[General] Photon

[John Macken]

Dear David and John W,

 

First I will address David’s question.  You said “Now there is a
problem....= kλc2 is not defined”  I apologize but I have defined this
and other symbols previously in the “foundation” paper attached to 5
previous emails. I use the symbol λc for the reduced Compton wavelength
and λc for the Compton wavelength.  Therefore:  λc =λc/2π =  ħ/mc =
c/ωc.  Other points in your letter will be covered in the next section. 

 

John W.   Thank you for your lengthy response.  I do not take offense and I
appreciate the time that you have devoted to the lengthy answer.  My first
comment is that your response covered many related subjects, but it did not
address my specific question.  I have generated the following equations
which connect the electrostatic force (FE or Fe); the gravitational force
Fg; a particle’s reduced Compton wavelength λc; a particle’s internal
energy Ei = mc2 = ħωc ; and a particle’s Schwarzschild radius Rs (see
note)  The following equations are shown below and also are in the attached
PDF in case the email does not reproduce the equations correctly.   

 

(FgN2) = (FEN2)2 = Ei4              Fg/FEN = FEN/Fp 

Fg/FE = Rs/λc                                Rsλc = Lp2
Rs = 1/λc          

Fg/FE = λc- 2 = ωc2 = Ei 2

 

In the above Rs ≡ Gm/c2.  My particle model has dipole waves in spacetime
propagating at the speed of light within a volume with radius λc.  Such a
structure is maximally rotating and has a Schwarzschild radius half of the
Schwarzschild radius for non-rotating mass.  The underlined symbols such as
ωc and Ei  are dimensionless Planck units. The symbol FE is the
electrostatic force between two Planck charges (the basis of natural
units).  To convert this to the force of two particles with charge e use FE
= Feα-1. 

 

The point is that these equations are actual relationships between the
forces.  They should not be considered disruptive to physics. They should
be welcomed as new insights which adds to our knowledge. The best part is
that they imply a problem exists with the physical interpretation of the
equations of physics.  You claim that I am attempting to disrupt half of
physics.  Also you say, “I do not really understand, also, why you want to
throw out the concept of a virtual particle”.  Neither of these are true.
I am only attempting to replace the physical interpretation of what is
happening on the quantum mechanical scale of physics.  The equations of QM
are unchanged.  It is just the many conceptual mysteries of QM that exist
with the current physical interpretation that I want to replace with a new
model which eliminates many of the mysteries. 

 

In this email, I only want to eliminate the concept of virtual photon
messenger particles.  I embrace the concept of virtual photon pairs and
virtual particle pairs that are continuously being formed and annihilated
in spacetime. In fact, I explain and quantify the distortion of spacetime
that produces these effects.  I have wave amplitudes, sizes and frequencies
which produce these effects.  This is the activity with Planck length and
Planck time displacements of spacetime which are responsible for the
tremendous energy density of spacetime that you oppose.      

 

The physical interpretation which requires virtual photon messenger
particles has many flaws.  For example, there is the question of exactly
how attraction is accomplished.  I know that there are some attempts at
explanations, but they have flaws.  Also, there is a problem about how many
messenger particles propagating at the speed of light surrounded an
electron.  If another electron passed by at almost the speed of light there
was not enough time to send out new virtual photons propagating at the
speed of light to interact with it.  Only the virtual photon messenger
particles which are already propagating through the surrounding space could
make the magnetic field perceived by the other rapidly moving electron. In
my book I carry this to an extreme and show that weak magnetic fields must
be capable of generating tremendous forces without enough time to
communicate back to the source of the magnetic field.

 

However, those problems pale in comparison to the problems created by the
equations that I have derived.  Clearly both the electrostatic force and
the gravitational force are connected when these forces are expressed using
the particle’s natural unit of length which is its reduced Compton
wavelength λc. Can virtual photon messenger particles be saved by assuming
they have a wavelength equal to the particle’s Compton wavelength?  Do
virtual photons also carry the gravitational force?  Do virtual photons
have an amplitude which scales inversely with N, the number of reduced
Compton wavelengths?  Does the amplitude of virtual photons scale with Aβ
= (Lp/λc)(λc/r) = Lp/r ? 

