[General] What a model of photons must do

[John Williamson]

Hello Viv,

Good for you. I am (almost) 100 percent in agreement with everthing you say. One comment though, below, on the nature of "time". The bottom line is that I agree with you and with me at the same time!

Especially I would like to support and emphasis again the statement that the only arbiter is experiment. Sterile discussion on what other people may or may not think (or have thought!) - no matter how emeinent, is simply time wasted. Let them talk for themselves. Basil Hiley, who wrote the books with Bohm on the de Broglie-Bohm theory is still very much alive and very very smart. If anyone wants to try to actually progress that direction then he should be involved.

Regards, John W.


________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Vivian Robinson [viv at universephysics.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 5:58 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] What a model of photons must do

Dear All,

I have been a little busy lately and it doesn't seem like it is going to ease up for a while. I have been browsing over the correspondence. A few features are apparent.

1) Regarding the photon. For my part I am quite happy to accept the model forwarded by John Williamson and Martin van der Mark. To me their physics seems to make sense. My major point of contention with them is that the photon can extend between the emitter and absorber, even if that distance is billions of light years apart. To me this is a mathematical derivation introduced from the Minkowski space-time continuum, due to c^2t^2 - r^2 = 0, when a photon is travelling at c. An equally valid physical explanation is that time stands still for a photon. As far as a photon is concerned, it is emitted, travels for zero time in its own frame of reference, although with a real time to an external observer not travelling at c. It is subsequently absorbed when it contacts an absorbing medium such an electron. Photons can be scattered, losing part of their energy, as for example in Compton scattering. IMHO their descriptions appear to fit observation better than any alternative I have seen. There is still some more detail required.

With a proper description of time, this is just exactly correct. Define time to be the phase of the photon (frequency and . It is then just a tautology that no time passes for the phase front of the photon. This is not only exactly how I think of it, but also leads to precisely the mathematics of SR. It is not space time from the maths, but the maths from the proper experimental properties of space and time - as defined by light.

2) I note that much attention is given to trying to get properties of the photon in particular and matter generally to fit quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR). I can understand this trend because they are both touted as the most accurate experimentally tested theories yet forwarded. However they do have some problems. A unity between the two has eluded all theoreticians to date. General relativity has been used as the basis of the Big Bang theory of formation of the universe. In explaining the observed universe, that theory is in error by 24 times the mass/energy of the observed universe plus ≈ 10^60 different universes in a multiverse. Quantum mechanics requires a very high energy density to explain some of its calculations. I have seen a figure of ≈ 10^110 Joule/ cubic metre (J/m^3), while astronomers measure something like 10^-10 J/m^3. Irrespective of what they predict, both of those are significant errors that would not be tolerated in any other field of human endeavour.

Yes agreed: this is time wasted. We need better theories which derive GR and QM in proper limits, and yet go deeper.

3) Quantum mechanics is based upon Schrödinger's and Dirac's wave equations. It was developed because the electron's properties were too difficult to explain in terms of a particle, whereas a wave gives an electron a probability of being somewhere within its waveform, which can extend over large distances (+ infinity to - infinity have been quoted). The justification for using it has been its de Broglie wavelength. As far as I am concerned an electron is a particle. Its rotating photon structure gives rise to its de Broglie wavelength. Whether you believe Richard G's derivation or my derivation (Ref 1) is irrelevant for this discussion. There is nothing in the de Broglie wavelength of a particle that can cause it to do anything except undergo diffraction. The double slit experiment doesn't prove the electron is a wave. It shows that the electron has an electromagnetic wave associated with it. When the electron approaches a double slit, it will pass through one of them, while its de Broglie wave will pass through both slits. Upon passing through both slits, the de Broglie wave unites with the electron and its direction is changed (depending upon a number of factors). When enough electrons have passed through the double slit, the wave diffraction pattern will be observed. Ref 1 also gives a reason for the special relativity corrections of mass, length and time, as well as predicting a diminution of radius with velocity. It shows the nature of an electron's spin and suggests a physical origin electric charge.

