[General] Photon

[David Mathes]

John
I'll go with the differential projection which fits with differential geometry...(even Einstein needed a tutor for the DG)
>Light must go faster than (charged) light in the electron
I'm going to ramble a bit (it's 2 am here) on the mere possibility of faster than light. Richard would call it transluminal. And the SPIE paper ahead of me on Thursday by Desiato, argues using four-current in his past papers so I'm interested in hearing his highly relativistic EM approach in his paper titled:
"Faster than light?: The variable refractive index of the quantum vacuum"
(I wish he would use the negative vacuum instead but we will see what he says about the QV)
I'm a bit simpler and slower than making the jump to 4-vector or 4 current.  
If we ignore relativistic effects, and simply stipulate faster than light velocities are permitted, then the first problem to address is the definition.
c^2 = 1/(e(0) u(0))
One can argue simply that the impedance needs to be drawn down to permit higher velocities, but I suspect that argument only gets saluted by the EEs and not the rigorous physicist. However, at least it provides some wiggle room that there may be more room for energy below the zero vacuum. We simply haven't achieved it, tapped it or observed it yet, but lots of various theorists are in love with the idea that something is in the vacuum. 

If we look at the zero vacuum, the first thing I notice is that it's not a void. There is a natural pressure to spacetime in the form of strain and stiffness, and for EM at a minimum, an impedance. So if we want to change the rules to suit the new and improved theory, on our way to a void we need to obtain what is called a negative vacuum. So either/both e or u must decrease further. 
So one way out of this dilemma of negative vacuum is to remove every elementary particle beginning with charged particles including leptons quarks and the W bosons.As a first order guess, we postulate in a gendanken that by removing all the charged particles leaving only the  photon, Z, and Higgs particles that we should be able to measure the impedance approaching zero or at least decreasing dramatically. 
One problem is that  we can't detect whether we have removed quarks, and even if we could, they change color. . Then, there are two more strikes against us (American baseball permits three strikes and you are out (done), as in the phrase "striking out"). The first strike is that if we can observe quarks we should be able to observe gluons, but there are eight of them, which is akin to herding cats. The other issues is neutrinos. We'd like to see them, but like those really nasty little bugs that you can't see but feel their bite, the neutrinos are there somewhere. 
Once all the quarks and leptons are removed, that is, all the charge particles, one would expect that we have the bulk of charge...except a few bosons are charged as well, the weak particle (electroweak anyone?) with W+ and W-. So we eliminate the W twins - W_ and W+. 
Now, we also have to eliminate all the anti particles that are charged. 
So at this point, we might do a reality check on our gendanken  with  QCD as well as QED. That might work except we need to address a few anomalies such as Aharanov-Bohm, CPT violations, entanglement and spooky action at a distance, just to name a few. Squeezed states needs to be reviewed as well. 

Wait, there is more...the photon contain EM fields. That is true. The photon is our ultimate (for now) detector.  And we need the photon to do measurements. 
If we look at the other particles, the Z particle  and Higgs are just too heavy. We might be able to use these as fixed points.  The eight gluons are problematic and seem to work only with quarks. We don't have the capability to generate and manipulate gluons easily so we are left with the photon as the ultimate probe in our tool box to sense what is going on at such small levels. 
To summarize our gendanken, in order to lower the impedance , we will need to remove from the zero vacuum a percentage of the charged particles within a specific volume, and maintain that depleted state long enough for precise measurement for confirmation at beginning and end of any experiment. By removing charged particles from the zero vacuum, the impedance will be lowered. 
For purposes of the gendanken, charge particles includes:
First, no molecules, atoms or ions (no Periodic Table elements)
Then the focus moves to the Standard Model of Elementary Particles where there is the need to reduce by removal a significant number -if not all- of the following elementary particles
leptons - electron family and neutrino familyquarks - not necessarily gluonsweak particles - W- and W+antiparticles of charged 
Of concern are:spooky action at a distance.control and minimizing pair creation Aharonov-Bohmentanglementasymptotic freedomsqueezed statesphat photonsphoton quantum division (one photon into two photons)conditioned photonsknowable particles that are not known yetadded dimensions at a small levelspacetime coupling spacetime multiverse spacetimestrans-multiverse 
However, the presumed result is that GRT is unchanged for c, and therefore, in a lower e and/or u environment, GRT works for the higher specific value of c , whatever it may be. 
And the case in point are the photon as electron models.
As to referencing all these interesting papers, published or not, a place to upload them that draws a lot of attention is arXiv. It would be nice if all presenters would upload to ArXiv for easy reference and referrals.



 
      From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
 To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 12:49 AM
 Subject: RE: [General] Photon
   
 Hello David,

Some responses ..... I'm blue
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:46 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon



From: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

Chip, John
Theoretically speaking...
1. Tying a string to the base of a flashlight, a flashlight can be rotated  at sublight velocities and yet, at some radius, the spot travels at an angular velocity in excess of the speed of light. Such is the illusion of the E field. Depend on where you measure the E vector, you may or may not have a FTL rotation. But it's a flashlight type. That is, the E vector may be a projected field and therefore, like the flashlight, seem to exhibit FTL when in fact, it is not.

Yes, but it is  special kind of projection. That projection we call a differential. A differential is a special kind of projection. Think about it!

 In fact it is two (or four if one takes a possible trivector) projections, that of three components of a spatial vector by time, and one component of a temporal vector by three spatial vector components.

2. Now this brings up an interesting point of what the source of the E field is. Is the source affected by relativistic limitations and how is it affected? The relativistic limits imposed on the size of the E field need to be clarified as well. 

Interesting indeed. Conventionally, the source is usually taken to be the 4-vector potential. This is a 4-vector and transforms like time and space (just usual relativity). Because the field is a differential, it transforms differently (as the six components of an antisymmetric tensor). These transformations are well known, but any theory we come up for field with must parallel them.

It makes no sense to talk about the "size" of an E-field as it is not a vector. This is where, famously, even Feynmann's brain exploded in abject incomprehension. You are about to see why (and I wish I could have explained it to him!). 

It is, more properly, a space-time area (as opposed to the magnetic field which is more like a space-space area). It is not a normal "area" though, because it is, properly a length divided by another length not a length times a length (for the magnetic field). Remember the magnetic field is not a vector but an axial vector. The electric field is, similarly an axial vector, but then in a space-time plane. Also these are not "lengths" in metres and "times" in seconds but rather "lengths" in currents and "times" in charges (give or take a constant or two). The relation between 4-vector potential and 4-current is two differential orders. For Maxwell 4-potentials and 4-currents were different aspects of the same thing in exactly the same way that the magnetic flux and the magnetic field express the same fundamental quantity. I think Maxwell was right. Read his textbook!

 Since it is defined as a division between 2 4-vector elements one needs to look  at how the limit as one tends these to zero transforms. Martin and I have written a paper on this, but it has not yet found a home as no-one seems to have a scooby-snack what it is for.

3. Phat photons are theorized to have multiples of the E vector (N E for N = 1, 2, 3...) Does that mean renormalizing the E vector to fit relativistic limitations?

Do not think so. Just more overlapping field. I love these PHAT photons! These are so beautifully related to my and Martins explanation for the Pauli exclusion paper that I can scarcely wait to write the paper. This is one thing for which I am very glad that my pontifications of a few days ago were just completely wrong!

