[General] What a model of photons must do

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Sat Nov 7 02:29:59 PST 2015


Hi John W

 

Thank you.

 

Chip

 

 

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 4:00 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth
<abooth at ieee.org>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; Mark, Martin
van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] What a model of photons must do

 

Yes, 

I know why they are not stable, both from within the new model and from the
standpoint of conventional physics.

In the latter case there are less massive states to which they can decay and
a (weak - squared) coupling to get there. In my model it is similar, but
with the muon and -electron neutrinos being 2D particles (rather than the 3D
electron and the 1D photon). Almost (but not quite) rest-massless.

Compliments by the way. I really think you ARE starting to get this!

Regards, John.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 9:55 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der
Subject: Re: [General] What a model of photons must do

Hello again,

Sorry, forgot about the electron, muon and tauon

Electron stability is more complicated because of the charge which is an
inter-action (so external stuff must be taken into account) - but the
internal motion is also force free. 

The inter-action force is a confinement force, however, which Martin first
calculated a couple of decades ago. It is about the right size (if I
remember correctly), given the size of the universe and the number of
particles therein, to account for (roughly) the kind of curvature (mass) one
sees in the physical electron. If one was sure of the mechanism (there is an
issue with ac v dc and the pre-existence of interactions at very large
times(and hence distances) one could invert this to extract the number of
charges in the (effective) universe.

My daft model for the muon and tauon masses (right to a few percent though
it is) also gives confinement for these in the same way - but makes them
more massive in the correct ratio.

Regards, John.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 9:48 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der
Subject: Re: [General] What a model of photons must do

Hello Chip,

No it is not the twist per-se that gives confinement - it is a lot better
than that.

The new equations are a set of equations of motion for the field, for
current, for angular momentum and for mass. Their being zero (that is the
total first differential of the sixteen components constituting light and
material systems being zero) is a sufficient condition that the total
generalised (Lorentz) force acting on each and every component is also zero.
These are a sort of extended Newtons laws for mass, current, field and
angular momentum. Indeed if you just take the mass component you get Newtons
laws, If you include the quadri-vector you get quantum mechanics, if you
just take the fields you get the Maxwell equations. THis means the wave, the
twist and all of that are simple consequences of the natural force-free
flow. They need no extra forces other than those that are already in there.

Regards, John.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 9:40 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] What a model of photons must do

Hi John W.

 

A question along a different line.  

 

Does the “twist” in your new field equations provide for the binding force
for the electron’s energy confinement? (I am thinking it does.) And have you
calculated stability for the electron, and muon, as they would likely be
instantiated, using your new field equations?

 

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: Saturday, November 07, 2015 2:19 AM
To: Hodge John < <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com> jchodge at frontier.com>; Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nick Bailey < <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>
nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Ariane Mandray <
<mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; Mark, Martin
van der < <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] What a model of photons must do

 

Hello John,

Sorry I have not been following these threads recently.   Answers to you
posts in blue below. Sorry, have only read this post (and I guess you have
not yet seen many of mine!) so this may be at cross-purposes to other stuff.
No matter.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Hodge John [jchodge at frontier.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 6:30 PM
To:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: [General] What a model of photons must do

Richard,Albrecht

I suggest a “unity” requirement to help identify light’s character. Our
universe is one entity. Therefore, all in it must be related. Science is
questing after a Theory of Everything (ToE) that must unite the big of
cosmology, the small of light and particle physics, and the classical of our
size domain. The corollary is that the weird quantum assumptions should beg
for another explanation following the observations in the cosmological and
classics domains.

I like to think from observations to model other observations.

Agreed!

Cosmology suggests that matter (discrete, extended, with edges) warps
“space” (continuous or infinitely divisible, gravitational ether, plenum,
quantum vacuum, fills between matter particles) and “space” directs
particles. Therefore, the de Broglie–Bohm theory of 2 components of our
universe seems much more likely to yield a ToE than the weird duality
notion. It helps that the de Broglie–Bohm theory can derive the Schrödinger
equation because real waves direct the particles.

Agreed here.

The source of the wave field that directs the particles is still a problem
for the de Broglie–Bohm theory if we insist the speed of the waves is c or
less. Thomas van Flandern has championed the idea the speed of gravitational
waves is much (billions of times) faster than c. If only matter is limited
to c, the instruments measurements would be the same. But that doesn’t make
the “space”, gravitational ether, plenum, or quantum vacuum any less real.

Yes, the question here though is between models such as gravitons, which are
exchanged, and those such as general relativity where the interaction is
pre-existing and imprinted on the local spatial and temporal scale.

Afshar suggested his low intensity diffraction experiments were measuring
single photons. I have some difficulty with this because laser light is
stimulated emission light in pulses. 

He has done experiments with single photons (so have many others) I have
done them with single electrons (so have many others).

However, the “walking drop” experiments show diffraction effects with only a
single drop. (Linking the walking drop with de Broglie–Bohm theory seems to
be becoming popular.) The unity postulate suggests the forces governing the
drop may be similar to the forces governing light. Therefore, considering a
single photon in the experiment at a time and the photon being directed when
it is between the mask and screen is required. How does the de Broglie–Bohm
theory develop the wave coming through the slit? Well, it doesn’t - oops.

I think if we want to go into this we should include people like Basil Hiley
- who really know about this stuff.


The walking drop produces a wave as it drops then bounces off the surface.
But an object staying in the medium does not produce a wave that can
interfere with other waves unless in bounces in a direction perpendicular to
the medium’s surface. What direction is perpendicular to the medium (space)
the photon is in? The unity principle suggests only 3 directions. 

