[General] Photon
John Duffield
johnduffield at btconnect.com
Sun May 31 01:01:34 PDT 2015
Martin:
IMHO the amplitude doesn’t get doubled for electromagnetic waves, because
they have quantum nature. Roll your finger round fast or slow, but roll it
round the same circle. The dimensionality of action h is momentum x
distance, and the distance doesn’t change. Combine two E=hf photons into
one, and the frequency doubles along with the energy. Split a photon in two
and you reverse this. It’s like splitting a log, only the two halves are
twice as long as the original.
Regards
JohnD
Regards
JohnD
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 30 May 2015 23:50
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon
Chip, what john is trying to argue is that if you add two identical wave
trains, whatever sort of wave, em, sound, water, that the amplitude is
doubled but the energy is quadrupled. But energy must be conserved, so this
cannot (and indeed does not) happen: normally, an atom can only send one
particular photon at a time. In a laser they may run on parallel or be
strung one after the other, but not really on top of another. On the other
hand, in the nonlinear process of frequency doubling this does happen! Two
photons are forged into one photon.
Depending on their source, photons my come in bunches or more evenly spread
over time, at this late hour i believe the first is typical of blackbody
radiation and the second more of lasers. In a single electron turnstyle
device fed laser one could make photon statistics totally clockwork, this is
a fermionic type statistics characterized by anti-bunching.
I should know al of this, but i am not certain, so i will look it up to see
if i was correct.
Best, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 30 mei 2015 om 21:11 heeft Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven:
Hi John W.
Thank you. Very well written and enlightening.
My comments about two “photons” of the same frequency in the same place and
perfectly coherent, was not regarding the merging of two photons to become
one, and therefore was not regarding ONE photon with twice the energy, and
therefore a higher frequency, but two photons of the same, original
frequency. That is precisely my point. Because if “photons” are just waves,
made of fields, this is how they could work, in fact this is how it appears
they do work.
I understand that this does not agree with your interpretation of the method
of energy exchange, or therefore with your current set of field equations,
but it does seem to agree with the observable. It seems that when two
“photons” become incident upon each other in any configuration, even
perfectly in phase and coherent, that they simply add in the region of
incidence. There is no indication of an “exclusion principle” for photons,
and adding such a constraint which does not allow two photons of the same
frequency to be at the same place and time, simply because it is required by
the rest of a theory, may indicate that there is something else wrong. Since
photons are NIW it seems they should remain NIW under all phase and
coherence conditions.
But I am not saying there is something wrong, just providing comment
regarding issues that I currently feel do not reflect nature and the
observable.
Of course this does not mean that I am right, and you may be precisely
correct, but so far we have a slight difference of opinion. I think the
difference of opinion may start with the “single point in spacetime”
approach to energy exchange, and the repercussions of using that approach to
create field equations compatible with the approach. In my opinion this is
the root of the problem and where the error lies, if there is an error.
What I am saying is also what you have said before, in creating a new theory
it must precisely describe nature, nothing more, nothing less.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 10:31 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Kyran Williamson
Subject: Re: [General] Photon
Good morning everyone,
Firstly - yes indeed I do not think I have it precisely right in the paper I
have circulated yet. I am not in the habit of being completely right
first-time every time! I'm actually quite pleased about that - otherwise
where would be the fun? I have certainly not explained myself well enough
yet. Martin has, already, done a better job than me, on the nature of the
photon, in his comment yesterday.
Secondly, though, I do not agree with Chip that it ok to put photons on top
of one another, or with Richard that the solution is to think about charged
photons.
The problem is description - and language is such an imprecise tool - words
carry far too much weight yet you need to use them. More, if one is going to
properly describe nature in a theory – you need the actual theory – not just
vague notions that address a single problem. For me the phrase “charged
photon”, for example, is an oxymoron. The photon is for me, by its nature an
uncharged and rest-massless thing. If it has charge it has rest-mass. If it
has rest-mass it is not a photon. This is my problem though: I do not own
the word “photon”.
Having a word for "photon" means that one is tempted to think that it is a
thing. I say it and mean something – most of you hear something else (except
Martin – he and I are pretty close on this and I agree with his
description). For most, the concept separates it from the complete process
of charge-charge exchange of a quantum of energy - which is actually what is
going on, and what is actually observed. So, when I say the photon is
self-quantised I am not talking about a little self-contained quantized EM
bullet being emitted independent of its emitter or absorber. One must
include the properties of emitter and absorber as well - these are essential
to the quantisation and it is from these that one calculates the (mere)
value of the charge and Plank's constant. It is, as I argue, the properties
of the emission-absorption process which give the quantisation. It is the
initial configuration of the fields, engendered in the emitter that must
modulate the carrier to a pure zero-rest mass configuration in order to
propagate. The initial fields in the emitter must fulfil strict criteria –
corresponding exactly to those observed physically. They may only transform
with the same factor as does the frequency (this is just normal relativity –
not an extra condition). Fields transform, however, only perpendicular to
the boost, whereas the 4-vector transforms only parallel to it. Again, just
the standard relativity of fields and vectors. If the fields are right, then
they can be transported by a hypercomplex exponential which normally
contains rest-mass components and cannot itself propagate. It remains at
rest at the site of the emitter (though it may recoil a bit). I think the
reason I am getting the wrong value for the constant of Plank is nothing to
do with the velocities I’m using but comes about because I am assuming at
first that the usual emitter is an electron – when in fact it is usually an
atom. Isolated electrons cannot emit. I need now to brush up on atomic
physics, Next job. Next paper – hopefully.
No matter. The argument in the paper I have already posted is precisely that
electromagnetism remains continuous and un-quantised. The point is that -
for a long distance exchange of electromagnetic energy ONLY states which
have certain properties may propagate. Chief amongst those properties (for
the wave-function proposed) is that constrained by this form,
electromagnetic energy, propagated over a distance in space, must come in
"lumps". The wave-function proposed supports ONLY a change in frequency.
That is the wave-function I propose works if, and only if, the energy
transferred is proportional to the frequency. This is what is new about it.
It only "works" if the light comes in lumps. It only propagates strongly
constrained fields. This is not to say that electromagnetism itself is
quantised - it is not. It remains free to chirp and stretch and polarise
freely as Martin explains. It describes only non-interacting waves NIW, as
Chandra argues. Most of the physics is still just classical
electromagnetism. Chandra is mostly right (in my view). Read his papers! The
inter-action is not between photons, it is between charges. Photons are the
bit that do not inter-act. This is what NIW means.
The new theory allows (actually it requires) the description of continuous
waves, locally. They just do not propagate over long distances (even a few
wavelengths!) because that is excluded at the level of the first turn (the
first differential). It is the whole process that exhibits the quantisation
– just as Martin says. It is just that if light wants to go anywhere it,
necessarily, starts looking a lot like a photon. Richard is right to
separate out the different levels of quantisation as well. It is not one
thing, but the separation of the continuous into integer units of various
dimension. There is not one “quantisation” in nature, but many. The new
theory pertains only the process usually called photon exchange. The
quantisation I am talking about here is the quantisation of EM into
"photons".
Now, coming onto that process and that argument, you say, Chip, that it
should be perfectly possible to put two photons precisely on top of one
another so that they add linearly. 1+1=2. Yes – but no. Such an object is
and has to be an object with a different frequency. That is the point. This
comes to the heart of the matter and the heart of the reason I argue the
whole process should come in lumps defined by the frequency alone. If it
were so that one could put two photons on top of one another, one would
observe the two "photons" to be emitted at precisely the same time in the
same emission event, and absorbed at precisely the same time and place in
the absorption event. That is one would propagate two red (say) photons and
get a blue's worth of energy in the exchange event now involving two
photons. Now you may want this to be so, it may feel like a nice friendly
thing photons (which are after all bosons) should be able to do. Only
problem is that such a notion is in contradiction with what is observed
experimentally. One could put a diffraction grating between source and
detector, for example, such that the photons appeared in different places
according to their frequency. Place the detector at the "red" position. No
signal. No di-photon events with the characteristics of red photons. Where
are they? Try going to the blue position. There they are! Appearing as one
lump of energy one at a time. They do have the doubled energy one would
expect from 1+1= 2 – but they do not – experimentally- have the same
wavelength, or frequency. You get only blue ones. This is what you observe
and what has been observed all along in experiment since the photo-electric
effect. In your thinking you must be rigorous enough to bear this in mind.