4. If spacetime were rotating at a very tiny level, then it might be possible that the permittivity is in the negative vacuum region thus permitting a higher value for the c-limit but only very locally.

The electric and magnetic field are precisely rotations ( as in the vector operator Rot!) of space-time objects in space-time. Just look at the maths in my paper! This is not a tiny rotation - it is the whole effect.

5. Dirac in his 1938 treatise on the electron made a very interesting comment about photons traversing the electron faster than expected.http://www.fisicateorica.me/repositorio/howto/artigoshistoricosordemcronologica/1938%20-%20Dirac%20-%20Classical%20theory%20of%20radiation%20electron.pdf

Interesting! Not looked yet but will now!

Yep. just read it. I love Dirac. Even when his starting position is so manifestly wrong it is wonderful following the arguments of his beautiful mind. I would re-cast his conclusions, however, to say that one absurdity (that of the point electron) when properly considered in the theory of radiation leads to another (that light must go faster than light in an electron). What do you reckon?

6. Renormalization is an issue (IMHO)

You could not be more correct! Dirac noted once that renormalisation of QFT wasunnecessary if one impose an arbitrary cutoff of half the reduced Compton wavelength (have lost the ref to this -help!). That cutoff is exactly the radius of the electron in Martin and my model of 1997. This is another paper waiting to happen - but after the base theory gets out.

7. Use 4-tensor, 4-vector, 4-momentum and 4-velocity.

I would call it a 6-tensor - but I know what you mean and I agree (and I do use these!).


David

John W.





From: Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

<!--#yiv4294863731 -- filtered {font-family:Helvetica;}#yiv4294863731 filtered {font-family:Calibri;}#yiv4294863731 filtered {font-family:Tahoma;}#yiv4294863731 filtered {font-family:Cambria;}#yiv4294863731 p.yiv4294863731MsoNormal, #yiv4294863731 li.yiv4294863731MsoNormal, #yiv4294863731 div.yiv4294863731MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4294863731 a:link, #yiv4294863731 span.yiv4294863731MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4294863731 a:visited, #yiv4294863731 span.yiv4294863731MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4294863731 p {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4294863731 p.yiv4294863731msochpdefault, #yiv4294863731 li.yiv4294863731msochpdefault, #yiv4294863731 div.yiv4294863731msochpdefault {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv4294863731 span.yiv4294863731emailstyle19 {color:black;}#yiv4294863731 span.yiv4294863731EmailStyle22 {color:black;}#yiv4294863731 .yiv4294863731MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv4294863731 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}-->#yiv4294863731 BODY {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv4294863731 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv4294863731 BODY {}#yiv4294863731 BODY {}#yiv4294863731 BODY {}#yiv4294863731 BODY {}#yiv4294863731 BODY {}#yiv4294863731 BODY {}#yiv4294863731 BODY {}#yiv4294863731 BODY {}#yiv4294863731 BODY {}Hi John W Thanks.  Agreeing, or debating with you is a pleasure.  It is thought stimulating.  Thank you. I know of course the normal interpretation of relativistic motion. This is to the point. But what I am also proposing is a potentially viable cause for relativity. Starting with theforward velocity of light, if we are made from light.  If this is the case, then light itself may not be subject to relativistic transformation, because light would be the cause for the transformations. I think that part of the reason the puzzles have been so difficult to solve, may be caused by ignoring the possibility that anything, anywhere, can travel faster than c, when we have experimental evidence for FTL tunneling which implies FTL fields. I think that we may be applying artificial constraints which nature does not actually apply, simply because of our lack of information and making generalizations based on partial information, and hallowed theories. I think it is also possible that we are applying constraints to light and photons which specifically do not apply in nature, because we are treating linearly propagating photons with a special type of relativistic transformation, when confinement and finite velocity, may be specifically the reasons for any relativistic transformations being required. I think it is possible that at the level of the linearly propagating photon, velocitiesare vectors, and must become transformed specifically for confined fields due to a finite limit for the velocity of fields in space. Looking for causes for what we observe leads me to believe that this may well be the way it is in nature. Why propose that we are made from light, and then ignore the possible implications? The specific form of the transformations is exactly the form they would take on if the velocity of light causes these transformations. Of course correlation does not prove causality, but it does indicate clearly where we might look to find causality. It may be that unless we are willing to review all reasonable possibilities regarding existing theory and nature, we may be stuck with the same sort of partial results currently extant.The theories themselves may be impeding progress. So yes, I am saying that it is possible that both relativity and QM are partial and incomplete, and each therefore, in a few ways, potentially inaccurate. I know that I may be viewed as being heretical when saying that relativity is a theory based on thought and observation, but not offering specific cause. Relativity does not provide a full definition, starting from first principals, for time, i.e. point out the cause for time as we sense and measure it, nor does it fully point out the cause for the velocity c, nor does it illustrate clearly the cause for the required transformations.  Thought experiments using mirrors in a moving frame rely on the speed of light to illustrate time dilation, but then seem to ignore the possibility that time, as we know and measure it, is actually created by the motion of light. So I am suggesting that your new field equations may be correct, but there is also another possibility where the “principle of absolute relativity” is not true, because it may not apply to light, and we would still need a complete set of field equations, if that were the case.  I too am getting older, and some of my math skills are a bit rusty or not yet up to the task, but I think it may be worth doing the work and review and offering that alternative.  I will definitely be slower at this sort of work than you are.  Your skills and insight are really quite inspiring.  Chip 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:07 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Nope,

The addition of velocities is scaled. If you subtract any velocity lower than c from c from c you still get c.

This is just standard relativity. Velocities do not add as normal vectors because velocities are not vectors.

Regards, John.From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 2:20 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] PhotonHi John W. Regarding: “Coming back to another point you raise – you suggest, Chip, that I should possibly try going to root two of c and then I’ll get my numbers to fit. Now, if I just wanted to get the numbers to fit this might be an option. I cannot allow myself to do this though. Why? Because light travels at c experimentally. This is not a floppy condition. It is not a parameter you can just vary with no consequence elsewhere.” I am not suggesting just picking a number to make things fit.  Photons travel forward at c, they also can have hbar spin. Momentum suggests motion of fields. So that the fields, if they are traveling forward at c, and spinning at c, must have a velocity which is higher than c.  Assuming that spin velocity is also c, yields a local field velocity of the square root of two times c. It seems that ignoring this would be a basic error.  Light would still travel at c, but it would be because fields travel at the square root of two times c. I don’t think we should say that photons have two components of motion and then proceed to ignore that statement when deriving the velocity of the fields in photons.  I think we need to understand the consequences that this implies elsewhere, and that is precisely the potential benefit. But if photons with hbar spin traveled forward at .707 c we could ignore this and assume that fields all travel at c. So by definition, if fields cannot travel faster than c locally, then photons cannot have spin. But perhaps I have missed something.  Can you explain how we can have a spin component of velocity, forward motion at c, and not have fields moving locally faster than c? I think that if you consider this (and a region of field interference at the center of the electron) you will see that the electron model can exhibit the exact elementary charge and magnetic moment observed experimentally. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 7:40 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Hi John, You say there is no charged photon theory, no differential equations… But what I am suggesting, based admittedly on preliminary research, is that quantum mechanics, including relativistic quantum theory and QED, may actually be charged photon theory. This is explored briefly in two articles: "The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation"  athttps://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation and "The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron, the de Broglie Wavelength, and a New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” at https://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics .  The charged photon may be in the background of quantum mechanics, previously unnoticed because the charged photon's currently measurable aspects are what we call the electron and the electron's interactions with the uncharged photon (and of course other particles). Even if the concept of the charged photon is just a novel way of trying to understand and interpret quantum mechanics, it may still be worth further exploration, based on the insights it has give so far, such as its ability to generate the electron's relativistic de Broglie wavelength in a simple way from the charged photon model, and to generate the quantum wave function of a free electron from the plane wave of a helically circulating charged photon.     Richard!"# %"&'(#)*+",-,. /,)#0 ,1 -"# 20#3-',. 45-6 -"# 73"'8)5.(#' 29:&-5,. 
That comes to the other problem. There is no charged photon theory. No differential equations describing its motion. It ends up just being a notion. A notion, effectively, of charged fields. Why not just make it a scalar charge? That is already complex enough. The theory for this was explored, for example, by Dirac himself in the fifties. It did not lead anywhere (yet, at least).
 
