[General] Photon

[Mark, Martin van der]

Dear Richard,

You say that "energy is never really defined in physics". Well, it is, and it is very measurable: it is called MASS, and by weighing on a proper balance one can get a number for it. For ANY kind of energy this works perfectly. So where energy comes in different forms that may seem to have some vagueness, all forms of energy have this one thing in common: mass. The mass is always directly measurable. For whatever property in physics, this the best you can ever get!

Then, the notion of charge and photon are old concepts and I have tried to explain it to you and the group before.
If you say CHARGED PHOTON, I see immediate violation of special relativity, a total collapse of the all of physics that we know is correct, you are implying that Einstein is an idiot, and many more bad things. Stop it. We do not know what a photon is precisely, but certainly the word PHOTON has to do with a light-speed quantum of energy or angular momentum. LIGHT-SPEED is the important part, it does not marry with CHARGE, which is essentially NOT light-speed. It is physically inconsistent to put the words together.

Crazy ideas are fine but they must have a t least internal consistency. Violating consistend definitions you just cannot do again and again and again, that is for crackpots only. At some point you must stop spreading the nonsense. Otherwise, you force proper scientists to take distance from you even if they are nice and open minded, because as professionals do, they must protect the values of their art.

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 Richard Gauthier
Sent: zaterdag 30 mei 2015 4:54
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

Chip and others,

That's what I'm proposing: the charged, spin 1/2 hbar, 0.511 MeV/c^2 (rest mass) helically circulating photon IS an electron. Clearly the charged photon is not resting (since it is always traveling at c) even when the so-called electron is so-called resting. And a charged photon IS a photon, unless you insist that the definition (defined by who?) of a photon is one kind of uncharged, speed-of-light, spin 1 hbar boson. This is perhaps now seen as too narrow a definition of a photon. Don't let semantics get in the way of physics.  I'd like people to get used to at least the idea of a charged photon, so that photons then could come in two varieties-uncharged photons which are bosons with spin 1 hbar, and charged photons which are fermions with spin 1/2 hbar (there could be other kinds of photons as well.) This also could lead to further insights into Pauli's exclusion principle which applies to fermions but not to bosons.

Even though John M doesn't agree, I think proposing that the electron is a charged photon, or that a photon is an uncharged electron, IS potentially useful information about both, even though we don't know the full nature of either. It could lead to further insights about electron-positron pair production from photons, and electron-positron annihilation into two or more photons, where there is likely one or more transitional states from a 'pure' photon to a 'pure' electron-positron pair and back. The charged photon concept may also lead to further insights into alpha= e^2/(hbar c)= approx 1/137 which is the QED interaction amplitude between an electron and a photon, now seen as the interaction amplitude between a charged photon and an uncharged photon. And it could also lead to a new interpretation of quantum mechanics as the measurable aspects of a so far undetected quantum object, the charged photon (I think Dirac would like that definition since he claimed that the electron is a speed-of-light object but only a sub-lightspeed component of its speed can be measured.) Do the charged photon's helical speed c, frequency f=gamma mc^2/h and wavelength h/(gamma mc) count as 'hidden variables' in quantum mechanics?

I also think, with John M, that there is something more fundamental than either the electron or the photon. He calls it spacetime and I call it the energy quantum. I think the energy quantum is more fundamental than spacetime-which is a concept that stands for some kind of energy/material substance of (for John) a very high energy density. But energy is never really defined in physics except as the capacity or potential for doing work: W=Fd cos(theta), which is a practical but circular definition, like F=ma. If we really want to get into the nature of the fundamental substance of (that which stands under and supports) the physical universe, we are (in my opinion) going to have to go beyond both the concepts of "matter" and "energy", unless the answer is "it's turtles all the way down".

Richard


On May 29, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Richard

Very interesting insight!!  Thank you Richard for once again making things clearer with your intuitive and informative analysis.  This has helped me understand a bit more about the conditions of quantization.
I think you are right, basically, about the charged photon link between the uncharged photon and electron. However semantics and nomenclature keep getting in the way of communication. I think that the 0.511Mev photon cannot have charge unless it is an electron, with the electron spin configuration. In other words I think it cannot first be a charged photon and then become and electron. So I think that a free charged photon cannot exist, and any charged photon will also have a closed spin ½ trajectory and therefore will be a fermion instead of a photon. It may also be quite reasonable to assume that there may exist a spin ½ version of field spin topology which does not have charge.

John W.

I admire and respect you, your intellect, and the work you have done.  Our communications and exchanges are inspiring and invigorating.  I have learned an immense amount from you. You have made amazing progress with finding and formulating a mathematical structure to better describe fields and to extend Maxwell's equations so that they include the observable spin.
One reason that I have been asking these questions about photons is that I believe that you do not quite have it right in the paper you circulated.  Of course that does not mean you are wrong, but just that I do not view it the same. Unless I misread Martin's comments, he is also saying that it is likely that photons are not self-quantized, but are just waves, quantized only by the nature of the emitters and absorbers.  What I have been getting at is that the new field equations may need to take into account the difference in the field topologies and spin modes for photons and fermions, the resultant differences in forces, and in the causes for quantization.

For example, I think that two photons CAN exist at the same place, perfectly in phase, and perfectly coherent, and add linearly without squaring, and have energy conserved. I do not think that there must be some infinitesimal difference between the two photons for this to work. You may well prove me wrong on this point, but it seems to me that there is still some work to be done regarding quantization, and the nature of "photons".

In fact I hope you do prove me wrong, and can show me why your photon model is the only possible correct model, and why photons should have this special treatment temporally.  Maybe beers will help.

Chip




From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:45 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

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 the Wikipedia 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 in 1929<http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/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 the CMB 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.

See the 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. See Time Explained<http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/time-explained-t3.html> and A 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


________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150530/16ead2a4/attachment.htm>