[General] Photon
Nick Green
nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk
Thu Jun 11 10:33:35 PDT 2015
One might say the photon path bends in the electric field of the pivot
and, if energy sufficient, may close to form coherent matter and
anti-matter. So how many spins or sine waves are needed to model this
and what are their frequencies and phase relationhips?
Best
N.
On 10/06/2015 09:20, John Williamson wrote:
> Hello David and everyone.
>
> You are right that most of the models do not cite a mechanism for
> changing the nature of the photon to that of the electron. This is a
> huge problem. Photon go (fast!) in straight lines. Electrons just sit
> there going round and round in circles. They are very different!
>
> It is worrying about this and trying to find solutions to it, that
> have kept Martin and myself busy for the last couple of decades. We
> have made loads of models, and have introduced forces in several
> different ways.
>
> My new theory is one case that does have (self) confinement forces.
> The new scalar invariant mass density term, the pivot, introduces a
> new factor into the momentum density flow (the Poynting vector for
> pure field). The derivative of this is a radial force - a confinement
> force in other words. An element of the Poincare stresses then. In
> fact the force is such that one gets precisely a radial electric field
> for a re-circulating field and a double-loop (with half-integral
> spin). Absolutely beautiful!
>
> The picture is as follows. No pivot - momentum in straight lines -
> pure field photons.
>
> Bit of pivot, photon moves (a little) helically . no big deal.
>
> Lots of pivot ... same thing.
>
> Enough pivot plus initial counter-propagating photons. Possibility of
> vortex and anti-vortex. Charge-anticharge pair both with pivot of same
> order as magnetic field. Stable, charged, half-integral spin,
> recirculating self-confined system. An electron and a positron.
>
> Look carefully at the paper I circulated. It is in there. Not very
> well explained, obviously. I will do better next time with all this input!
>
> Cheers, John.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 7:55 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> John
>
> I like the simplicity of the photon in the electron circulating at c.
> However, no mechanism is cited for getting from photon to electron.
> The evidence is in the stars. Photons appear to travel a very long way
> without turning into electrons. Is this just spontaneous photon
> conversion to electron, a whim of nature?
>
> The difficulty with a c-only velocity in the electron is that it would
> seem that c-average velocity would meet the criteria as well. Now this
> implies there is may be a Lorentz contraction, and also the
> improbability - not impossibility - of a transluminal photon/quanta
> within. Once we have eliminated everything else, whatever remains no
> matter how improbable, must be a truth, perhaps even the truth.
>
> The self-interaction aspect smells of acceleration somewhere in all
> this. And in a circulating photon one of the few requirements is to
> explain conservation of total angular momentum which seems to be the
> key criteria especially with a instant c-velocity only model. Could it
> be there is a missed interpretation of averaged c-velocity only model
> as a instant c-velocity model. Perhaps we need to define the total
> angular momentum within the electron more clearly and precisely.
>
> IMHO we need to consider and examine every electron model to see if
> there is any acceleration by the photon.
>
> Seriously, how does on make the leap from a plain photon to the photon
> curving and interacting with itself. Is there some DNA that tells a
> photon internally to become an electron? Is there something external
> acting as a catalyst? Is there a process which combines both in a two
> step process?
>
> Then there is the question of superposition for uncharge photons while
> charged photons as electrons can overlap under the right conditions
> and in multiple ways. Of course this begs the question of when does
> superposition fail.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:20 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> *Richard:*
> **
> *The 511keV photon confines itself. There isn’t anything else
> there. It’s like a photon in a box of its own making, see Martin’s
> light is heavy <http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm>.