On May 30, 2015, at 8:31 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote: Good morning everyone,

Firstly - yes indeed I do not think I have it precisely right in the paper I have circulated yet. I am not in the habit of being completely right first-time every time! I'm actually quite pleased about that - otherwise where would be the fun? I have certainly not explained myself well enough yet. Martin has, already, done a better job than me, on the nature of the photon, in his comment yesterday.Secondly, though, I do not agree with Chip that it ok to put photons on top of one another, or with Richard that the solution is to think about charged photons.

The problem is description - and language is such an imprecise tool - words carry far too much weight yet you need to use them. More, if one is going to properly describe nature in a theory – you need the actual theory – not just vague notions that address a single problem. For me the phrase “charged photon”, for example, is an oxymoron. The photon is for me, by its nature an uncharged and rest-massless thing. If it has charge it has rest-mass. If it has rest-mass it is not a photon. This is my problem though: I do not own the word “photon”.

Having a word for "photon" means that one is tempted to think that it is a thing. I say it and mean something – most of you hear something else (except Martin – he and I are pretty close on this and I agree with his description). For most, the concept separates it from the complete process of charge-charge exchange of a quantum of energy - which is actually what is going on, and what is actually observed. So, when I say the photon is self-quantised I am not talking about a little self-contained quantized EM bullet being emitted independent of its emitter or absorber. One must include the properties of emitter and absorber as well - these are essential to the quantisation and it is from these that one calculates the (mere) value of the charge and Plank's constant. It is, as I argue, the properties of the emission-absorption process which give the quantisation. It is the initial configuration of the fields, engendered in the emitter that must modulate the carrier to a pure zero-rest mass configuration in order to propagate. The initial fields in the emitter must fulfil strict criteria – corresponding exactly to those observed physically. They may only transform with the same factor as does the frequency (this is just normal relativity – not an extra condition). Fields transform, however, only perpendicular to the boost, whereas the 4-vector transforms only parallel to it. Again, just the standard relativity of fields and vectors. If the fields are right, then they can be transported by a hypercomplex exponential which normally contains rest-mass components and cannot itself propagate. It remains at rest at the site of the emitter (though it may recoil a bit). I think the reason I am getting the wrong value for the constant of Plank is nothing to do with the velocities I’m using but comes about because I am assuming at first that the usual emitter is an electron – when in fact it is usually an atom. Isolated electrons cannot emit. I need now to brush up on atomic physics, Next job. Next paper – hopefully.

No matter. The argument in the paper I have already posted is precisely that electromagnetism remains continuous and un-quantised. The point is that - for a long distance exchange of electromagnetic energy ONLY states which have certain properties may propagate. Chief amongst those properties (for the wave-function proposed) is that constrained by this form, electromagnetic energy, propagated over a distance in space, must come in "lumps". The wave-function proposed supports ONLY a change in frequency. That is the wave-function I propose works if, and only if, the energy transferred is proportional to the frequency. This is what is new about it. It only "works" if the light comes in lumps. It only propagates strongly constrained fields. This is not to say that electromagnetism itself is quantised - it is not. It remains free to chirp and stretch and polarise freely as Martin explains. It describes only non-interacting waves NIW, as Chandra argues. Most of the physics is still just classical electromagnetism. Chandra is mostly right (in my view). Read his papers! The inter-action is not between photons, it is between charges. Photons are the bit that do not inter-act. This is what NIW means.The new theory allows (actually it requires) the description of continuous waves, locally. They just do not propagate over long distances (even a few wavelengths!) because that is excluded at the level of the first turn (the first differential).  It is the whole process that exhibits the quantisation – just as Martin says. It is just that if light wants to go anywhere it, necessarily, starts looking a lot like a photon. Richard is right to separate out the different levels of quantisation as well. It is not one thing, but the separation of the continuous into integer units of various dimension. There is not one “quantisation” in nature, but many. The new theory pertains only the process usually called photon exchange. The quantisation I am talking about here is the quantisation of EM into "photons".

