam PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra wrote: Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that ?Space? is the ?mother? of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). J The ?vacuum? or the ?space? holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of ?Complex Tension Field (or CTF)?. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of ?photonics electrons?. The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors? velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything. The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book: http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves Sincerely, Chandra. From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM To: John Williamson Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi John, Why do you say this? space does not support torsion, Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation. Adam On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" wrote: Hi John, Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees. What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it? This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment. Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin. Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this. This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them! Cheers, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin John Sorry I haven?t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain?t cheese. And like the ?quantum bicycle? is doesn?t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you?re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn?t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn?t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it?s isn?t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it?s rotating like this: . Every which way. But there?s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is. As regard field and force, IMHO there?s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It?s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn?t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It?s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they?re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren?t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: ?the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B? There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions. Darn, I have to go. I?ll get back to you some more later. Regards John * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment From: John Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM To: John Duffield ; Vivian Robinson ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin Hi Guys, Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself). I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors), o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe. Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity. Hope this helps, John. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Andrew: Viv?s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion. Viv/Andrew: I?d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn?t really a field, it?s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it?s important. All: I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can?t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there?s not much point talking about selectrons if you don?t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter. Regards John From: Vivian Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM To: Andrew Meulenberg Cc: Richard Gauthier ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matou?ek" ; A. F. Kracklauer ; Adam K ; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri ; Hans De Raedt ; David Saint John ; Fiona van der Burgt ; John Duffield ; John Williamson ; Jonathan Weaver ; Mark, Martin van der ; Mayank Drolia ; Michael Wright ; Nick Green ; "prof. Ing. Pavel O?mera, CSc." ; Rachel ; Ralph Penland ; Robert Hadfield ; robert hudgins ; Stephen Leary ; Timothy Drysdale ; wfhagen at gmail.com Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin Dear Andrew and all, I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out. With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured. I hope this helps your understanding. Cheers, Viv Robinson On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: Dear Richard, You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron?s spin is undefined until it?s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis." I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it. I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics. I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point. The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process. This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.) When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits. Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 4347219 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1098557 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1097391 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 142293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 22417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68087 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 268185 bytes Desc: not available URL: