[General] Photon
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 11:43:39 PDT 2015
Hi Martin,
Thank you for this explanation. Yes, there are several ways to generate the electron’s de Broglie wavelength starting with the Compton wavelength and corresponding Compton frequency of light, including generating it from a photon in a moving reflecting box. Do all of these approaches also generate the electron’s phase velocity c^2/v ? Do they all have two diverging frequencies for a moving electron, one associated with relativistic time dilation and the other with an internal frequency associated with energy? But even if so, I’m sure that doesn’t mean that the foundations of quantum mechanics of the electron are fully understood, does it? What is left to understand about the electron-as-a-circulating-photon, besides its spin and magnetic moment, in your opinion? Fermi statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle? The pivot? The collapse of the wave function? Why Psi*Psi works statistically? How to predict individual quantum events? Entanglement? Double-slit? And why so many alternate interpretations of the meaning of QM that all make the same predictions?
If the quantum wave function for a free electron can be generated by a helically circulating photon emitting a plane lightwave of frequency f=gamma mc^2/h corresponding to the energy of a moving electron, this would seem to be a further step in understanding the possible nature of quantum mechanics, wouldn’t it? Putting an EM photon into such a quantum-wave-function-generating photon model could produce interesting QM results. Do you think that quantum eigenfunctions and energy eigenvalues can be generated by a photon-in-a-box model of a free electron that generates the de Broglie wavelength and the electron’s phase velocity c^2/v ? And what about from a photon-in-a-box in the presence of a potential well like for example the Coulomb potential in a hydrogen atom? (assuming that a photon-in-a-box can be associated with an electric charge that is bound in the potential well.) Apologies for so many questions at once.
Richard
> On Jun 5, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,
> In relativity it is very useful to consider the complicated system to be stationary and the observer to be moving.
> Then there cannot be any confusion on what happens: nothing at all.
> But the observer sees things that look different nonetheless.
> So whatever you think is wrong with our explanation, the truth is that, as a have shown in the paper with the circular integral, any light path scales to any moving observer such that it fulfills the De Broglie condition. One cannot go wrong, any model gives the same result, as do protons, W bosons, or whatever.
>
> What I am saying is that de whole De Broglie wavelength thing is just a consequence of any photon in a box looked at by a moving observer: photon frequency and roundtrip time are seen to scale in opposite direction and still the photon in box hasn’t changed a bit.
> Your model will do it, our model will do it Vivians model, etc. John Macken has made nice video’s that do it (very nice indeed, quite close to what I imagined)
> De Broglie was first, but didn’t seem to realize the possibility of a photon-in-Box implementation. Then John and I did in 1991, Hendrik Casimir liked that bit and invited me to his home. Then you, and others found it as well. Great.
>
> Oh, John W, I think that the half-reduced Compton wavelength (lambda_C/4pi) comes from the modified last chapter in Dirac’s quantum mechanics, so it is only there in the first editions.
>
> Best regards, Martin
>
> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>
> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
> Prof. Holstlaan 4
> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
> Sent: vrijdag 5 juni 2015 14:49
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hello John and Martin,
>
> I’ve gone through the derivation of the “harmony of phases” argument in your 1997 article. It relies on the shifting in opposite direction of two different frequencies of your double-looping photon model. The first frequency is the “internal photon frequency” whose average value in your derivation is proportional to the energy E=gamma mc^2 of a moving electron. This frequency relationship is also assumed in de Broglie’s derivation of the “harmony of phases” and the de Broglie wavelength. The second frequency is what you call the photon's “orbital rotation frequency” which you say decreases as 1/gamma in accordance with the “relativistic law of the slowing down of clocks”. You say that these two frequencies are equal in a resting electron but diverge when the electron moves.
>
> I stated in my summary on June 3 (below) that the electron-as-circulating-photon can only act as a light clock having relativistic time dilation of its frequency if the transverse radius of the photon model of the electron remains constant in size as the electron model moves with respect to a stationary observer. This forces the reflecting (or circulating) photon to travel a greater distance per “tick", as measured by a stationary observer of the moving light clock. Since the speed of light is c for the stationary observer as well as for an observer moving with the light clock, the result is time dilation for the moving clock as seen by the stationary observer.
>
> Time dilation in moving clocks is an experimental reality, but your electron model does not keep a constant transverse size as it moves forward, and therefore cannot be considered to be a ‘light clock". Rather you say that for your electromagnetic photon model of the electron “the effective size of the object reduces as seen from a moving frame” because "the mean radius of the field energy scales as omega^-1”. So the transverse size of your model decreases as 1/gamma, since omega = gamma omega-zero in your model. The value of gamma in high-energy electron scattering experiments is on the order of 10^4 or more. Since your electron model is therefore not a ‘light clock”, its “orbital rotation frequency" will not decrease as 1/gamma in the manner predicted by time dilation for a "light clock". So it seems that your ‘harmony of phases” result and therefore the group velocity c^2/v and the de Broglie wavelength do not follow from your electron model. Please correct me if you find any mistake in this argument.
>
> In the generic model of the relativistic electron as a helically circulating charged photon, at any electron speed there is only a single frequency f of the moving electron (modeled by the helically circulating charged photon), which is proportional to the electron/charged photon's total energy: E = hf =gamma mc^2. (I am here not counting the zitterbewebung frequency, which is also in the generic model, having twice the model's photon frequency f without doubling its energy.) In the generic double-looping charged photon model, this frequency f, which you call the “internal photon frequency” in your model, remains equal to what you call the "orbital rotation frequency” of the photon at all electron velocities, as the charged photon circulates along its heiical trajectory with its longitudinal velocity component equal to the electron’s velocity. In order for the generic model to have the internal frequency f equal to the orbital frequency f (again, not counting zitterbewegung), the trajectory of the circulating photon in a double-looped electron model has to move in a helical trajectory whose radius is Ro/gamma^2 (see the derivation of this in my article “The electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength.”). The total radius of an electron model constructed using the generic model with a particular photon model would depend on the nature of that particular photon model.
>
> Since de Broglie did not have any geometrical model of the electron based on the photon or otherwise, he did not know that the size of a circulating-photon model of the electron would decrease with the electron's speed as the photon’s frequency increases proportionally with the electron’s energy. So he assumed that the electron would act like a moving clock whose frequency of ticking would be slowed by relativistic time dilation, thus leading to the apparent paradox of the electron’s frequency both increasing and decreasing with the electron’s velocity. He resolved this apparent paradox with his “harmony of phases” argument and the introduction of a “phase wave". As I described on June 3, the generic model of the relativistic electron as a circulating charged photon resolves this apparent paradox without the “harmony of phases" argument, and generates the electron's de Broglie wavelength, its phase velocity and the quantum matter-wave function for a free electron. The electron is not a clock.
>
> with best regards,
> Richard
>
> On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:59 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> In the 1997 paper we explained the origin of this in a slightly different way - (Martin's derivation from 1991 originally). This method, as well as being an independent derivation of de Broglies harmony of phases, has the added advantage that it also explains why the electron should have a point-like interaction at very high energies.
>
> Here the clock is, indeed, from a rotating photon with a period given by that of a complete rotation. This obeys the relativistic law of slowing of clocks.
>
> At the same time (if you will pardon the poor pun), any observation of the electron wave frequency, will see it increase with the relativistic law of frequency scaling, since only the blue shifted part interacts with any other system, the red-shifted part still being at lightspeed away from any apparatus - and hence outside of its lightcone. This means also that the effective size scales relativistically just as does the shortest possible exchange photon in quantum electrodynamics. This effective size is always much smaller (by most of an order of magnitude) than this minimum scale exchange photon. Hence, the electron is never resolved in any scattering experiment. These two frequencies are the same only in the restframe. In any other frame they differ, one transforming as the inverse of the other. This leads to a beat - being that of de Broglie.
>
> I'm just remembering that off the top of my head and there may be some subtlety such as it being properly transformation of length or inverse time - would need to go back now and re-check - but I think that was the essence of it. Am I right Martin?
>
> Regards, John.
> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 10:11 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi John W, John M and all,
>
> In my generic relativistic photon model of the electron, I’ve just found a geometric resolution to the question (first posed by de Broglie and used to derive the de Broglie wavelength) of how an electron can have both a predicted higher frequency when in linear motion, due to its higher energy and the relationship E=gamma mc^2, as well as a predicted lower frequency if the electron acts like a ticking clock having the relativistic time dilation of a moving object. My resolution of this apparent contradiction is different from the "harmony of phases" method which de Broglie appealed to in order to resolve this apparent contradiction.