What is observed in experiment is what your theory must parallel. Otherwise
it is just fantasy (fantasy is good!). To be proper physics, though, it must
not just describe what does happen. It must also say why what is observed
NOT to happen does not happen. Too many of the current batch of theories do
describe a wee bit of nature, but also predict vast slews of phenomena that
just don’t happen. Not good! This may have become fashionable in the last
half-century or so. It is certainly convenient for some theories as it means
they cannot easily be toppled by pesky experiment which would otherwise wipe
most of them out. People have become used to theory predicting lots of
things that do not happen. This is not good enough for proper progress.
These theories cannot be used for engineering applications. One would
predict lots of things to work that would not. We need precision and rigour.
This is why I appreciate criticism so much. Thanks Chip! It helps us all get
to the point.
The ultimate "reason" for the quantisation of the compete solution I have
made up in the paper is exactly the two conditions that energies should add
AND that fields should add LINEARLY. This is what the new wave-functions
do.
It feels that one should have freedom of thought (and one does!), but for
thinking to parallel the physical world it must be constrained, not by one
thinks about nature, but by what one observes it to do. It must fit
experiment. All of it. In other words to parallel nature it must fit the
whole of your physical understanding - all at once. This is very strongly
constrained thinking. Worse- not all of us know all of experiment all at
once (especially me!).
Coming back to another point you raise – you suggest, Chip, that I should
possibly try going to root two of c and then I’ll get my numbers to fit.
Now, if I just wanted to get the numbers to fit this might be an option. I
cannot allow myself to do this though. Why? Because light travels at c.
Experimentally. This is not a floppy condition. It is not a parameter you
can just vary with no consequence elsewhere. It is fun to think about it –
but in doing so one moves away from the whole constraint of the whole of
physics I talked about above. One goes out in a soft, friendly, mushy area
of thinking where all things are possible. One goes out in the world of
untamed imagination. Great! There is plenty of room for that. I love
fiction! Physics is now so complicated, however, that such thinking will
rapidly move away from that which is observed in very many areas. One is in
a world without proper signposts or fixed points. This is a very similar
world to the world of string, or the world of QCD where nothing is
well-defined. One is already lost.
Coming back to Richard’s point of the charged photon. Again one is going
into the mushy – into the mist. Give the photon an intrinsic charge. Why
not? The answer is, not only that charge is a divergence inconsistent with
light-speed motion as I argued earlier, (not a problem if one has a floppy
light velocity though – such photons would be, necessarily, not composed of
field and be sub-light speed), but that it is a mushy continuous charge
thing. One should observe all sorts of charges. One does not. One sees
charges only associated with “particles”. A charged photon should not close,
but should repel itself. One causes far more problems with the conjecture
than one solves. The theory must not only explain what is observed, but also
why other things are NOT observed.
That comes to the other problem. There is no charged photon theory. No
differential equations describing its motion. It ends up just being a
notion. A notion, effectively, of charged fields. Why not just make it a
scalar charge? That is already complex enough. The theory for this was
explored, for example, by Dirac himself in the fifties. It did not lead
anywhere (yet, at least).
Now coming back to Dirac and his (much earlier) linear relativistic theory.
Dirac, in his relativistic quantum mechanics, does indeed integrate his
linear equation and derives a motion consisting of a quickly oscillating
lightspeed part, the zitterbewegung and an overall motion characterised by
the normal energy as a half m v squared part. Very beautiful. He does not
get them separately – they are the first two terms in an expansion.
Incidentally this also gets the de-Broglie wavelength right, with a doubled
Compton frequency nota bene. The factor of two comes out. It is not put in
a-priori. This is what happens in a proper relativistic linear theory. So
what is the problem, why do we not just pack up go home and go fishing? Job
done. Two reasons: firstly the zitterbewegung fluid in the Dirac model is
not fields but some stuff with peculiar properties defined by the new
theory: Spinors. These have the peculiar property that you must rotate
through 720 degrees to get back to where you started from. This is good in
itself – and goes a long way to describing the fundamental difference
between fermions and bosons. It is certainly a big element of the truth.
