[General] Photon

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Fri May 29 12:07:46 PDT 2015


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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:51 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] 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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:21 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron 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 the  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Confinement> Wikipedia gluon
article, note the bit that says as opposed to virtual ones found in ordinary
hadrons. The gluons in a proton are virtual. As in not real. And LOL,
perhaps the same is true of the quarks! 

 

Regards

John D 

 

From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.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 <
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> 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 <
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> 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
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22n
either%20homogeneous%22> Leyden Address that space was the “aether” of
general relativity, and space was not empty.

 

Some would say there is no perceptible difference. But is that precisely
true?

 

No. Like Einstein said in  <http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html>
1929, a field is a state of space.

 

If space is a media, it implies a preferred reference frame in space.  This
is an item which would be difficult, or perhaps impossible to detect, but
for one item. If space is a media with a preferred reference frame, then
clocks in that reference frame would be the fastest clocks possible in the
universe. 

 

There’s also the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisot
ropy> CMB reference frame. It’s preferred in that it tells you your speed
through the universe. And whilst it isn’t an absolute frame in the strict
sense, the universe is as absolute as it gets.

 

One thing which would alter the ability to test this is a gross frame
dragging of space around massive bodies or concentrations of mass.

 

See
<http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/galaxy_sized_twist/>
the asymmetric Kerr metric as a source of CP violation. It’s to do with
galactic frame-dragging.

 

If space is a media, and if frame dragging does occur

 

It’s a popscience myth that it isn’t a medium, electromagnetic waves do not
propagate because an electric wave creates a magnetic wave and vice versa.
I’m confident that frame dragging does occur, and that the electron
electromagnetic field is a fierce example of it.

 

A definition of TIME is the underlying objective of this line of questions.
For I see two possibilities, one is that time is an inherent property of
space and, as the current relativity teaches, a fourth dimension in our
“spacetime”.  The other is that time is simply the rate at which particles
can interact, caused by the fact that fields can only propagate at a finite
velocity, and that we are made of particles which are circularly confined
fields. 

I feel the first explanation is less likely because it does not show cause,
it does not tell us why time is part of space, just that it is.  The second
explanation is the one I currently prefer because it is a simple consequence
of the nature of space and particles, it shows cause.

 

I prefer it too, and so did Einstein. See
<http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/time-explained-t3.html> Time
Explained and
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942
> A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein. 

 

Is time truly a fourth dimension at the lowest level of analysis of space?

 

No. We live in a world of space and motion. Our time dimension is derived
from motion. It’s a dimension in the sense of measure, not in the sense of
freedom of motion. 

 

Regards

John D

 

From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 [
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org>
general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticle
s.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [ <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 <
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:

 

David:

 

Why don’t photons get length contracted? Because they’re just waves in space
moving at the speed of waves in space. A ripple in a rubber mat doesn’t get
length contracted, nor do waves in space. Then when you make those waves go
round and round, they still don’t get length-contracted. Then when you move
past them fast, they still don’t get length contracted. You might say the
path of those waves is different, but it isn’t, they didn’t change, you did.
And if you boil yourself down to a single electron, and boil that down to a
ring, then draw circles and helixes, I think it gets to the bottom of
things. 

 

Chip:

 

Yes, I’m certain relative velocity is a determining factor.  But note that
“we” are made of electrons and things, so IMHO it’s best to start with two
particles, such as the electron and the positron. If you set them down with
no initial relative motion they move linearly together, and we talk of
electric force.  

 

<image005.jpg>

However if you threw the postiron over the top of the electron they’d move
together and go around one another, whereupon we talk of magnetic force.
Note that this is relative velocity, not relativistic velocity. I’ve seen
people
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65335/how-do-moving-charges-prod
uce-magnetic-fields> explain the magnetic field around the
current-in-the-wire using length contraction, but IMHO that’s a fairy tale,
and I prefer a
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184055/atomic-explanation-of-mag
netic-field/184079?noredirect=1#comment388570_184079> “screw” answer.   

 

Regards

John D

 

From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 <
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Richard

 

<image004.png>

 

 

<image005.png>

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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  <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

 

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

 


  _____  


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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150529/2b441632/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list