>
> Special relativity says that an object, while maintaining a constant transverse size (like a light clock with light reflecting between two parallel mirrors), experiences time dilation when moving longitudinally. If that “light clock” is a circling photon (single or double loop doesn’t matter here) moving at light-speed with a constant helical radius, and moving in the direction perpendicular to the plane of its circular motion, then the photon’s frequency f of cycling has to decrease by a factor of gamma if the helically cycling photon is to maintain a constant light-speed motion along its helical path. (This is the same factor of gamma found in light-clock calculations used to derive the relativistic time dilation formula.). This result is consistent with the principle of relativistic time dilation of a moving object, if the frequency of the circulating photon is to be used as a clock ticking off intervals of time. But this result contradicts the idea that the frequency f of the helically circulating photon has to increase with the energy of the moving electron since now E=hf = gamma mc^2 for a moving electron/circulating photon.
>
> The way the generic charged-photon model of the relativistic electron resolves this apparent contradiction, is that the distance D1 that the charged photon travels per cycle is the charged photon’s wavelength lambda = h/gamma mc for a moving electron with velocity v. (Lambda is directed along the charged photon's helical trajectory whose radius decreases as 1/gamma^2 with the electron’s increasing velocity.) The time period T1 taken by the charged photon to travel this distance lambda is T1=distance/speed = lambda/c = h/gamma mc^2 = (h/mc^2) / gamma. This compares to the time period To= 1/fo= h/mc^2 for a circulating photon to travel the Compton wavelength Lcompton = h/mc in a resting electron. So T1=To/gamma.
>
> But the distance D2 the photon has to travel per cycle if the resting electron moves longitudinally with velocity v but doesn’t change its radius is D2=gamma Lcompton = gamma h/mc , by the standard geometry of the moving light clock used to calculate relativistic time dilation. This gives this photon a time period T2 = gamma Lcompton/c = gamma h/mc^2 , where the period T2 corresponds to standard relativistic time dilation, if the electron’s (or circulating photon’s) frequency is used as a ticking clock. So T2=gamma To.
>
> Relativistic time dilation is calculated by assuming that a light clock or other object doesn’t relativistically contract in the transverse direction to that of the object’s motion. So T2=gamma To follows the light clock model which predicts time dilation for a moving electron. Relativity predicts this time dilation for an electron like for any other moving object, and this is proven experimentally for example in the lengthening by a factor of gamma of the half-life of a relativistically moving radioactive muon as compared to the half-life of a radioactive muon at rest. But the charged photon’s period T1=To/gamma (corresponding to an increasing frequency of the charged photon with increasing electron velocity) is not the same as the time dilation T2=gamma To predicted by relativity because the charged photon travels a shorter distance lambda = h/gamma mc along a helical trajectory whose radius is reduced by a factor 1/gamma^2 for a moving electron, compared to the radius of a circulating charged photon at rest. So there is no contradiction between the relativistic time dilation T2=Gamma To for any moving object including an electron, and the relativistic contraction of the time period T1=To/gamma due to the increased frequency of a moving charged photon with the electron’s energy. This relativistic time dilation would make a clock traveling with an electron tick slower as the electron speeds up, as well as produce an increased frequency (and shortened period T1) of the charged photon (modeling the electron) as the same electron speeds up.
>
> So the model of the electron as a circulating photon that maintains a constant radius doesn’t resolve the contradiction described, while the model of electron as a charged photon with a wavelength decreasing as 1/gamma and a helical trajectory radius decreasing as 1/gamma^2 does resolve this contradiction. In conclusion, in the charged photon model of the electron, the electron is NOT a clock whose ticking rate slows down with increasing speed, as judged by a stationary observer watching the electron pass by. Rather, the passing electron’s internal frequency (equal to the frequency of the charged photon modeling the electron) increases with gamma as the electron speeds up while the ticking rate of the clock accompanying the electron slows down as 1/gamma due to relativistic time dilation.
>
> This result has implications for experiments that assume that the electron acts like a ticking clock and slows down its “ticking” rate with increasing velocity to make its very high internal frequency mc^2/h and zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h more easily detectable.