To measure which slit the electron passes through requires the application of a "voltage" sensor to at least one slit. That sensor, no matter how sensitive it is, will interfere with the electromagnetic field. Because the de Broglie wave is a component of the electron's electromagnetic field, it will interfere with that field. Once that field has been interfered with, it is no longer intact and cannot cause the electron to respond to its de Broglie wave diffraction. In the same manner, an electron's de Broglie wavelength is directly related to its energy. At the same time there are only a limited number of protons than can attract electrons to a nucleus, 1 for H up to 92 for U. The binding energy of an electron to a proton, Rydberg energy (RE) determines its wavelength. It is fixed. Under the rotating photon model of matter, an electron is an enormous gyroscope. Its whole mass is rotating at c at a radius hundreds of time larger than the diameter of a proton. Like any other gyroscope, it can't change its direction unless it can exchange angular momentum with another particle. In order to change direction, an electron must find another electron to form a pair. This becomes the basis of electron pairing that is responsible for chemical reactions. Quantisation of electron orbits are not necessary to explain why electrons' don't collapse into the nucleus. They are far too large to fit into even a uranium nucleus and even if they could, there are no energy levels in a stable nucleus to absorb them.

What I am trying to say in the above is that an electron is a particle and should be treated as such. The unique properties of the rotating photon model of the electron can explain many of its "quantum" properties. I would like to suggest you do not try to fit properties of either photons or particles into quantum mechanics. Rather try to fit them to what is observed. Observation is reality. IMHO early theoreticians (Schrödinger, Dirac et al.) did not have any known structure for an electron to apply particle physics to them. They had no alternative but to turn to wave equations for solutions. I would like to suggest that, using the rotating photon model of an electron, you should try to match it to observation. In my first attempt at that, Ref 1, I believe I gave a few matches to observation, as well as predicting a number of unknown properties. I am happy to let my theory survive on the detection of the predictions.

It is the same with general relativity. Einstein's field equations for space outside matter (gravity as we know it) fits all observations against which it has been tested. However it has only been tested for r > ≈ 10,000 alpha (alpha = Schwarzschild radius 2GM/c^2). Using the principle of conservation of energy for the photon as I believe is described by John W and Martin vdM, it is possible to derive an alternative space-time geometry equation that matches all the observations that support Einstein's general theory of relativity at r >> alpha, but don't predict a singularity at r = alpha (Ref 2).

It is also possible to derive a similar expression for space-time inside matter, which describes the large scale gravitational attraction of the universe. When one does that it becomes apparent that an infinite static universe will not collapse under the gravitational attraction of its own mass. This leaves the possibility of an infinite static universe as an acceptable alternative to the Big Bang theory. In this theory there is no requirement for a cosmological constant to explain the non collapse stability of the universe if it is static. The observed ≈ 2.7˚K background temperature of space is just that. The tiny fluctuations are not due to the ripples in space-time about which galaxies formed. The higher temperature regions are close to galaxies because inter galactic gas and dust close to galaxies are heated more than those in the deep space between galaxies. I have predicted several measurements that can be made to distinguish between a universe that started from a Big Bang and one that is infinite and static. (This part of my work has not yet been published although I have put it together into a book form which is not yet available electronically.  John W, FYI I have significantly revised several aspects of the manuscript I gave you in July to overcome some if its significant deficiencies.)

Good for you Viv. It was already pretty damn good in many respects anyway.

4) There still appears to be a lack of experimental support for the theoretical ideas forward by various members in this group. I will restate, as does John W, experiment is the only arbiter of science. Using an eminent person's theory to support your theory may give credibility to your theory in the eyes of some people. It does nothing to support an observation. I will restate my earlier comment: If your want your theory to be accepted you need to show how it matches known experimental data and preferably make testable predictions. Without that these discussions go off at tangents that lead to nowhere and simply cause confusion. IMHO that is the outcome of the past few months discussion. I have been unable to pick up any conclusions that suggest otherwise but will be happy to read any summary that can show how the discussions have led to progress in the understanding of the nature of the photon.

There has, indeed, been no progress on the fundamentals - but it has raised some of the issues in discussion elsewhere, especially in the (in my view sterile) field of "quantum entanglement".

