[General] SU(2) equation set
John Duffield
johnduffield at btconnect.com
Mon Nov 16 11:54:13 PST 2015
Chip:
I think the confinement thing does cause angular momentum in light as well.
And I think this thing is displacement current. Something like
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deep_water_wave.gif> this gif. In
the canoe analogy there’s this current of water that pushes you 1m up, then
takes you back down again. Only when you look closely at the red-dot test
particles, it isn’t just an up-and-down motion, it’s rotational.
I agree that this isn’t the same angular momentum as that in the electron.
Try to imagine a water wave going round a water-world planet, then imagine
what happens to the red-dot test-particle motion as you shrink the planet
down to the size of a wavelength. Then shrink it some more. You end up with
a static skew because the rotational path of the wave matches the angular
momentum of the test particles.
As for how energy behaves in space, shrug, space waves. IMHO it’s rather
like a pulse of “more space” propagating through space. But the wave is
associated with potential rather than field.
Yes, light is quantized. See Susskind talking about it
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY> in this video where at 2
minutes 50 second he rolls his marker round saying angular momentum is
quantized. The quantization is that you wave your marker round the same
circumference regardless of wavelength. It’s like all light waves are the
same amplitude. Sounds weird I know, but the dimensionality of action h is
momentum x distance, and look at this:
Hence light is quantized, and it’s still a wave. As for the math doesn’t
work, well, according to Maxwell, light consists of transverse undulations,
so displacement current does what it says on the can. When the wave moves
through itself in the double-loop configuration it displaces its own path
into a closed path. You can only do this at 511keV because only one
wavelength will do for that common amplitude. And when you have done it, we
don’t call it a photon any more. We call it an electron. And the only thing
that’s changed is the path.
As for what energy is, it’s usually dynamical when we’re talking about
photons and electrons, but in the end I cannot distinguish from space. A
static gravitational field is something like injecting some gin-clear
ghostly elastic jelly into a continuum made of
gin-clear ghostly elastic
jelly. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum
diagonal. And the shear stress term:
I don’t think the standing wave thing is an analogy. I think electrons exist
as standing waves. Let’s face it, we hold an electron in the palm of our
hand, and we can diffract electrons. It has a definite wave nature, and it
isn’t going thataway at c. IMHO it’s going round and round like Martin
<http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478> ’s light in a box, only it’s in a box of
its own making. Yes, that going round and round isn’t the same thing as
going back and forth. And yes, the motion of the electron’s confined energy
in the hydrogen atom is different to the motion of the energy in a free
electron. But gamma-gamma pair production isn’t magic, and nor is
annihilation back to gamma photons. You just jiggle the box. Or you start
with a rod and you form it into a hoop. Then you can spin your hoop around a
central point, like a wheel. And on top of that you can hula that hoop. Or
you can play with sparklers. Sweep your sparkler round and round in a circle
for a free electron, then swivel your hips too for an s- orbital. Make a
figure-of-eight for a p-orbital. Or a four-leaved clover for a d-orbital.
And so on.
Yes the maths is tricky, but you can still make some progress from the hard
scientific evidence.
Regards
JohnD
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 16 November 2015 14:02
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Hi John D
Thank you. And yes. More fundamental, meaning a bit simpler.
But the thing that makes the energy in the electron go round and round,
given what we know about light and the electron
this confinement/rotation
thing, it seems must cause angular momentum in light as well. Not the same
angular momentum, for the light energy is in a simpler configuration than
the fermionic energy, but the same set of causes: energy behaving like
energy behaves in space.
I have explored literally dozens of different scenarios, some conjured up by
me, many suggested by others, to explain just how this energy is confined in
the electron. (Including trying to figure out some form of self-diffraction
causing confinement, but that does not work given what we know. The math
does not work. We have to break too many of the known “laws” to force fit
this solution.) The only viable and supportable solutions I have found,
require that light have a component of angular momentum. Yes,
superposition, and Chandra’s NIW could produce any measured polarization for
light, but that would not alleviate the twist term requirement in field
equations to explain electron confinement. And if that twist term must
exist, it is most likely that light is also quantized. But when we say that
light is quantized it does not mean that we are saying it is not a wave.
Light is a wave, and apparently it comes in quantized packets, but it is
still a wave.