Now, coming onto that process and that argument, you say, Chip, that it should be perfectly possible to put two photons precisely on top of one another so that they add linearly. 1+1=2. Yes – but no. Such an object is and has to be an object with a different frequency. That is the point. This comes to the heart of the matter and the heart of the reason I argue the whole process should come in lumps defined by the frequency alone.  If it were so that one could put two photons on top of one another, one would observe the two "photons" to be emitted at precisely the same time in the same emission event, and absorbed at precisely the same time and place in the absorption event. That is one would propagate two red (say) photons and get a blue's worth of energy in the exchange event now involving two photons. Now you may want this to be so, it may feel like a nice friendly thing photons (which are after all bosons) should be able to do. Only problem is that such a notion is in contradiction with what is observed experimentally. One could put a diffraction grating between source and detector, for example, such that the photons appeared in different places according to their frequency. Place the detector at the "red" position. No signal. No di-photon events with the characteristics of red photons. Where are they? Try going to the blue position. There they are! Appearing as one lump of energy one at a time. They do have the doubled energy one would expect from 1+1= 2 – but they do not – experimentally- have the same wavelength, or frequency. You get only blue ones. This is what you observe and what has been observed all along in experiment since the photo-electric effect. In your thinking you must be rigorous enough to bear this in mind. What is observed in experiment is what your theory must parallel. Otherwise it is just fantasy (fantasy is good!). To be proper physics, though, it must not just describe what does happen. It must also say why what is observed NOT to happen does not happen.  Too many of the current batch of theories do describe a wee bit of nature, but also predict vast slews of phenomena that just don’t happen. Not good! This may have become fashionable in the last half-century or so. It is certainly convenient for some theories as it means they cannot easily be toppled by pesky experiment which would otherwise wipe most of them out. People have become used to theory predicting lots of things that do not happen. This is not good enough for proper progress. These theories cannot be used for engineering applications. One would predict lots of things to work that would not. We need precision and rigour. This is why I appreciate criticism so much. Thanks Chip! It helps us all get to the point.The ultimate "reason" for the quantisation of the compete solution I have made up in the paper is exactly the two conditions that energies should add AND that fields should add LINEARLY.  This is what the new wave-functions do.It feels that one should have freedom of thought (and one does!), but for thinking to parallel the physical world it must be constrained, not by one thinks about nature, but by what one observes it to do. It must fit experiment. All of it. In other words to parallel nature it must fit the whole of your physical understanding - all at once. This is very strongly constrained thinking. Worse- not all of us know all of experiment all at once (especially me!).Coming back to another point you raise – you suggest, Chip, that I should possibly try going to  root two of c  and then I’ll get my numbers to fit. Now, if I just wanted to get the numbers to fit this might be an option. I cannot allow myself to do this though. Why? Because light travels at c. Experimentally. This is not a floppy condition. It is not a parameter you can just vary with no consequence elsewhere. It is fun to think about it – but in doing so one moves away from the whole constraint of the whole of physics I talked about above. One goes out in a soft, friendly, mushy area of thinking where all things are possible. One goes out in the world of untamed imagination. Great! There is plenty of room for that. I love fiction! Physics is now so complicated, however, that such thinking will rapidly move away from that which is observed in very many areas. One is in a world without proper signposts or fixed points. This is a very similar world to the world of string, or the world of QCD where nothing is well-defined. One is already lost.Coming back to Richard’s point of the charged photon. Again one is going into the mushy – into the mist. Give the photon an intrinsic charge. Why not?  The answer is, not only that charge is a divergence inconsistent with light-speed motion as I argued earlier, (not a problem if one has a floppy light velocity though – such photons would be, necessarily, not composed of field and be sub-light speed), but that it is a mushy continuous charge thing. One should observe all sorts of charges. One does not. One sees charges only associated with “particles”. A charged photon should not close, but should repel itself. One causes far more problems with the conjecture than one solves. The theory must not only explain what is observed, but also why other things are NOT observed.That comes to the other problem. There is no charged photon theory. No differential equations describing its motion. It ends up just being a notion. A notion, effectively, of charged fields. Why not just make it a scalar charge? That is already complex enough. The theory for this was explored, for example, by Dirac himself in the fifties. It did not lead anywhere (yet, at least).Now coming back to Dirac and his (much earlier) linear relativistic theory. Dirac, in his relativistic quantum mechanics, does indeed integrate his linear equation and derives a motion consisting of a quickly oscillating lightspeed part, the zitterbewegung and an overall motion characterised by the normal energy as a half m v squared part.  Very beautiful. He does not get them separately – they are the first two terms in an expansion. Incidentally this also gets the de-Broglie wavelength right, with a doubled Compton frequency nota bene. The factor of two comes out. It is not put in a-priori. This is what happens in a proper relativistic linear theory. So what is the problem, why do we not just pack up go home and go fishing?  Job done. Two reasons: firstly the zitterbewegung fluid in the Dirac model is not fields but some stuff with peculiar properties defined by the new theory: Spinors. These have the peculiar property that you must rotate through 720 degrees to get back to where you started from. This is good in itself – and goes a long way to describing the fundamental difference between fermions and bosons. It is certainly a big element of the truth. Understanding these objects properly, however, has proved beyond the wit of generations of physicists (if they are honest) – including Dirac himself and Feymann- both of whom were bright and brave enough to simply say so. Dirac does so, for example, in his own book, directly after deriving the base solutions. Good man. Others waffle – or put the problem into simple two-valued groups such as SU(2). Stick it into simple maths and forget about it. Make it an inviolable starting point of further theory. Bit wimpy – but safe! Moving spinors – even slowly moving spinors start mixing with each other. They are not a relativistically invariant basis. Big problem!I think the base problem with the Dirac model is that it is still too simple – and I think that the point where Dirac goes wrong is when he makes two different identifications with the same thing. This messes everything up and leads to, not only solutions, but also basic dynamical terms “being difficult to interpret because they are complex” - as Dirac says. Where this comes from is that he has used, unwittingly, the same square root of minus one for two conceptually different things. Complex indeed, but not complex enough. And mixed up at that.Coming back to a more advanced theory: one has to explain why and how charges arise in a pair-creation process. To do this one has to understand field properly (at least as the six components of an antisymettric tensor – but tensor algebra does not go far enough (yet) either).  One needs to get going with a proper field theory – not just with a loosely based model. If you are going to charge a photon this cannot be ad-hoc. Are you charging the electric field part or the magnetic field part, for example. Are you adding a 4-vector (charge is the first component of the 4-current) to the six-vector? Just what is it, exactly, that you are proposing? How do you propose to modify the undelying theory to accommodate your conjecture?For me, the charge comes about more from, as Chip and John D are arguing, from a topological re-configuration of the field such that it is everywhere radial in a double looped configuration. The photon has field. The field is rectified by the twist and the turn. The confinement leads then to a confined object appearing to be (and actually being) charged.The turn itself – essential to the re-configuration of the field, is engendered in my model not by a charge, but by a dynamical scalar rest-mass term in conjunction with the electric component of the field. This is a seventh component in addition to the six components of the EM field. You may also see it as an element of energy. I agree with you partially here, that this is fundamental stuff – but so is field and field is different. It is not a scalar.The resulting composite object is fermionic in that it a double-turn –a fundamental fermion. It is charged in that it can inter-act and exchange energy. In isolation, it exhibits a radial electric field – as does a charge. Why would you need to complicate things by wanting the poor photon to be charged as well? You do not need it! How are you ever going to calculate the charge from first principles when you put a random amount of it in to begin with? You are going to get the charge of the photon, plus or minus the charge engendered by the topology and the confinement. Why? I think at this point one is doubly lost. One has had to give up the idea that EM propagates at lightspeed and one has also arbitrarily assigned a charge to an imagined “charged photon” – an object which is not observed in the real world. Further, one has lost the possibility of a theory to work with as there is no theory of the charged photon with equations like the Maxwell equations, or the Schroedinger equation, or the Dirac equation. One is then triply lost.Now, coming back to numbers, let us say that I did want Martin and my old model to get the charge exactly right (for example). There is a simple way to do this without too much fuss and without varying the lightspeed or introducing a charge to the photon. Just allow the ratio of the minor to the major axes of the torus to vary. If zero – one gets the charge slightly less than q. A bit more – hey presto- just right. More still … one can wind it up to about 20 times the charge observed. Why is this not a result? Why does this not fix the ratio of minor to major.  Well – for example could vary all sorts of other things – why not flatten it slightly? Why not put it in a cubical box (this value is then damn close –less than a percent!). Why not stick a hole in it – like a spindle? Why not make it pear-shaped (this is not as daft as it sounds and may end up being the answer!).Yes – you can do anything in your mind. The problem is that process is futile unless one has a proper theory, or some experiment which can distinguish these things. Now, clearly, I’m hoping that the new theory I propose may, ultimately, provide the answer. My second choice would be that the extension of the Bateman method, which Martin is pursuing, does the trick.  