[General] position

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John W.,

Some comments on your standpoint.

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, John Williamson <
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
>
> Dear Richard, Andrew and everyone,
>
> My standpoint would be that given in blue
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> You have raised important questions:
>
>    1. can you cut a photon in 1/2?
>       - not with a pair of scissors, but it can be done
>       - if so, how does its nature change?
>    2. can you 'rectify' a photon?
>       - can this give only the positive OR the negative fields diverging
>       from each component?
>       - if so, how do you do it?
>       - if so, how does its nature change?
>    3. If you can split or rectify a photon so that all + charge is in one
>    part and all - charge in the other:
>       - are the parts still photons?
>       - are they stable over time and space as the the neutral photon is?
>       - If so, under what conditions? (or are they unconditionally stable
>       for some condition?)
>       - if the condition fails, what happens to the charged photon?
>       - Does a particular condition exist similar to that of a neutron.
>       In free space it is not stable. In a nucleus it is.
>
>
>    1. can you cut a photon in 1/2?
>       - I would say no. If the definition of a photon is a single
>       exchange event not so by definition
>
> Any suggestion as to what is happening in the interferometer experiments
where a single photon appears to go along both paths to interfere with
itself downstream?

>
>    1.
>       - if so, how does its nature change? . Half a photon is a different
>       photon.
>
> I agree. However, does the 2 parts have the same properties as the
original? Are there photons with different properties (beyond polarization
etc.)

>
>    1. can you 'rectify' a photon?
>       - Not directly -yet- you need to create a particle pair
>
> This statement is critical and yet seems to be ignored in most of these
discussions.

>
>    1.
>       - if so, how do you do it? not easily - you would need to get it to
>       low enough energy to get inside it. We have neither the fast enough
>       technology to do this nor the (extremely robust) materials required. You
>       need (at least) a neutron star density to start thinking about doing this
>
> In my opinion, rectification only requires a non-linear element. A nuclear
near-field provides field gradients of the same magnitude as the neutron
star.

>
>    1.
>       - if so, how does its nature change? Its an electron -proton pair
>       (of course! - Look around you!)
>
> Are you proposing that the proton is the paired element with an electron
formed by a 1.1 MeV photon? Or was that a 'typo'?

>
>    1.
>    2. If you can split or rectify a photon so that all + charge is in one
>    part and all - charge in the other:
>       - are the parts still photons? No
>
> Does this mean that you do not consider an electron to be a bound photon,
but an entirely new creature?

>
>    1.
>       - are they stable over time and space as the the neutral photon is? Yes,
>       manifestly.
>
> Agreed

>
>    1.
>       - If so, under what conditions? (or are they unconditionally stable
>       for some condition?) Under condition that they cannot decay to a
>       lighter configuration with the same topology.
>
> Agreed

>
>    1.
>       - if the condition fails, what happens to the charged photon? Mu
>
> ?? Mu = permeability or meson?

This kind of exchange begins to focus ideas and perceptions.

Thank you,

Andrew

>
> I guess that I have assumed general relativity is required for photon
> stability from the beginning. Distortion of space is required to change the
> local refractive index for solitonic self-focusing of the photon to give a
> photon its stability. I would say that a charged photon is only stable in
> an electron or positron. They can appear to be independent (e.g. when the
> wormhole breaks, becomes delocalized), but spin momentum (as a vortex?) is
> conserved and it can reform (as a wormhole) or achieve stability (in a
> less-concentrated form) in a net-neutral environment.
>
> Does a particular condition exist similar to that of a neutron. In free
> space it is not sta
>
> I would never consider a photon to be charged, unless it is constrained as
> a lepton.
>
> Agreed
>
> This includes my extension of leptons as the building blocks of all real
> matter (perhaps including quarks). They might have short term existence
> and, if a source can be found/made and if they are actively sought, then
> they might be found. I do not know of any hints that would support their
> existence. However, this is the same problem with cold fusion or populated
> deep Dirac levels. They could be produced all of the time and we would
> never know.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> - John Williamson.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150503/c2b58b11/attachment.htm>