 

All of these properties must be assigned to virtual photon messenger
particles in order to explain these equations.  When you have done all of
this, it is much easier to just declare that the electrostatic force and
gravity is conveyed by standing waves in spacetime at the particle’s
Compton wavelength. Everything fits.  In fact, this model predicted these
equations.  The concept of virtual photons has not been eliminated, they
just do not transfer the electrostatic force or gravity. I also give
standing wave amplitudes for the waves that create both the electric field
and the gravitational field.  This amplitude gives the correct energy
density of both the electric field and the gravitational field.  To my
knowledge, there are no equations which physically describe the virtual
photon messenger particles which permit the calculation the energy density
of the electric field that surrounds a charged particle.  

 

I admit that these equations contain the fine structure constant.  You do
not demand that QED must first derive the fine structure constant before
this constant can be used in QED equations.  Similarly, I should not have
to derive the fine structure constant before I can use it.  I think that my
model gives some new insights into how it might be derived.  For now my
equations work perfectly if I use Planck charge which has a coupling
constant of 1. 

 

You bring up many more points, but they will have to wait for another day.

 

John M.  

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of
John Williamson
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:31 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Dear John M,

Sorry for this but I think you just went a little bit too far in throwing
out half of physics ... I’m probably going to regret this but I have to
say a few things … let me apologize to you in advance (and at the end). 

I too think the electrostatic force is a wave-based phenomenon. It is a
wave based phenomenon in QED as well. I too, think there are things wrong
with QED. Things such as predicting a ridiculously high energy density for
the vacuum, for example.  We are not talking about whether or not it is
wave based - just about what is waving and what it is waving in. I agree
there is not such a thing as “virtual photon” all by itself. Did you not
understand my argument? I am just explaining how the process works in one
of the current main theories of physics.  I do not really understand, also,
why you want to throw out the concept of a virtual particle - when this is
where you started with you model, effectively. This is not an either-or
situation. A proper theory should be consistent with a field based
electromagnetism and with quantum electrodynamics based on (virtual)
particle exchange. Both.

What you seem to be saying is that virtual particle exchange - the very
basis of quantum electrodynamics - is wrong. This seems a bit strange to me
since it is the virtual sea of these QED particles, nota bene, that gave
rise to the huge energy density of the vacuum you have taken as your
starting point. You do say “this seems to be necessary”, but you do not,
however, use any of that method of calculation or the machinery of QED,
merely take it instead that the vacuum is a smooth, undetectable medium
with the energy density taken from that number, (which is anyway not usual
QED but the most extreme case under the (Casimir) assumption of an active
vacuum). You seem to think this is an experimental given when it is
actually a very controversial calculation for which there are many
versions, differing by scores of orders of magnitude. As I mentioned above-
most people hold this up as an example of what is wrong with QED (perhaps)
.. not the existence, per se, of virtual particles in interactions. You
have taken this huge energy density (in a  highly modified version) as your
starting point.

It is perhaps worth noting that, in your model as it stands, you could take
any other (big) number for that starting density and get similar results.
In fact you could choose a density such that the observed charge fitted
perfectly.  You could choose to start by putting in half Plank's constant
instead of a whole Plank's constant. These would get you closer to a
“result” so why not?

Now all of this would be fine if it then led to a theory which either
reproduced the (extremely well verified experimentally) predictions of
usual QED - or derived QED itself - or at least did not interfere with QED.
Things such as running coupling constants for charge, the anomalous
magnetic moment g-2, the Lamb shift - a whole slew of solid experimental
results explained by the theory. I have not seen such a theory from you -
even if you were to fix the charge to come out exactly. Perhaps this is
contained in the attachment not sent with your email. What I have seen are
simple calculations based on an underlying elastic medium with energy
density leading to a universe many (many) orders of magnitude larger than
that which is observed. You seem to take as an axiom that, although this is
an energy density or a mass density it does not behave as a usual energy or
a usual mass.  

This is good to think about. A completely new kind of very dense stuff and
the possible consequences thereof - but it does not make it immediately a
replacement for QED.  It seems especially ironic to me that you seem to be
attacking the very concept that gives rise to your own starting point.
Thoughts of the Oozlum bird come to mind.