Maybe these will converge or merge with some other thinking in the group (even better!). Perhaps we will find some seminal experiment which fixes some aspect of it. Perhaps the experiment has already been done and one or other of you know about it.There is a lot of work between where I am now and there though, and perhaps not enough life and energy left in me to pursue it as much as I would like, (squished as I am by a pile of exams – though the marking is now nearly finished). The work to come requires developing a canon of work similar to that produced by dozens of the greats in non-relativistic quantum mechanics in the 1930’s – except the base equations are much more complicated than the simple Schroedinger equation. We have equations, but we need to find solutions to the equations.  Plenty of work to do!  I’m hoping to convince a few folk with enough talent and energy to start getting stuck in to this programme. The process can, and probably will, throw up problems with the original conception and formulation. I agree here with Chip!  No problem! If it is wrong – modify it or throw it out and make up a new one. That is the proper application of the scientific method.Anyway this has turned into too much of an opus. Though it was started in the morning it is now afternoon and time for me to go and get on with some proper work. Marking awaits!Bye for now,John W.From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 2:59 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] PhotonJohn and Martin,  Thanks for your encouragement. The electron is a photon going round and round in the case of a resting electron, otherwise it is a photon going round and round and forward in some kind of helical motion, in which case it is not a standing field in this reference frame. Whether or not the charge of a charged photon moves at the speed of light depends on the particular model of the photon that one has. The relativistic charged-photon/electron model does not require a particular photon model.The charge that is detected, like the electron mass that is detected, may be moving at sub-light speed. Mass is not more fundamental than energy, and is proposed to be composed of light-speed energy in the case of the electron.   Richard 
On May 30, 2015, at 5:03 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: Can anyone clearly explain why a charged photon of spin 1/2 hbar and rest mass 0.511MeV/c^2 is not the missing link between the uncharged photon and the electron? Yes, I can. The electron is a 511keV photon going round and round. It’s a charged particle because it’s a photon going round and round.  The photon moving linearly is a field variation, but when it’s going round and round, it’s a standing field. That’s why it has mass too.  It’s like the photon In a box . Only it’s a box of its own making. Light displaces its own path into a closed path, because light is displacement current. And it does what it says on the can. Because space waves.   RegardsJohn D PS: Counter-rotating vortices repel, co-rotating vortices attract, see On Vortex Particles by David St John. They ain’t called spinors for nothing!  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 29 May 2015 23:47
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Richard, yes, thank you.That is indeed a very good remark, you are probably very right.
Let me think about it a bit more,Best,Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 29 mei 2015 om 21:45 heeft Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Chip, John and Martin,    I think you gentlemen are onto something. A photon has three related levels of quantization (E=hf, p=h/lambda and spin = hbar) — perhaps only the third is truly quantized in the sense of having a discrete value. An electron has two more levels of discrete quantization (charge and rest mass) which may be closely related to its spin 1/2 hbar. The electron’s charge may be closely related to its spin hbar/2 in the case of the electron, but not the case of the neutrino). An electron gains further levels of discrete quantization (its energy eigenvalues) by being bound in an atom. The more discrete quantum levels a quantum has, the more it is “bound” to a material condition.  Can anyone clearly explain why a charged photon of spin 1/2 hbar and rest mass 0.511MeV/c^2 is not the missing link between the uncharged photon and the electron?     Richard 
On May 29, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Hi Martin With your experience and depth of understanding regarding photons, and the evidence, I am of course inclined to agree with you regarding the nature of photons. Regarding: “How and why that works the same for radio waves and gamma rays, is a mystery. Well this bit is my personal opinion, of course.” There is perhaps a difference between the interactions we observe when using longer wavelength radio waves as compared to the particle-sized gamma rays.  The radio waves are a source of field influence which can cause electron drift, just as a DC field can move electrons, but at the scale of the electron, or even the electron’s “orbit” in an atom, the frequency of the radio wave is far less “important” than the frequency of a gamma ray would be.  The resonances of the particle would be less likely to be significantly influenced by the radio wave, but the radio wave would still exert a force on the electron. Radio waves are generally detected by measuring the movement of electrons in conductive materials where the electrons in the materials are fairly easy to move. It seems likely that it takes at least the motion of one electron in the transmitting antenna to induce any motion of an electron in a receiving antenna, assuming the same configuration of transmitter and receiver antennae. But the incident field on the receiving antenna may not be an integral value of “photon energy”.  Is this why you refer to a “continuum wave”?  Because the absorber only uses what is can use of the available energy? So that a photon may actually contain more energy than is absorbed in an interaction? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:42 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Dear Chip,
now you are really getting there for sure, those questions and statements are at the right level to begin with. But your kind of understanding certainly converges with my ideas.That me be good or bad, but I would judge it as good. ;-)See for extra comments below…Cheers, Martin Dr. Martin B. van der MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +31 40 2747548 From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: vrijdag 29 mei 2015 15:45
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Photon H John W Thank you.  One reason for asking the question and pursuing the thought process, was to try to further illustrate the lack of any explanation so far which supports the strict self-quantization of photons. This has been leading me to think that the source for quantization is the spin ½ configuration of fermions. (Which would act as quantizers both while emitting and absorbing). If this is true then it means that, for a photon, E=hv only holds true because of the emitter and absorber.  MvdM: This may be exactly right. Regarding the uncertainty principle:If we take a single point snapshot of a sinusoidal function we are very uncertain about its frequency, the more time we spend sampling the wave the more certain we become of its frequency. Now if we are using sinusoidal waves to create particles, many of the properties of the particles will be uncertain with our measurements, because the measurements we can take disturb the system, and are only valid for brief times or spaces before the information is no longer valid, due to measurement. Because when we set up a measurement, we create conditions where discrete waves and fields will interact, creating an energy exchange which occurs in a very finite timeframe, disturbing completely what we are measuring. This correlation to the uncertainty principle is one of the reasons that I feel fields and waves are the best candidate for the fundamental makeup of particles. Fields and waves in these configurations naturally create an uncertainty in measurement which correlates exactly with the observed, understood, and measured uncertainties.  The hydrogen atom is such a nice tool for modeling and understanding these issues. MvdM: yes and this kind of uncertainty is given by what is called the Fourier limit amended with hbar Of course the use of the word orbit to describe the electron’s state in an atom is too ambiguous to actually describe its state.  The electron exists in a space surrounding the nucleus, and spins about it, but it’s more like the electron surrounds the nucleus and less like an orbit. MvdM: true, and this is why detailed orbital calculations in a photon model for the electron are totally futile; only a real theory will tell. So what I am getting to is that the different “spin modes” of the photon and the electron are significant.  I think the photon has what we may call a symmetric field spin mode, where it spins about the point between the positive and negative field lines, making it charge neutral. But the electron’s principal spin is a non-symmetrical field spin mode, with the point between the positive and negative fields displaced from the spin axis, giving it charge.  Apparently this has other important effects as well.  It seems this spin mode allows the electron to be quantized based on energy density, unlike the photon. The underlying reason I am asking these questions is related to the formulation for field equations.  There seems to be a difference between the behavior of the fields in the photon and the quantization behavior of the fields in fermions.  The spin configuration seems to be the cause for the forces which create quantization. MvdM: Yes and the reason is that the electron needs binding forces and nonlinearity, the “free” photon doesn’t But back to the photon:  Since the photon cannot be quantized by its internal energy density, does it spin due to the spin angular momentum imparted by the emitter? Is the photon actually not internally quantized at all? That is to say, is there no inherent mechanism within the photon itself which imposed a specific quantization? Is the relationship E=hv imposed only at the emission or absorption? And therefore can we create photons without spin? Or can we create photons where E=hv is not true? And are photons really particles at all, or are they just waves, which seem like particles because of their interaction with the quantization of emitters and absorbers. MvdM: Good questions, I go for waves. The photon is merely a quantum of energy that is taken up by the absorber from a continuum wave. It is not a particle by it self, and doen’t need to have the machinery on-board to keep itself together or be quantized or what. It is just a Maxwell wave. But this Maxwell wave can only be emitted and absorbed according to the rules of (boundary conditions imposed by) emitter and absorber. How and why that works the same for radio waves and gamma rays, is a mystery. Well this bit is my personal opinion, of course. While we could view many of the question as rhetorical it seems that we may need to understand and answer them as literal.  Chandra, Martin, All? Chip  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:29 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Hi Chip and everyone,