Please note my change of email address to "viv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>". Could you please change my details, or indicate how I could make that change. Thank you! The website "www.universephysics.com<http://www.universephysics.com>" is a website in progress. It has some information about my work, which I will update when I get more time and a better electronic format for my work. This work does make dozens of experimentally testable predictions and I am happy to let experiment adjudicate on it when I get it onto the website. I append a page from my study, which I have called "Explaining the Physical Universe" to suggest you should stop trying to match you theory to QM and GR and match observation. FYI my findings are close to those of Einstein's. I suggest that anyone who disagrees with SR and GR doesn't understand his work. I am happy to accept that GR is based upon mass distorting space time. I use different sets of calculations to get different metrics which match observation. My metric for space inside matter - the structure of the universe - shows why an infinite static universe will not collapse under its own mass without the need for a cosmological constant.

Cheers,

Viv Robinson

Ref 1  http://www.la-press.com/journal-particle-physics-insights-j105 (click on "A Proposal on the Structure and Properties of the Electron")
Ref 2 http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=35823


On 07/11/2015, at 10:08 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:

Dear All,

I agree with David - but I think it goes much further than this - and cuts both ways.

Although a single (good) experiment should destroy a weak theory this is no longer the fashion in 21st century physics.

For example there was in the 70's a VERY good experiment that  destroyed the quark-parton model. It was O'Fallon et el's Phys Rev letter (1977). Notwithstanding this QCD has soldiered on regardless for nearly half a century. The experiment has been repeated manay times - confirming the original results. The conclusion: the quark parton model is simply inconsistent with experiment! Likewise gluons. There should exist glueballs. We do not see em. QED, QCD is bollocks again. In fact it is stark disagreement with a whole host of experimental triumphs (such as the EMC effect - one of mine).  Experiment used to rule in science, but it rules "science" no more (except for in the tiny minds of one or two dinosaurs like me).

I agree with John W that experiment is the only arbiter of science. If you don't have experimental support for your concepts, are they valid?

On the other had there are many experiments purporting to "confirm" this theory or that when they do no such thing. One such is the 3K background temperature - often cited as "proof" of the big bang. It is no such thing. ANY reasonable theory would have a term for something that is just, after all, the measured black body temperature of the (not completely frozen) universe, as Viv has argued strongly.

Many folk have read things into experimental results which were not there (including me - on my own experiments!). One needs to take care.

Actually I think what one REALLY needs to do to make proper progress is not dis this or that theory( fun though it is)- but just get on with making up new ones which ACTUALLY work. Then let Darwinian selection loose. Dinosaur I may be, but lets just see what a real live dinosaur can do let loose on the current scientific (socio-) ecology.

Happy hunting folks!

Cheers, John (W).


________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf ofdavidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 7:27 PM
To: Hodge John; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] What a model of photons must do

John H

Nice summary.

Here are a few of my more lucid notes.

Within our universe, there appears to enough uniformity that a ToE might be possible. This immediately eliminates multiverses or the space in between universes. Are they all related? Until shown otherwise, yes.

I like the idea of photonic cavitation that limits the velocity to c. While not implemented yet on ships, fluid supercavitation permits higher velocities in water than a hard surface bow. Spacetime cavitation may be the solution to faster than light travel. Using phat photons or a phat photon laser, spacetime supercavitation may be possible although I would expect that locally, one would have to exceed the Schwinger limit or at least use some sort of broadband parametric amplification.

>A single experiment that is unexplained falsifies a proposed photon model.

That statement needs some qualification. Popper falsification is limited in application as the method only applies to unbounded domains in physics, an attempt essentially to reasonably reduce a Monte Carlo analysis of infinite proportions. The general approach for falsification is to look to the least likely to be confirmed. While useful at times, beyond physics there are difficulties...for example, in biological science, evolution cannot be Popper Falsified.

The general assumption is that one can measure what they are experimentally looking for with precision and accuracy. The assumption is they known what they are looking for and at the same time, there are no emergent properties or hidden variables affecting the analysis. So the Uncertainty Principle defines in part the limits imposed by the tools we have. Since physics is still on the hunt for a ToE, a single experiment may not be enough especially when one only understands 5% of the universe.

Best

David







________________________________
From: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>>
To: "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 10:30 AM
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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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 • but also a •*. The conjugate could be a wave directed toward the photon. Here we have analogy - reflected wave in the unity argument and •* in quantum mechanics like the •* of the Transaction Interpretation. Other models have to assume the intensity is •*• - more weirdness.
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? TheE=mc^2 relation has m as inertial energy.

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.

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

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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 viv at etpsemra.com.au<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151109/28faf948/attachment.htm>