Moving on to your model and to your predictions - I have not seen any new
differential equations from you such as the Schroedinger or Maxwell
equations. You do not show any matrix elements for transition
probabilities. You claim to calculate many fundamental things but, except
for your calculation of charge (which is anyway a couple of orders of
magnitude out and puts another constant in) I’m not sure at all ( even
after reading much of your magnum opus) what these are. You claim that the
electric field is a stress in spacetime, but you do not calculate why
fields are as big as they are but just assume you can put them in the size
that they are - completely independently of the properties of the
underlying medium you propose. You note that the EM and Gravitational and
Planck scales are approximately in line along a log-log plot (what’s a
couple of orders of magnitude when you have hundreds of them) - but
remember the Planck scale is derived as a limit for QM and Gravity and has
geometrical (squared) factors built in. Given that EM and QM are related
(both can be derived from the same underlying principle as David has noted)
- that the Planck length limit lies on this line and that these differ by
an exponent is not then surprising at all. Also lots of things lie at
roughly the half way point between the very big and the very small- Humans
sizes, for example. So what? Martin has previously plotted dozens of these
and looked at trends of certain types of things. I hope he will show this
in August. A rough conjunction of one point on a log-log plot is, anyway,
not an immediate reason for ditching half of current science, at least not
for me.

So what else is new? Have you calculated any cross-sections? any particle
masses, Plank's constant, the radiation law? Any fundamental constants? If
it comes to that: where do such things as Newton’s laws come from? Why do
things just keep moving endlessly through such a very dense medium in
space? If the medium, indeed, exerts forces on particles to confine them in
free space, as you suggest, why can we not observe any of these forces? You
seem (to me) to be arguing along the lines of “you just can’t”. In
quantum mechanics one observes things to be jiggling about, like it or not,
with certain sizes and momenta or energies and frequencies. In your model
the underlying medium jiggles .. but at length scales far smaller than will
ever be observed by a physical instrument. If it were to jiggle on a
quantum scale whole universal big bangs would be breaking out everywhere at
the subatomic level. Needless to say - this is not consistent with current
experiment! - Oops - so we have to ditch QED,  and aspects of QM and even
consider modifying Newton’ s laws. One needs to take the consequences of
your starting assumptions and look at them dispassionately. Do they fit
with what you observe in nature?

Ok my arguments about QM and Newtons laws are a little facetious. It is
perfectly possible that energies and fields arise from the properties of
space-time. Indeed I believe this so much I have posted a paper about it to
the group! I just do not see the net benefit of the raft of your starting
assumptions in terms of a cost-benefit analysis.

 

When you start proposing to throw out such things as QED, however, you need
to replace the theory with something that works as well, preferably better.
It is not sufficient to calculate just one parameter - and leave the rest
of science in ruins. If you are right we will not be able to calculate much
of anything at all!

Quite apart from throwing out QED, on a more personal level you have
criticized us for wasting our time and not being at the proper level. You
have dismissed all our models as “castles in the air”. You have lumped
all of us in the same boat, assumed we all think with one voice and have
just the one model, and then criticized your perception of that
(oversimplified) model directly and in general. When challenged on aspects
of this you have taken this as a criticism of yourself. Rather than
apologizing for not having at first realized that we may be very different
individuals, introduced to each other a couple of months before, most of
whom have never met each other and each with different models, you defended
your own ignorance. You decry us for wasting time thinking about such
things as obviously useless as knots. This is not a criticism of a specific
aspect of a model such as you ask for here, which could be useful, but just
a general cry of “you are all fools”. Knots are not the answer. Other
things have been direct attacks on our professionalism, as a group. Why do
you not use Microsoft word as I do? - for example (for the record I do not
because it is not portable from version to version as are more professional
tools such as LaTex). I have Word files Word cannot read. My (Microsoft)
web browser does not support certain kinds of maths text (as you noted). My
advice to the young folks of the group would be - Stay away from Microsoft
Word if you possibly can! (Or at least save your important stuff in a
different format if you want to keep it).

You have apologized for certain things, but only when you think you have
made a fool of yourself -not in the way you have denigrated others in
particular or the group in general. I think you should think about this.