Good thought but no- quantisation cannot be dependent on energy density. This is what experiment tells you - and is the beauty of experiment. Experimentally photons can have any wave-train length. The photon energy, however, is related to its frequency alone. Photons from a source have a well-defined energy only if they are pretty long (this is a consequence of the uncertainty principle). There are lots of people in the group (Martin and Chandra for two) - who know lots more about this than I do and some who perform experiments interfering, stretching and bending light.

Any proper theory needs to describe experiment - all of it - not just the bits we may happen to know about!

Regards, JohnFrom: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:51 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] PhotonHi John W and All While looking at quantization which may be caused by a twist term included with Maxwell’s equations, at least one puzzle remains unanswered for me.  The nature of photons is still a bit difficult to understand.  It is much easier to envision a photon of a single wavelength than a photon which is many wavelengths. If energy density is the cause for quantization (spin and frequency) it is more difficult to see how that can be so, if a photon may have an arbitrary number of cycles, but have its energy density spread out over all cycles.  What do you think the likelihood is that not only frequency but also the number of cycles in a photon is quantized?  If this is the case then we could still understand how the correct spin would result from energy density for each cycle. But then we would have to also address the energy density to twist relationship for single wavelength structures like the electron models we have been creating.??? It seems evident that quantization for frequency is dependent upon energy, and I assumed it was therefore due to energy density. Which works nicely for single wavelength photons. Experiment seems to indicate that we can create photons, using various methods, which have an arbitrary number of wavelengths. How can we physically correlate this to photon frequency quantization, when the energy density of the photon has been spread out over many cycles? Is there some apparently “non-local” mechanism which couples the energy of all cycles in a single photon, and therefore helps to retain the E=hv relationship? Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:46 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Hello,

Briefly - yes pi mesons are real particles. They leave nice long traces in cloud or bubble chambers. The rho is equally real.

Gluons have never been observed directly. The W and Z are sufficiently short-lived that they are observed as  so-called resonances.

Regards, John.From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:21 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron TorusJohn D,    And according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle , the pi meson and rho meson are virtual particles for proton-neutron attraction in nuclei, as are the W and Z bosons for the weak nuclear force.  Are gluons, pi mesons and W and Z particles ever real? 
On May 24, 2015, at 8:58 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: Richard: See the Wikipedia gluon article, note the bit that says as opposed to virtual ones found in ordinary hadrons. The gluons in a proton are virtual. As in not real. And LOL, perhaps the same is true of the quarks!  RegardsJohn D  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: 24 May 2015 16:12
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Chip, Martin, John D and others,   I suspect that the fundamental quantities of both spacetime and particles/fields are frequency (directly proportional to the energy of a particle and inversely proportional to time) and wavelength (inversely proportional to the  momentum of a particle and directly proportional to space). Spin is related to energy-momentum topology. Electric charge seems related to topology.  Particles with rest mass are composed of charged photons and related speed-of-light particles like charged gluons (normal gluons are electrically uncharged but have color charge while quarks have both electrical charge and color charge.) And I suspect that the energy quantum (composing both speed-of-light particles and rest-mass particles) is the unifying link between spacetime and particles/fields (and therefore quantum mechanics/QED/QCD/quantum gravity) and may be the precursor as well as the sustainer of both.     Richard 
On May 24, 2015, at 7:06 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote: John D, I fully agree with your reply to Chip, thanks for the details!Please join us at the bar;-)Cheers three!Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 24 mei 2015 om 15:56 heeft John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> het volgende geschreven:
Chip: I’m blue, you’re black: As all of you know, after Relativity was introduced and adopted, the popular belief for a while, was that space was empty, and that a media of space was not required.  Now however it seems that most physicists have accepted that space is a media, with quantum attributes, and some level of energy density.  That popular belief was a cargo-cult false belief, because Einstein made it clear in his 1920  Leyden Address that space was the “aether” of general relativity. He made it clear that space was not some emptiness, but instead was a thing that is “conditioned” by a massive body such as a star. If space is a media, what would we perceive which is different from space being empty? That popular belief was a cargo-cult belief, because Einstein made it clear in his 1920  Leyden Address that space was the “aether” of general relativity, and space was not empty. Some would say there is no perceptible difference. But is that precisely true? No. Like Einstein said in 1929, a field is a state of space. If space is a media, it implies a preferred reference frame in space.  This is an item which would be difficult, or perhaps impossible to detect, but for one item. If space is a media with a preferred reference frame, then clocks in that reference frame would be the fastest clocks possible in the universe.  There’s also the CMB reference frame. It’s preferred in that it tells you your speed through the universe. And whilst it isn’t an absolute frame in the strict sense, the universe is as absolute as it gets. One thing which would alter the ability to test this is a gross frame dragging of space around massive bodies or concentrations of mass. See the asymmetric Kerr metric as a source of CP violation. It’s to do with galactic frame-dragging. If space is a media, and if frame dragging does occur It’s a popscience myth that it isn’t a medium, electromagnetic waves do not propagate because an electric wave creates a magnetic wave and vice versa. I’m confident that frame dragging does occur, and that the electron electromagnetic field is a fierce example of it. A definition of TIME is the underlying objective of this line of questions.  For I see two possibilities, one is that time is an inherent property of space and, as the current relativity teaches, a fourth dimension in our “spacetime”.  The other is that time is simply the rate at which particles can interact, caused by the fact that fields can only propagate at a finite velocity, and that we are made of particles which are circularly confined fields. I feel the first explanation is less likely because it does not show cause, it does not tell us why time is part of space, just that it is.  The second explanation is the one I currently prefer because it is a simple consequence of the nature of space and particles, it shows cause. I prefer it too, and so did Einstein. See Time Explained and A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein.  Is time truly a fourth dimension at the lowest level of analysis of space? No. We live in a world of space and motion. Our time dimension is derived from motion. It’s a dimension in the sense of measure, not in the sense of freedom of motion.  RegardsJohn D From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 24 May 2015 14:24
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Hi All We are working on the foundations of physics.  Studying and trying to decipher the result of experiment in a causal manner. As we do that it keeps bringing me back to the nature of space itself.  John M has made some good points about starting from the makeup of space and working our way up from there.  John D has communicated a solid and basic approach to many of the issues.  Many of us have proposed models, field formulations, and a host of other possible explanations for what we observe. As we reflect on what we have done and what we still need to do, there are some things which may still need to be addressed and answered before we can make progress in certain areas. For example, the nature of space and time, are fundamental to understanding physics.  Some of us feel we have a reasonable handle on this, and it is a very basic part of what we are doing, but I am thinking that we do not yet have it quite right. For the endeavor we have undertaken, I think close is not good enough. First I want to state clearly that I do not yet propose to have the answers to the nature of space, all I have is conjecture so far. As all of you know, after Relativity was introduced and adopted, the popular belief for a while, was that space was empty, and that a media of space was not required.  Now however it seems that most physicists have accepted that space is a media, with quantum attributes, and some level of energy density. However many of the subtle suggestions engendered during that time when it was perceived that space was empty, and much of the “foundation” of relativity is still based on there being no media which constitutes space. If space is a media, what would we perceive which is different from space being empty? Some would say there is no perceptible difference. But is that precisely true? If space is a media, it implies a preferred reference frame in space.  This is an item which would be difficult, or perhaps impossible to detect, but for one item.If space is a media with a preferred reference frame, then clocks in that reference frame would be the fastest clocks possible in the universe.  All clocks in all other inertial frames would be slower. One thing which would alter the ability to test this is a gross frame dragging of space around massive bodies or concentrations of mass. It seems that relativity has been tested with regards to the slowing of clocks with relative velocity to a precision of about 1.6% to 10% depending on which experiments you prefer. But of course these tests are at low relative velocities and only represent a narrow prat of the spectrum of tests which would be required to absolutely validate the entire curve. And an error of 1.6% is still a substantial error for this type of validation. If space is a media, and if frame dragging does occur, again it would be difficult to verify the existence of the media using clocks, depending on how much frame dragging there is. If space is a media, how can we calculate the frame dragging and quantify it? A definition of TIME is the underlying objective of this line of questions.  For I see two possibilities, one is that time is an inherent property of space and, as the current relativity teaches, a fourth dimension in our “spacetime”.  The other is that time is simply the rate at which particles can interact, caused by the fact that fields can only propagate at a finite velocity, and that we are made of particles which are circularly confined fields. I feel the first explanation is less likely because it does not show cause, it does not tell us why time is part of space, just that it is.  The second explanation is the one I currently prefer because it is a simple consequence of the nature of space and particles, it shows cause. One thing I think we must remember as we construct a physical model is that we are dealing with the fundamentals and foundations, the building blocks so to speak, and in that endeavor we will probably find instances where a phenomenon like the definition of time, or the definition of charge, or the definition of spin, is not the same at the micro level as it is at our macro observable level. If we do our job well we will discover the causes and sources of many of these types of phenomena. At levels below the causal level for any of these phenomena, the macro rules no longer apply in full. After saying that, a question would naturally arise, if time as we measure it is merely the result of the interaction of particles, how and when do we incorporate the dimension of time in our calculations? Is the development of time at such a low level that we should include it in all calculations, just as relativity teaches? Or does time come into play only at the particle level, and the finite velocity of light predominates at lower levels? Is time truly a fourth dimension at the lowest level of analysis of space? Or does it just appear to be that way from our perspectives due to the nature of our particulate construction and measurements? Any and all opinion and argument is eagerly appreciated. If you could please let me know your take on this and the reasons you feel that way I will be grateful. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:02 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Hello Chip,