>
> Richard
>
> On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:43 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> Dear John M,
>
> I am delighted that you are not offended. You have seemed very sensitive in some of your earlier emails, taking offence, even at my lack of understanding about something. I agree: I find it extremely offensive that I do not understand everything! The previous email was mostly because of my worry that you may be distracting others from productive lines of thought as well as myself and getting people onto dead-end lines of thought.
>
> I had decided that there was no way of entering into a robust discussion of physics with you without causing offence at every turn. It seemed to me at one point that to tease anything out of you one would need to tread very carefully- or simply not bother. I am relieved that this is not so. I look forwards to ripping into the fundamentals of physics with you and others at the conference, and in the stuff below. The discussion below will, accordingly, become far more robust. I am not going to apologise for this as this is the true sign of respect.
>
>
> Yes I am perfectly aware that I did not answer your question about QED. You must admit that there are a few of mine (most!) that you have not yet answered about your own work, let alone a well-established theory that is the subject of many fat and old textbooks ( I recommend Landau and Lifshitz). Taking time off from my own work to answer this question for you should then come very low on my priority list. You may think that your work is the most important aspect for progressing the whole of physics and the most advanced point within our little group, but this is not the case from my perspective (my work is much more important, of course!). As to whether I can help? Well I have taken postgraduate courses on QED, have written programs to implement QED calculations professionally, have done a PhD on the basis of which QED was the most solid foundation and have (co) authored scores of papers on the subject in the peer-reviewed press – so yes – I think so. I am not the best to do so as I am not a QED theorist per-se. Also it has been over three decades, so I am a bit rusty even on what I used to know, but I’ll give it a try. Of course the answer will be short – do not have the time or the energy to go into any proper detail at the moment. I do not think QED is, by itself, in any way the whole answer. I have also not even finished all of my marking responsibilities, the “deadline” for which expired yesterday. I did manage to get everything in over which I had control, though, and am now waiting on stuff from others.
>
> This means that I am no longer able to fulfill my prime purpose: that of a marking machine! I'll have to find something else to do then so ...
>
> Before I go on to outline an explanation, I think writing a paper about the (non) existence of virtual photons is a bit futile and would be a waste of your, not inconsiderable, talents. I hope the answer below makes it clear enough why this would be so.
>
> The virtual photon appears a concept within the theory of QED. It must be distinguished from the concept of the photon – considered by many to be a real particle (but that is a discussion which is already active within this group). What is it in the context of an electromagnetic scattering experiment?
>
> There is nothing faster-than-light about it - that is just a misconception caused by poor thinking. Virtual photons are actually operative only when things hit other things. You need to do the calculations in QED local to the particle interaction only, otherwise one gets into the silly numbers you seem to feel you need to start with. Only if you look only locally at the limited interaction between the two existing particles do you get the right answers (and they are then very very right indeed!).
>
> If you have a charge-charge elastic scattering (electron-electron or electron-proton) for example, then if you measure the incident 4-momenta and the outgoing 4-momenta of the particles, by subtracting one from the other one obtains the experimentally-measured 4-momentum transfer. This 4-momentum transfer is ascribed, in QED (strictly, for an elastic, purely electromagnetic scattering event – although the same concept is used in inelastic scattering events as well) to the virtual photon 4-momentum. This 4-momentum transfer is considered, within the theory of QED, to be purely electromagnetic (what else could it be? - well it could have a weak current component and then one gets into Weinberg-Salam (also very nice)). This is, in QED, the base of the concept of a virtual photon (no less and no more) and is in sharp contrast to the usual concept of a (so called real) photon as a lightspeed bullet.
>
> Square this measured quantity. This is the 4-momentum transfer squared. Depending on the units one can give this a proper dimension of energy squared or mass squared. Taking the latter, and applying it to any isolated particle, one obtains, by taking the square root, the invariant (rest) mass of the particle, whatever the momentum and whatever the frame. Performing this calculation on the 4-momentum transfer squared itself and ascribing this to the properties of the virtual photon one obtains the “mass” of the virtual photon. Although it has the properties (and dimensions) of an invariant rest mass, needless to say (though I said so in my previous mail as well), this is not a mass one could isolate and weigh on some scales. The value of this “mass” is either positive or negative depending on the sign (attractive or repulsive) of the scattering event. Simple. That is all. Well … except for the calculation of the higher order effects called radiative corrections – but these are at least a factor of ten-thousand times smaller than the leading order term so forget about them for the moment. The concept is anyway - very well defined experimentally. This is what counts.