> Light /is/ displacement current, and it displaces its own path
> into a closed path. But then we don’t call it a photon, we call it
> an electron. However we can still diffract it. It still has a wave
> nature. But it isn’t moving linearly at c, it’s going round and
> round at c. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to
> change-in-motion for a wave moving linearly at c. Electron mass is
> a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round
> and round at c. That’s it. It’s that simple. Hence /the mass of a
> body is a measure of its energy-content/. That’s what E=mc ²
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/> is all about,
> Einstein even talks about the electron on the same line as he
> talks about a body. And I’m afraid the Higgs mechanism contradicts
> it. When it’s an electron, the511keV photon has mass because it’s
> interacting with itself, not with cosmic treacle. *
> **
> *Regards*
> *John D*
> **
>
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* 10 June 2015 02:39
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
> Hi John,
> I think it may be a mistake to call an object a “confined photon”
> if you mean that a photon is “unconfined” and moving linearly with
> no rest mass until it becomes “confined” and then the system of
> “confinement” + photon has a rest mass and this rest mass is
> attributed purely to the “confinement mechanism” and not to the to
> the “otherwise free” photon still moving at c while it is being
> confined.
> Rather, the rest mass of an object, whether a circularly moving
> photon, a helically moving photon or a linearly moving photon is
> the real quantitative measure of its “confinement", so that
> “confinement” and “inertia” mean the same thing— both refer to the
> rest mass of the object. Someone could claim that a photon moving
> in a straight line is also “confined” to move in this straight
> line, but this linear confinement carries no rest mass with it and
> so you would say that this photon is not confined at all. Someone
> could also claim that a photon moving by itself in a helical
> trajectory is no more confined than a photon moving in a straight
> line — but their rest masses are different and you would I think
> say that the helically moving photon is more confined that the
> photon moving in a straight line. Anyone can argue about what one
> mean by confinement and how one should measure it.
> A particular photon moving in a helical trajectory at any
> longitudinal speed less than c (such as the proposed charged
> photon model of the electron moving at different relativistic
> velocities) has a rest mass and this rest mass is exactly the same
> rest mass as when the photon (as seen from a different moving
> reference frame) moves in a double-looped circle and you call it
> an electron. So does the confinement of an object change when you
> pass by it at different speeds? That doesn’t seem logical. And the
> rest mass of the helically moving photon is the same rest mass mo
> as the rest mass of the corresponding circularly moving photon,
> because the rest mass of this confined photon is relativistically
> invariant as you say. You might say that there is a “confining”
> force in the physical world. But someone might say that this is
> just the Higgs field that gives rest mass to otherwise massless
> objects. So again, what is the difference between the rest mass
> and the degree of confinement of a particle, if any?
> best regards, Richard
>
> On May 31, 2015, at 5:42 PM, John Williamson
> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
> 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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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 Mark, Martin van der
> [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>]
> *Sent:*Monday, June 01, 2015 1:06 AM
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Photon
> Richard, the photon itself, or light, never has a rest mass,
> it is going at light speed, that is what light does.
> The box plus photon does have a rest mass, equal to the mass
> of the box plus the energy of the photon devided by c squared.
> You have to be precise with these things!!!!
> Just read light is heavy of you want to know hoe reflections work,
> Best, Martin
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
> Op 1 jun. 2015 om 01:56 heeft Richard Gauthier
> <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> John W, John D, and Martin and others,
> I agree with John D here: ( "But check out photon
> effective mass. If you slow down a photon to less than c,
> some of its energy-momentum is exhibited as mass. And
> there’s a sliding scale in between the two extremes.” ) If
> a photon of energy E has an extended straight trajectory,
> it has no rest mass. If a photon of energy E is reflecting
> back and forth perpendicularly in a mirror-box between
> parallel mirrors, it has a rest mass E/c^2. If a photon of
> energy E=mc^2=hf is circling in a closed circular loop or
> double-loop (as in various models of an electron) it has
> rest mass m= E/c^2 = 0.511 MeV/c^2 . I think we all agree
> on this.
> Now suppose a photon is zig-zagging between two parallel
> mirrors where at each reflection the angle that the photon
> makes with a mirror's surface is Theta. Then the photon
> has a longitudinal average velocity between the parallel
> mirrors of v = c cos (Theta), or cos (Theta) = v/c .