I think there is much of value in what you are doing - but one should
remember the need to respect others as well. I think that it is bold indeed
to consider the consequences of space being so energy-dense. This may
indeed prove to be so - (even if my personal preference is for a precisely
zero energy universe at the moment). I am open to persuasion on this point.
Not everyone knows everything yet. I know I certainly do not. I have
learned a lot from the group so far, but I do not agree precisely with
anyone in it yet, not even Martin with whom I have worked for a quarter of
a century.

You have come into this group but have not really given many constructive
remarks on our work or on the project, but have rather tried to move the
discussion to such areas as gravitation and the Planck length and onto
attacking physics as it is generally understood. You have made no comments
at all about my work, for example, only presuming it is something it is not
or responding when I have tried to explain what is usual in certain aspects
of existing theoretical physics, which you have then attacked strongly. On
the other hand you have complained that one of your posts gained no
response after a day! 

I do not want to waste my precious time defending QED. I want to work on
building new, constructive, theories, not defending science as it stands.
You’re making me respond to things off the thrust of this group. This is
absorbing time and energy better spent elsewhere. This is not good. I need
to finish my marking before the deadline tomorrow and start working on my
own papers!

I know I am being somewhat hypocritical here - in that I am criticizing you
for criticizing others, for which I apologize again.  I feel that someone
has to say it though as all this is absorbing effort better spent on making
proper progress elsewhere.

Regards, 

John Williamson.

 

  _____  

From: General [general-
bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 8:23 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

Hello All,

 

John W. has just said, “In QED this value, for the virtual photons
responsible for electromagnetic attraction or repulsion may be positive
(repulsion) or negative (attraction).”  My question is: Who in this group
believes that the electrostatic force is transferred by virtual photons?  I
thought that the various equations I previously presented (also attached)
showing the relationship between the electrostatic force, the gravitational
force and a particle’s reduced Compton wavelength made a good argument
that the electrostatic force must be a wave-based phenomenon.  If some
people are unconvinced, I would like to hear the reasoning which allows
virtual photons to be compatible with the equations quoted.  Hearing this
reasoning would be very helpful to me since I plan to incorporate these
equations and a discussion of the incompatibility with virtual photons in a
future paper.

 

John M.

From: General [ <mailto:general-
bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-
bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of
John Williamson
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 5:43 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Dear all,

I have the feeling that you are getting mixed up with splitting things into
other things as though this means something. Martin is right. Light remains
light. A photon goes from emitter to absorber --- boom. If light is in a
box it remains light. It continues, in flight to be rest-massless. It is
the whole system that exhibits the PROPERTIES of a rest mass, by virtue of
the confinement. 

The rest-mass is DEFINED as the square root of the 4-momentum squared (in
proper units). For any particle this is just what you get by looking at it
at rest. This is a Lorentz invariant quantity. For a particle some of this
may be rest-mass mass, some confined field, some the confinement mechanism
itself (whatever that is). It all appears on the weighing scale.

In QED this value, for the virtual photons responsible for electromagnetic
attraction or repulsion may be positive (repulsion) or negative
(attraction). Yes, negative mass! This does not mean there is an actual
little lump of negative mass that has just come about. You need to consider
the whole process not keep trying to split it into bits like lego. The
value is defined by the properties of the light AND the box. For virtual
particle exchange attraction one can also see it as field cancellation.
That is the negative bit. It isn't magic. Just because you can write down
an equation for mass does not make it appear as a bit of mass with a label
"mass" on it!

Indeed, as light slows in a crystal there is an energy associated with the
photon, but equally with the (partial) confinement of it by the crystal. It
makes no sense to ascribe this wholly to the one or the other. If the light
circulates with total internal reflection you could weigh it on a scale. If
it was a short laser pulse the crystal would jump up and down as it went
round and round - in principle you could measure this too.

It is just confusing yourself to insist on things becoming other things,
with other properties. Analogies are nice, but not if they confuse you. A
zig-zagging photon, free to escape up or down, is confined slightly
differently to a wholly confined one. This is due to the properties of the
confinement- not the properties of the photon. If its wholly confined - and
smooth you will weigh the whole photon energy as rest mass, even though the
photon is not itself rest-massive.

Regards, John W.

  _____  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150601/39f2abcc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Force Equations 2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 149897 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150601/39f2abcc/attachment.pdf>