Have been meaning to say for some time: you are producing some beautiful models.

Would be good to talk at some stage.

Regards. John (W)From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:59 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron TorusHi Richard Sorry I was modeling what I though was the spin 1 photon model of the electron.This is what I perceive to be your spin ½ photon model of the electron to be with velocity.  Same velocity steps as before. Nested set of models, <image001.png> Slow trajectory lines, purple, faster trajectory lines tending toward green. Here is the code for the electron’s reference frame for the above graphic:X(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc);Y(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc);Z(ii)=(Roc/y)*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc); Note: there is still a very small electron model (with velocity 0.9988c) at the center of this graphic. In this model the contraction is in all directions, not just longitudinally.  I think this is correct, but it does not agree with some interpretations of relativity.  It is also difficult to see how this model, without spiral fields, would look the same to a moving observer when the electron is “at rest”.  And the model is of course not really spherical.Does this match your results?Can you share the graphics model you have done? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:31 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus John D., Chip and Andrew,    Isn’t it the case that in standard physics (experimentally confirmed) the measured spin of an electron is relative to the motion of the observer of the electron, just as the observed momentum of an electron is relative to the motion of the observer of the electron? If an observer moving west to east with a relativistic velocity v1  passes a “stationary” electron (in some reference frame) , the electron has an observed momentum (when it measured) going west, and a spin either up or down (when it is measured) in the east-west direction  and a de Broglie wavelength corresponding to the relative velocity v1, while when an observer moving relativistically south to north with velocity v2 passes a “stationary" electron , the electron has an observed momentum (when it is measured) going south, a spin that is up or down (when it is measured) in the north-south direction, and a de Broglie wavelength corresponding to its relative velocity v2. (In QM,  velocity, spin and de Broglie wavelength probably can’t all be measured at the same time).  The relativistic energy-momentum equation for the electron E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 applies to the electron described above when observed by two observers with two different relativistic velocities compared to the electron. I showed in my article “the electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength” that the same relativistic energy-momentum equation applies to a helically moving double-looping photon that may compose an electron, where E is the energy of the photon (the same as the total energy of the electron composed by the photon), p is the longitudinal momentum of the helically moving photon (the same as the momentum p of the electron being modeled), E/c is the total momentum of the photon along its helical path, and mc is the transverse momentum of the helically moving photon, which contributes to the electron’s spin up or spin down value hbar/2 in the case of a slow moving electron (modeled by the double-looping photon). So every electron observed to have a momentum p will in this view also have a spin hbar/2 up or down in the direction of its momentum.  Also, when a photon is Doppler shifted-due to relative motion of the light source away from or towards the observer, the observed wavelength of the photon is lengthened or shortened accordingly. Doesn’t this imply that the length of the whole photon (if it consists of a certain number of wavelengths) is also lengthened or shortened accordingly? Richard 
On May 22, 2015, at 12:06 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: David: Why don’t photons get length contracted? Because they’re just waves in space moving at the speed of waves in space. A ripple in a rubber mat doesn’t get length contracted, nor do waves in space. Then when you make those waves go round and round, they still don’t get length-contracted. Then when you move past them fast, they still don’t get length contracted. You might say the path of those waves is different, but it isn’t, they didn’t change, you did. And if you boil yourself down to a single electron, and boil that down to a ring, then draw circles and helixes, I think it gets to the bottom of things.  Chip: Yes, I’m certain relative velocity is a determining factor.  But note that “we” are made of electrons and things, so IMHO it’s best to start with two particles, such as the electron and the positron. If you set them down with no initial relative motion they move linearly together, and we talk of electric force.   <image005.jpg>However if you threw the postiron over the top of the electron they’d move together and go around one another, whereupon we talk of magnetic force. Note that this is relative velocity, not relativistic velocity. I’ve seen people explain the magnetic field around the current-in-the-wire using length contraction, but IMHO that’s a fairy tale, and I prefer a “screw” answer.    RegardsJohn D From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 21 May 2015 21:39
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Hi John D Regarding…Sorry, I don’t think that can be right because you could go past an electron at .9988c. Yes, I am coming to think that maybe the spiral fields caused by limited field propagation velocity, might play a larger role than I had first considered.I think Martin was onto this aspect already.Wondering if relative velocity is a factor in determining what portion of the spiral field we detect or interact with? And if so, how that might work. <image006.png> The earlier electron model graphics are created from the math that Richard developed for his spin ½ electron. Chip    From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:15 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Chip: Sorry, I don’t think that can be right because you could go past an electron at .9988c. Andrew: Photons don’t get length contracted, and electrons are made out of photons in pair production. If you simplify the electron to a photon going round in a circle, then take one point on the circumference, you would say it describes a circular path. But when you move past the electron fast, you would say that point was describing a helical path. Then when you consider all points of the circumference, you might say the electron was a cylinder rather than a circle. And if you were that electron, everything to you would look length-contracted, because you’re smeared out. If I was a motionless  electron you’d say I was length contracted. But I might say I was the one moving, and that you’re length-contracted.   RegardsJohn From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 21 May 2015 17:52