> Theta = 90 degrees corresponds to a photon reflecting
> perpendicularly in a mirror-box where the photon's rest
> mass m is E/c^2, and v=0. Theta = 0 degrees corresponds to
> a photon traveling in an extended straight trajectory
> parallel to the two mirrors in some direction, and in this
> case the photon's rest mass m is zero, and v=c . I found
> this morning that for any Theta between 0 and 90 degrees,
> a zig-zag reflecting photon of energy E=hf and angle Theta
> has a rest mass of M= (E/c^2) sin (Theta)= E/(gamma c^2)
> since when cos(Theta)=v/c, then sin (Theta) = 1/gamma.
> This relationship is the case for relativistic velocities
> also. So for example for a zig-zagging photon of energy
> E=hf, if Theta = 30 degrees, then v/c = cos(Theta)=
> 0.866, sin(Theta) = 0.5 and gamma = 2 . The rest mass M
> of this zig-zagging photon of energy E=hf is then M =
> E/(gamma c^2) = hf/(2 c^2) = 0.5 hf/c^2 .
> This M=(E/c^2) sin(Theta) relationship for a zig-zagging
> photon also applies to the helically circulating (with
> helical angle Theta) charged photon model of the
> relativistic electron, where the circulating charged
> photon of energy E=hf=gamma m c^2 is always found with
> this method to have a rest mass of M = (E/c^2) sin
> (Theta) = (gamma m c^2)/(gamma c^2) = m = 0.511 Mev/c^2.
> So John D’s sliding scale for the rest mass M of a
> zig-zagging photon of energy E , speed c and longitudinal
> velocity v, is M=(E/c^2) sin (Theta) = E/(gamma c^2). Can
> anyone verify this sliding scale relation, or contradict
> it (with calculations)?
> Richard
>
> On May 31, 2015, at 2:01 AM, John Duffield
> <johnduffield at btconnect.com
> <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
> John W:
> A little feedback. IMHO it’s important, so bear with me:
> If it has rest-mass it is not a photon.
> If you slow down a photon to an effective speed of
> zero because you trap it in a mirror-box, all of its
> energy-momentum is exhibited as mass. Photon momentum
> is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a
> wave moving linearly at c, whilst electron mass is a
> measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave
> going round and round at c. But check out photon
> effective mass. If you slow down a photon to less than
> c, some of its energy-momentum is exhibited as mass.
> And there’s a sliding scale in between the two
> extremes. So if the speed of a photon in free space
> were to vary for some reason, its mass would vary. Of
> course this doesn’t happen to photons. But there are
> such things as neutrinos.
> One must include the properties of emitter and
> absorber as well - these are essential to the quantisation
> I disagree with this. The emitter is an electron, the
> absorber is an electron. IMHO the electron is 511keV
> because of the quantum nature of light. Imagine
> kicking a football. Kick it fast or kick it slow, the
> length of your leg is always the same. IMHO it’s the
> same for photon amplitude, and there’s only one
> wavelength that will do to wrap up that amplitude into
> the spin½ spinor that we call an electron.
> Isolated electrons cannot emit.
> True, but check out the Inverse Compton.
> The argument in the paper I have already posted is
> precisely that electromagnetism remains continuous and
> un-quantised.
> But light is quantized, and we make electrons out of
> it. And they’re always 511keV electrons.
> electromagnetic energy, propagated over a distance in
> space, must come in "lumps"
> An E=hf photon can have any frequency you like, and
> any energy you like. But it has a wave nature. Space
> waves. It is a lump.
> Photons are the bit that do not inter-act.
> Yes they do. Photons interact with photons in
> gamma-gamma pair production. And an electron is just a
> photon forever interacting with itself. Displacing its
> own path into a closed path.
> 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.