Understanding these objects properly, however, has proved beyond the wit of
generations of physicists (if they are honest) – including Dirac himself and
Feymann- both of whom were bright and brave enough to simply say so. Dirac
does so, for example, in his own book, directly after deriving the base
solutions. Good man. Others waffle – or put the problem into simple
two-valued groups such as SU(2). Stick it into simple maths and forget about
it. Make it an inviolable starting point of further theory. Bit wimpy – but
safe! Moving spinors – even slowly moving spinors start mixing with each
other. They are not a relativistically invariant basis. Big problem!
I think the base problem with the Dirac model is that it is still too simple
– and I think that the point where Dirac goes wrong is when he makes two
different identifications with the same thing. This messes everything up and
leads to, not only solutions, but also basic dynamical terms “being
difficult to interpret because they are complex” - as Dirac says. Where this
comes from is that he has used, unwittingly, the same square root of minus
one for two conceptually different things. Complex indeed, but not complex
enough. And mixed up at that.
Coming back to a more advanced theory: one has to explain why and how
charges arise in a pair-creation process. To do this one has to understand
field properly (at least as the six components of an antisymettric tensor –
but tensor algebra does not go far enough (yet) either). One needs to get
going with a proper field theory – not just with a loosely based model. If
you are going to charge a photon this cannot be ad-hoc. Are you charging the
electric field part or the magnetic field part, for example. Are you adding
a 4-vector (charge is the first component of the 4-current) to the
six-vector? Just what is it, exactly, that you are proposing? How do you
propose to modify the undelying theory to accommodate your conjecture?
For me, the charge comes about more from, as Chip and John D are arguing,
from a topological re-configuration of the field such that it is everywhere
radial in a double looped configuration. The photon has field. The field is
rectified by the twist and the turn. The confinement leads then to a
confined object appearing to be (and actually being) charged.
The turn itself – essential to the re-configuration of the field, is
engendered in my model not by a charge, but by a dynamical scalar rest-mass
term in conjunction with the electric component of the field. This is a
seventh component in addition to the six components of the EM field. You may
also see it as an element of energy. I agree with you partially here, that
this is fundamental stuff – but so is field and field is different. It is
not a scalar.
The resulting composite object is fermionic in that it a double-turn –a
fundamental fermion. It is charged in that it can inter-act and exchange
energy. In isolation, it exhibits a radial electric field – as does a
charge. Why would you need to complicate things by wanting the poor photon
to be charged as well? You do not need it! How are you ever going to
calculate the charge from first principles when you put a random amount of
it in to begin with? You are going to get the charge of the photon, plus or
minus the charge engendered by the topology and the confinement. Why? I
think at this point one is doubly lost. One has had to give up the idea that
EM propagates at lightspeed and one has also arbitrarily assigned a charge
to an imagined “charged photon” – an object which is not observed in the
real world. Further, one has lost the possibility of a theory to work with
as there is no theory of the charged photon with equations like the Maxwell
equations, or the Schroedinger equation, or the Dirac equation. One is then
triply lost.
Now, coming back to numbers, let us say that I did want Martin and my old
model to get the charge exactly right (for example). There is a simple way
to do this without too much fuss and without varying the lightspeed or
introducing a charge to the photon. Just allow the ratio of the minor to the
major axes of the torus to vary. If zero – one gets the charge slightly less
than q. A bit more – hey presto- just right. More still
one can wind it up
to about 20 times the charge observed. Why is this not a result? Why does
this not fix the ratio of minor to major. Well – for example could vary all
sorts of other things – why not flatten it slightly? Why not put it in a
cubical box (this value is then damn close –less than a percent!). Why not
stick a hole in it – like a spindle? Why not make it pear-shaped (this is
not as daft as it sounds and may end up being the answer!).