This is too simple a view. Your analogy is confusing you. The three
"dimensions" of the electric field (not three- not four) are all
"perpendicular" to the further three "dimensions" of the magnetic field.
There are six linearly independent d"dimensions" here. These, in turn, are
all linearly independent (perpendicular then) to the three spatial
directions giving nine. If you choose to superimpose them, and hence become
confused, that is your problem.

How are the multiple, interfering waves generated from the photon? Is the
photon agitated - what is the source of the energy for this? Gravity, the
mass of the drop, and the external vibration of the medium produce energy
externally for the walking drop. The analogy is breaking down. 

Indeed, the analogy has broken down. They nearly always do if they are
simpler than that which they try to describe.

A boat traveling along the surface of water produces waves to the side, a
relatively flat surface behind and no waves in front as the boat expends all
its forward energy. This is not a good analogy for a diffraction pattern
exerting force on photons. An object can produce sonic waves as it moves
through fluids by cavitation. But this expends tremendous energy. Indeed,
this may be the reason the photons have limited speed. Over all this
(producing an interference wave) is another oops. This is the cause of
creating the Huygens- Fresnel wavelet idea. This principle is another
violation of the unity principle and a cause of weirdness.

This assumes that space is a massive medium and that the vibration exits
merely in space - I think the truth is a bit more complicated than that.

Examine the walking drop experiment again (see Johnn Bush “The new wave of
pilot-wave theory” in Physics Today Aug 2015. There are also several U-Tube
videos). The bouncing drop casues a wave outward from the drop. The barriers
of the slit reflect the wave (this is difficult to see because of the
strobing) and another part goes through the slit. This creates a standing
wave that directs the drop. Quantum mechanics require not just the y but
also a y*. The conjugate could be a wave directed toward the photon. 

In QM the conjugate is just the same wave coming backwards. In a box one
has, for example y in the +ve y direction y* in the negative y direction.
The sum is just a standing wave. This is well-explained in any undergrad
textbook and I have taught it (to Stephen for example) in undergraduate
courses.

Here we have analogy - reflected wave in the unity argument and y* in
quantum mechanics like the y* of the Transaction Interpretation. Other
models have to assume the intensity is y*y - more weirdness.

Nope - this is not weird. the y and y* are just a kind of square-root field-
needing to be squared to give energy (or probability). This is a normal
property of anything waving.      It is no more weird than needing to take
the r.m.s. value of your a.c. supply voltage and current to multiply them to
get power.
 

Quantum mechanics also has a “no crossing” rule (assumption). Figure 5c in
Bush’s paper shows red lines on the left side and blue lines on the right
side entering the region near the slit. These lines cross and so that the
red lines are mostly on the right and blue lines are mostly on the left
beyond the slit. If photons are particles, their stream can cross.

The Airy patterns formed by each star through a telescopes aperture seem to
not interfere. Peng, Barootkop, Roychoudhuri explored this in their
Non-Interference of light (NIL) papers. If light within a beam of light from
a single star can interfere, why doesn’t light (photons) interfere when the
beams are coincident (yeah I know, but hold on a minute). Now consider the
light from one star. It is coherent because it does from diffraction
patterns when passed through a slit. Further, the light consists of several
colors (energy of photon) and each color is diffracted. But the pattern has
colors separated on the secondary peaks of the diffraction pattern. Each
color is coherent but the multiple colors are in the beams and apparently
not acting coherently as NIL suggests. Light from an incandescent source
(black body radiation of a star) is not coherent initially but become
coherent as it travels long distances or passes through a slit. The NIL
experiments suggest coherent light can be made to be incoherent with a
Fresnel lens. What makes light (photons) coherent? It cannot be the energy
level of a photon because laser light is also coherent. Because each energy
level photons create a slightly different diffraction pattern (different
frequency), each color must produce a different frequency wave. The NIL
energies is experienced in the classical world by common radios and TVs.
Different frequency waves in a medium do not interfere or resonate. This
implies a photon has structure and may not be the smallest thing in the
universe (speculation: just because electromagnetic pulse travel at the
speed of light doesn’t means the particles conveying the energy is photons -
it could be these smaller particles). What characteristic of a photon
determines its energy? The E=mc^2 relation has m as inertial energy.

See Martins SPIE paper.

The Equivalence Principle is still a postulate not a derived relation. What
is the structure of the photon that (warps space) produces gravitation and
inertia? When a particle reaction has energy released and the mass (m)
decreases, radiation in the form of photons is released. That is, photons
comprise particles. If photons comprise particles, then of course particles
also diffract. Then the structure of the particles and the structure of the
photons must have some means to limit their velocity to less than c.

The limitation comes about because velocity is simply not a vector. It is a
division of one part of a vector with another part of the same vector. This
is not widely understood, but Martin and I have written a paper about it
which will come out at the next SPIE or the conference I hold next summer,
if not before.

What makes the energy levels of photons not only different but also discrete
(a characteristic of matter not a continuous medium)?

Read my paper.

 Perhaps it is the number of sub-photon matter that makes the photon have
discrete level. The continuous field can have discrete influences because
the waves in the field have low energy troughs that the field pushes the
particles into.  

 

Now think of single model that meets all these issues. A single experiment
that is unexplained falsifies a proposed photon model.


Read my paper. Please see if you can find me an experiment it does not
explain.

Regards, John.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151107/77177803/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list