> Imagine you’re in your gedanken canoe and a waves
> comes at you at the speed of light. You rise up. At
> what speed?
> 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.
> That’s what you have to do to convert a field
> variation into a standing field. Imagine a seismic
> wave that displaces you 1m left then 1m right.
> Represent it as a sine-wave paper strip, like below.
> Then turn that into a Mobius strip. You now have an
> all-round standing displacement of 1m.
> <image001.jpg>
> 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
> IMHO one has to understand potential and displacement
> current, and how a field-variation is more fundamental
> than the electron’s electromagnetic field.
> Are you charging the electric field part or the
> magnetic field part, for example.
> One is the slope of your canoe, the other is the rate
> of change of slope of your canoe.
> 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.
> Well said that man. Why isn’t this common knowledge?
> The turn itself – essential to the re-configuration of
> the field, is engendered in my model not by a charge,
> but by
> displacement current. It does what it says on the can.
> 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).
> Try √(ε0/4πc³).
> Regards
> JohnD
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of*John Williamson
> *Sent:*30 May 2015 16:31
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:*Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane
> Mandray; Kyran Williamson
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Photon
> 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<UrlBlockedError.aspx>!
> 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
> <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:*Saturday, May 30, 2015 2:59 PM
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Photon
> John 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
> <mailto: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 likethe photon In a box
> <http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273419950_Light_is_Heavy>.
> 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.
> Regards
> John D
> PS: Counter-rotating vortices repel,_co_-rotating
> vortices attract, seeOn Vortex Particles
> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/68152826/On-Vortex-Particles-Fiasco-Press-Journal-of-Swarm-Scholarship#scribd>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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 Mark
> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive
> Healthcare
> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
> Prof. Holstlaan 4
> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
> Tel: +31 40 2747548
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of*Chip Akins
> *Sent:*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, 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 Chip Akins
> [chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:*Monday, May 25, 2015 4:51 PM
> *To:*'Nature of Light and Particles -
> General Discussion'
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Photon
> Hi 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
> <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:*Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:21 PM
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles -
> General Discussion
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Electron Torus
> John 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
> <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>>
> wrote:
> Richard:
> See theWikipedia gluon article
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Confinement>,
> 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!
> Regards
> John 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22>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 in1929
> <http://www.rain.org/%7Ekarpeles/einsteindis.html>,
> 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 theCMB reference
> frame
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy>.
> 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.
> Seethe asymmetric Kerr metric
> as a source of CP violation
> <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/galaxy_sized_twist/>.
> 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. SeeTime Explained
> <http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/time-explained-t3.html>andA
> World Without Time: the
> forgotten legacy of Godel and
> Einstein
> <http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942>.
> 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.
> Regards
> John 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
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of Chip Akins
> [chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:*Friday, May 22, 2015
> 1:59 PM
> *To:*'Nature of Light and
> Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:*Re: [General]
> Electron Torus
> Hi 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 <mailto: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
> peopleexplain the magnetic
> field around the
> current-in-the-wire using
> length contraction
> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65335/how-do-moving-charges-produce-magnetic-fields>,
> but IMHO that’s a fairy
> tale, and I prefer
> a“screw” answer
> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184055/atomic-explanation-of-magnetic-field/184079?noredirect=1#comment388570_184079>.
>
> Regards
> John 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.
>
> Regards
> John
> *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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard
> <image004.png>
> <image005.png>
> Chip
> *From:* General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins
> <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> atmules333 at gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> atrichgauthier 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">
> 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
> <mailto: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>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> atrichgauthier 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">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive
> communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List
> atrichgauthier 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">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive
> communication from the Nature of Light and
> Particles General Discussion List
> atrichgauthier 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">
> 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
> <mailto: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 atrichgauthier 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">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from
> the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
> List atrichgauthier 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">
> 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
> <mailto: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
> atrichgauthier 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">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/nick_green%40blueyonder.co.uk?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/20150611/71d53af5/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list