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Hi Andrew Images from the electron’s reference frame. For Richard’s model using the spin 1 photon, and drawing in the electron’s reference frame, his math produces the following image for a set of nested electron models with velocities up to 0.9988c.<image007.png> The small grey sphere in the center is the electron model for 0.9988c.  So in this model the electron shrinks in all directions, but remains principally spherical when viewed from the electron’s reference frame. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:15 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Dear Chip,I learn something new every time. However, it may not be true.If I interpret your images properly, the fastest electrons are the longest. However, relativistic shortening should shrink the length. I had expected the electron to 'pancake' in the direction of motion. You show the opposite. Is the pancake only in the electron's frame and the appearance from our frame is one of an extended structure? If both, do they cancel and, in reality, it is still spherical?Andrew On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Richard So it is a bit more difficult to visualize exactly what is going on from the graphics with velocity. We increase the velocity is in steps from zero through 0.9988c. From the Z axis the illustration looks like:<image008.jpg> Showing the reduced radius with velocity. But when we look at the model slightly off axis (Z axis) we see this: <image009.jpg> So this is a set of nested electron models with different velocities, each starting from the same point (upper right of the illustration). These are drawn from an external observers frame and are not shown in the electron’s reference frame.  In the electron’s reference frame we would see closure to the trajectory, but in this reference frame, the trajectory (since it is moving) is not closed. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:29 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Chip,   Please correct a couple of typos in my last email. The TEQ (transluminal energy quantum) moves on the surface of a torus, not a helix. Also the first helical radius mentioned should have been Ro sqrt(2) = 1.414 Ro , not Ro sqrt(2)/2 = 1.414 Ro since sort(2)/2 = 0.707 not 1.414 .  Thanks.    Richard 
On May 20, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote: Chip,     Nice graphics!     Shouldn’t the electric field lines of an electron at some distance from the electron model be pointing inward linearly towards the electron from infinity on all sides, since the electron's electric field (due to its electric charge) falls off as 1/r^2 . I don’t understand why the electric field lines appear closed in your diagrams.     In my original resting electron model the TEQ was a circulating negative electric charge which circulated on the surface of a helix. I called the circulating TEQ a photon-like object since it was similar to my TEQ model of a photon.  I was assuming at that time that the photon in my resting electron model had spin 1, even though I had adjusted the helical radius so that the circulating TEQ generated the magnetic moment of the electron of 1 Bohr magneton, requiring a helical radius for the TEQ of Ro sqrt(2)/2 = 1.414 Ro which created the spindle torus in my model . So this was actually neither a spin 1 photon (whose radius for a resting electron would have been 2Ro, or a spin 1/2 photon, whose radius for a resting electron would be Ro, as in the 3D models that you and I generated from the moving electron equations I proposed. Since I currently prefer the model of an electron composed of a spin 1/2 circulating photon, this doesn’t generate the electron’s magnetic moment of 1 Bohr magneton. But it generates a magnetic moment more than 1/2 Bohr magneton which would be produced by a charge circulating at light speed in a simple double loop of radius Ro. I haven’t done the calculation for the magnetic moment generated by my spin 1/2 photon model of the electron, but I suspect that it would be 0.707 Bohr magneton (just a guess at this point). The calculation of this magnetic moment from the TEQ trajectory equations for a charged TEQ in the spin 1/2 photon model is relatively straightforward though.     By the way, have you looked at the side view of the actual TEQ trajectory at various values of v/c of the electron in the spin 1/2 photon moving-electron model that I proposed (and that you programmed and graphed in 3D to show how the model size changes as 1/gamma at various values of v/c)? The side view of the TEQ trajectory for a moving electron contains some surprises, at least for me. I thought that at high values of v/c (say 0.99 or 0.999) the TEQ would just appear from the side view to rotate helically around its reducing and increasingly more linear helical trajectory  (whose trajectory reduces as 1/(gamma^2), with the TEQ’s helical radius reducing as 1/gamma. But that’s apparently not what happens. Could you check this with your 3D program?       Richard  
On May 19, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Hi Richard If your spin 1 photon model of the electron is similar to John W and Martin’s model in that the field lines always orient with the negative end outwards (providing for charge) the estimated field distribution is similar to this illustration. (Equatorial View) <image001.jpg> (Top View from Z axis)<image002.jpg> (45 degree elevation view)<image004.jpg> Red lines represent negative ends of field lines, Blue lines represent positive, black is the transport radius, faint green line is one circulation at the transport radius.Photon field amplitude is shown as a cosine function of wavelength/2. Chip  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:06 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Chip,   Perfect! It would also be good to have the pair of tori seen an an angle from above their ‘equator’ to get a more 3-D quality.      Richard 
On May 5, 2015, at 6:07 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Hi Richard How do these look? <image003.png><image001.jpg>                   Chip   From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 1:18 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Hi Chip,  The radius of the circle in the horn torus (spin 1/2 photon model) should visually be (since it is actually) 1/2 of the radius of the circle in the spindle torus (spin 1 photon model) -- the spin 1/2 photon model is smaller than the spin 1 photon model. Thanks! And could you perhaps show the energy quantum trajectory in a different color that the torus background so the trajectory stands out better?    Richard On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Richard <image004.png>  <image005.png> Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 12:19 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Hi Chip,   Thanks. And finally, the vertical ovals of the tori should be circles because the circulating quantum has the same radius in the vertical and horizontal directions.        Richard 
On May 4, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Hi Richard Thank you. Here you go:<image001.png> <image002.png> Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:43 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus Hi Chip,  Both tori should be symmetrical above and below the z-axis and center on z=0.      Richard 
On May 4, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Hi Richard <image001.jpg> Viewed from the Z axis:<image002.jpg> And from the equatorial plane:<image003.jpg> Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 11:07 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] position Chip and all,   Here are some equations that relate to the modeling of a circulating photon as an electron. The second and third set include my own model of the photon. The first set doesn’t require a particular model for the photon, except as mentioned below. The first model is the one that generates the de Broglie wavelength as explained in my article mentioned below. 1. Here is the set of parametric equations for the helical trajectory of double-looping photon that models a free electron, and  whose circular radius for a resting electron is Ro=hbar/2mc. The speed of the photon along this trajectory is always c. The longitudinal or z-component of the photon’s speed is the electron’s velocity v along the z-axis. The frequency of the photon around the helical axis is proportional to the circulating photon/electron's energy E=gamma mc^2. The distance of the photon’s helical trajectory from the z-axis for an electron whose speed is v, is proportional to 1/gamma^2. This equation is in my article “The electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength”. This equation does not include a particular model of the photon, but assumes that the photon follows the relations c=f lambda, E=hf and p=h/lambda. Both helicities of the helical trajectory are given._______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 
 
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atmartin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
<image001.png><image001.png>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atdavidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>








   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150604/3631e45d/attachment.htm>