Yes – you can do anything in your mind. The problem is that process is
futile unless one has a proper theory, or some experiment which can
distinguish these things. Now, clearly, I’m hoping that the new theory I
propose may, ultimately, provide the answer. My second choice would be that
the extension of the Bateman method, which Martin is pursuing, does the
trick. Maybe these will converge or merge with some other thinking in the
group (even better!). Perhaps we will find some seminal experiment which
fixes some aspect of it. Perhaps the experiment has already been done and
one or other of you know about it.
There is a lot of work between where I am now and there though, and perhaps
not enough life and energy left in me to pursue it as much as I would like,
(squished as I am by a pile of exams – though the marking is now nearly
finished). The work to come requires developing a canon of work similar to
that produced by dozens of the greats in non-relativistic quantum mechanics
in the 1930’s – except the base equations are much more complicated than the
simple Schroedinger equation. We have equations, but we need to find
solutions to the equations. Plenty of work to do! I’m hoping to convince a
few folk with enough talent and energy to start getting stuck in to this
programme. The process can, and probably will, throw up problems with the
original conception and formulation. I agree here with Chip! No problem! If
it is wrong – modify it or throw it out and make up a new one. That is the
proper application of the scientific method.
Anyway this has turned into too much of an opus. Though it was started in
the morning it is now afternoon and time for me to go and get on with some
proper work. Marking awaits!
Bye for now,
John W.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org> ] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> ]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 2:59 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon
John and Martin,
Thanks for your encouragement. The electron is a photon going round and
round in the case of a resting electron, otherwise it is a photon going
round and round and forward in some kind of helical motion, in which case it
is not a standing field in this reference frame. Whether or not the charge
of a charged photon moves at the speed of light depends on the particular
model of the photon that one has. The relativistic charged-photon/electron
model does not require a particular photon model.The charge that is
detected, like the electron mass that is detected, may be moving at
sub-light speed. Mass is not more fundamental than energy, and is proposed
to be composed of light-speed energy in the case of the electron.
Richard
On May 30, 2015, at 5:03 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > wrote:
Can anyone clearly explain why a charged photon of spin 1/2 hbar and rest
mass 0.511MeV/c^2 is not the missing link between the uncharged photon and
the electron?
Yes, I can. The electron is a 511keV photon going round and round. It’s a
charged particle because it’s a photon going round and round. The photon
moving linearly is a field variation, but when it’s going round and round,
it’s a standing field. That’s why it has mass too. It’s like
<http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273419950_Light_is_Heavy> the
photon In a box . Only it’s a box of its own making. Light displaces its own
path into a closed path, because light is displacement current. And it does
what it says on the can. Because space waves.
Regards
John D
PS: Counter-rotating vortices repel, co-rotating vortices attract, see
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/68152826/On-Vortex-Particles-Fiasco-Press-Journal
-of-Swarm-Scholarship#scribd> On Vortex Particles by David St John. They
ain’t called spinors for nothing!
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 29 May 2015 23:47
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Photon
Richard, yes, thank you.
That is indeed a very good remark, you are probably very right.
Let me think about it a bit more,
Best,
Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 29 mei 2015 om 21:45 heeft Richard Gauthier <
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com> het volgende
geschreven:
Chip, John and Martin,
I think you gentlemen are onto something. A photon has three related
levels of quantization (E=hf, p=h/lambda and spin = hbar) — perhaps only the
third is truly quantized in the sense of having a discrete value. An
electron has two more levels of discrete quantization (charge and rest mass)
which may be closely related to its spin 1/2 hbar. The electron’s charge may
be closely related to its spin hbar/2 in the case of the electron, but not
the case of the neutrino). An electron gains further levels of discrete
quantization (its energy eigenvalues) by being bound in an atom. The more
discrete quantum levels a quantum has, the more it is “bound” to a material
condition. Can anyone clearly explain why a charged photon of spin 1/2 hbar
and rest mass 0.511MeV/c^2 is not the missing link between the uncharged
photon and the electron?
Richard
On May 29, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 [
<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: 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 [
<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 Richard Gauthier [ <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
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>
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 <
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> 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>
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20150531/5fafb538/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 110263 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150531/5fafb538/attachment.jpeg>
More information about the General
mailing list