>
> I do not see how arguing against, what is essentially the concept of 4-momentum transfer, does anything to "explain the mysteries of physics". This is, pretty much, the essence of all that you know, all that you measure, in an elastic scattering experiment. The beauty of QED is that, using it, it gets the scattering probability right to eight decimal places. To compete with this you need to match this - not merely hand-wave and say another theory is roughly in the right ballpark to an order of magnitude or two. While your model may be extended to match this precision in the future it simply does not do so now. Am I wrong?
>
> Personally, I think that QED is fundamentally correct in that the intermediary for charge interaction (themselves electromagnetic for me) is an electromagnetic interaction. I think that QED is incomplete, however, precisely in that it predicts ridiculously high mass and energy densities in the vacuum, which are not observed. This is part of your starting point - and where we currently differ.
>
> One does need to impose a limit – but to agree with experiment this is far off the Plank scale. Dirac proposed, at one stage, precisely half what you call the reduced Compton wavelength – which comes close to giving the correct magnitude and removing the (terrible) need for renormalisation. We could talk (at great length) about this stuff – I hesitate to bring it up at all -but, for me, it is irrelevant, fruitless and has already been done. The theme here is not to revisit General relativity or Dirac quantum mechanics. We need to stop messing about at the edges of what has already been done and get down to creating a proper new theory.
>
> For me space-time has to be (amost infinitely) stiff and strong, but certainly not massive or energetic. If a proposed mass or energy density does not have the properties of a mass or energy then it is simply, for me, not a mass or energy density. For me this is simply the end of argument. It could be something else - but if it is then say that. I also do not think there is some sharp cutoff (and I do not think you need the back-stop - the arguments about the difference in exponents still stands) – at the Plank scale or anywhere else, where space suddenly breaks. I do not see why one feels the need for such a limit. It is a limit of the theories (both General relativity and quantum mechanics) That is a problem for the theories not for reality – and shows up only our lack of imagination. It is not a problem for nature itself.
>
> The mis-conceptions tend to occur only if one insists (wrongly) that, because we have a concept for something one is claiming that it is a thing that actually exists, which one can isolate and point to. Just because one has a word "Dragon" for example, does not mean that Dragons exist (even if I may be one!).
>
> As to the futility of such an argument: within the field, the difference between a photon and a virtual-photon is well known. The first is thought to be a particle, the second a property of the electromagnetic interaction. The operative word here is "virtual". These are merely a convenient shorthand within the context of the theory. If you want to argue against this or that theory (and I certainly do not – I want to make up new ones which actually work), then one needs to start at least by understanding the theory. It took me years to understand Green Schwartz and Witten's book on string theories, for example, before I understood how fundamentally vacuous they are. Complete and utter waste of years of my life. QED is far more useful and practical - but still limited both conceptually and in the contradiction of some of its predictions with manifest experiment.
>
> If pressed, a high energy physicist will admit that all real <> “photons” are an eentsy bit virtual – less so as the distance between emitter and absorber increases. Even if you were to succeed in proving the non-existence of virtual photons (as messenger particles) outside of the interaction, you will only be confirming what everyone in the field thinks they know already.
>
> There you go. Not very deep and not very mathematical but you still owe me a beer for, potentially, saving you a lot of unneccesary work!
>
> Regards, John W.
>
>
>
> P.S. – while I am still in full flow … I also do not think the usual Plank units are proper “natural units” in that, for one thing, the base angular momentum taken is manifestly silly. Why take as a base hbar when something half as big is better defined? hbar/2 is the proper, well defined, quantized spin of a fermion. Especially daft as there is immediately a controversy in the Photonics community about the proper spin of the photon, why it has only two spin state projections and, indeed, whether such a thing exists at all! Just because any units are thought to be common knowledge does not make them the right choice! I think you tie your mast a flag which will just lead to problems down the line. Using hbar/2 will solve some of your difficulties and bring you closer to that which is measured (though not all the way).
>
>
>
> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com <mailto:john at macken.com>]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 8:33 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [General] Photon
>
> 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 <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 <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com <mailto: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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20150605/b1e2064f/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list