[General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem

[Stephen Leary]

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 <chipakins at gmail.com> 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
> <http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pe/pe;jsessionid=7peiff7dakbeq.alexandra>,
> 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
> <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 <chipakins at gmail.com> 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
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 <chipakins at gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM
>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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” χ out of the
> summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [image:
> cid:image005.png at 01D04DA5.E0CA20B0].  But, χ 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
> <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 Matoušek; 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
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Derivation_from_electromagnetic_theory>:
> *“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 = √(μ0/ε0). 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/ρ). 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/ε0μ0).
>
>
>
> PS: I’ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/
> <http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/index.php?sid=c5e137e15c020eca37d63f36a65748b5>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam K <afokay at gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM
>
> *To:* John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
>
> *Cc:* John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> ; chandra
> <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> ; Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> ; A.
> F. Kracklauer <af.kracklauer at web.de> ; Stephen Leary <sleary at vavi.co.uk>
> ; Ralph Penland <rpenland at gmail.com> ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt
> <h.a.de.raedt at rug.nl> ; Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; David Saint John <etherdais at gmail.com>
> ; Timothy Drysdale <Tim.Drysdale at glasgow.ac.uk> ; CSc.
> <osmera at fme.vutbr.cz> ; Jonathan Weaver <Jonathan.Weaver at glasgow.ac.uk> ;
> Rachel <QKB.Enterprises at gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield
> <Robert.Hadfield at glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com> ; Vivian
> Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au> ; ninasobieraj <ninasobieraj at tlen.pl> ;
> ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matoušek
> <matousek at fme.vutbr.cz> ; Mayank Drolia <er.mayankdrolia at gmail.com> ; Andrew
> Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt
> <fionavdburgt at gmail.com> ; Michael Wright <mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick
> Green <nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk>
>
> *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 <http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html>
> 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
> <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html> 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 <http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014>. 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
> <http://bogpaper.com/science-on-sunday-with-john-duffield-gravity/>. Also
> see the general relativity section of this Baez page
> <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html>
> 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
> <https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=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 <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM
>
> *To:* Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> ; chandra <chandra at phys.uconn.edu>
>
> *Cc:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> ; A. F. Kracklauer
> <af.kracklauer at web.de> ; Stephen Leary <sleary at vavi.co.uk> ; Ralph Penland
> <rpenland at gmail.com> ; wfhagen at gmail.com ; Hans De Raedt
> <h.a.de.raedt at rug.nl> ; Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; David Saint John <etherdais at gmail.com>
> ; Timothy Drysdale <Tim.Drysdale at glasgow.ac.uk> ; CSc.
> <osmera at fme.vutbr.cz> ; Jonathan Weaver <Jonathan.Weaver at glasgow.ac.uk> ;
> Rachel <QKB.Enterprises at gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield
> <Robert.Hadfield at glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com> ; Vivian
> Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au> ; ninasobieraj <ninasobieraj at tlen.pl> ;
> ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matoušek
> <matousek at fme.vutbr.cz> ; John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> ; Mayank
> Drolia <er.mayankdrolia at gmail.com> ; Andrew Meulenberg
> <mules333 at gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt <fionavdburgt at gmail.com> ; Michael
> Wright <mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick Green <nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk>
>
> *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 Matoušek; 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 <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> 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 Matoušek;
> 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" <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 Matoušek"; 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
> Ošmera, 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 <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM
>
> *To:* John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> ; Vivian Robinson
> <viv at etpsemra.com.au> ; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil
> Matoušek" <matousek at fme.vutbr.cz> ; A. F. Kracklauer
> <af.kracklauer at web.de> ; Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> ;
> ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
> <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> ; Hans De Raedt <h.a.de.raedt at rug.nl> ; David
> Saint John <etherdais at gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt
> <fionavdburgt at gmail.com> ; Jonathan Weaver <Jonathan.Weaver at glasgow.ac.uk>
> ; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; Mayank Drolia
> <er.mayankdrolia at gmail.com> ; Michael Wright <mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick
> Green <nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk> ; "prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera, CSc."
> <osmera at fme.vutbr.cz> ; Rachel <QKB.Enterprises at gmail.com> ; Ralph Penland
> <rpenland at gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield <Robert.Hadfield at glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert
> hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com> ; Stephen Leary <sleary at vavi.co.uk> ; Timothy
> Drysdale <Tim.Drysdale at glasgow.ac.uk> ; 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 Matoušek"; 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 Ošmera, 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 <viv at etpsemra.com.au>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM
>
> *To:* Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil
> Matoušek" <matousek at fme.vutbr.cz> ; A. F. Kracklauer
> <af.kracklauer at web.de> ; Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> ;
> ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
> <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> ; Hans De Raedt <h.a.de.raedt at rug.nl> ; David
> Saint John <etherdais at gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt
> <fionavdburgt at gmail.com> ; John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> ; John
> Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> ; Jonathan Weaver
> <jonathan.weaver at glasgow.ac.uk> ; Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; Mayank Drolia
> <er.mayankdrolia at gmail.com> ; Michael Wright <mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick
> Green <nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk> ; "prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera, CSc."
> <osmera at fme.vutbr.cz> ; Rachel <QKB.Enterprises at gmail.com> ; Ralph Penland
> <rpenland at gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield <Robert.Hadfield at glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert
> hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com> ; Stephen Leary <sleary at vavi.co.uk> ; Timothy
> Drysdale <tim.drysdale at glasgow.ac.uk> ; 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
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at sleary at vavi.co.uk
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/sleary%40vavi.co.uk?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/sleary%40vavi.co.uk?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>


-- 
Stephen Leary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 599 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 68087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 507 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 590 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 358 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 268185 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 22417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14724 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 322 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0012.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 142293 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/8f558e1a/attachment-0013.png>