And likewise, the electron is a wave. It is in a quantized and localized
form, but it is a wave nonetheless. It is a very robustly confined wave, so
it has particle behaviors, but it is a wave.
Regardless of my personal views, energy is what it is, and it does what it
does. Given the knowns, that leads to a narrow set of possibilities.
Just looking for exactly what it IS, rather than what I would prefer it is,
or what I think might explain it.
By the way, having worked quite a bit with standing waves (the EM variety),
the standing wave analogy does not work for me. For me, energy going round
and round is not really the same thing as energy going back and forth. The
standing wave analogy leaves out too much of the important detail. The
motion of the electron’s confined energy in the hydrogen atom, is different
than the motion of the energy in a free electron. And that difference is
very informative.
Thoughts?
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:23 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Cc: pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> ; 'Nick Bailey'
<nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; 'Mark,
Martin van der' <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >; 'David Williamson'
<david.williamson at ed.ac.uk <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk> >;
qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com <mailto:qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Chip:
I’d like to back that up.
In <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties>
atomic orbitals electrons “exist as standing waves”. If you kick an electron
out of an orbital, it still exists as a standing wave. Because when a 511keV
wave goes round and round just right, it doesn’t look like a wave any more,
it looks like a field. Standing wave, standing field. Note that this means
the messenger particle is more fundamental than the field it’s said to
mediate.
Regards
John D
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 16 November 2015 04:12
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Cc: pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> ; Nick Bailey
<nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; David
Williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk> >;
Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Replies ....
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
[af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 4:25 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Hi Chip:
In my view, both photons and waves are imaginary constructs to assist
thinking about E&M interactions, which in the final analysis is described by
the sum of all Gaussian 1/r² interactions (with delay, i.e., the
Lenard-Wichert potentials, etc.). The Gaussian comes closest to what the
interaction actually IS (as onta, not virtual or represntational or ....).
The idea that light is quantized comes from the fact that it is observed
exclusively with one or another version of the photoelectric effect made up
of countable electrons. Fields, per se, are never seen, just the resulting
photo current
You keep saying this Al, but I think it is just not true. Currents can
produce field and (changing) field a current. It is not one or the other,
but both. Sure one can describe a lot as a mere potential, with delay- but
it is severely limited description The "delay" is not magic, but a function
of the field propagation rate (the speed of light - the propagation rate of
pure fields).
Take two magnets. Feel the force. . photocurrents? One is talking properly
about small modifications of a quantum solution -no single emitted
electrons!
Sit on the chair: field chair v field pants. Photocurrents?
Set up a standing wave EM cavity. One can measure the fields – obviously.
Just with a magnet or the hairs on the back of your hand. Photocurrents?
Ok I agree one can look at the “current” interaction. But that presumes one
knows what a “current” is. Not a good onta!
Spin (angular momentum) for light is no problem, it is a multibody effect
from the timing of various oscillations in the transverse direction. [I
think spin in a photon is actually never seen for a single photo electron
detection, but is deduced statistically from multiple measurements of
multibody processes. If anybody thinks they know better, please quote me
chapter and verse regarding the experimental observation method.]
Ok – single photon emission from atoms – any chemistry textbook – strongest
lines – one unit of angular momentum. Likewise absorption spectroscopy – one
photon at a time.
Also positronium decay. Two photons short, three photons long. Explanation.
Spin 1 photons and QED. Any HEP textbook. Please explain how “multibody
effects” achieve this this. Chapter and verse.
Wave ideas come from Fourier analysis. Each so-called wave is actually just
one Fourier component---often the largest one, the others being considered
noise, etc.
Nope, one can have perfectly good waves with more than one fourier
component. For example that of a pure note on a flute (two). Fourier
analysis is an interesting human concept, but not the fundamental basis of
wave motion.
Sorry – as you say below as well
The real sginal is, again, the sum of the Gaussian interactions for all
charges in the sending device (antenna) with all charges in the receiving
device (antenna). All Fourier componets are unreal, just aids for
calculation. This is an old, historical debate brougt up as criticism of
Fourier. Namely, the components of a short time pulse extend from -inf. to
+inf, and it was arguend that, if real, they would telegraph today tomorrows
news! But not just tomorrow, for all time!! Eventually it was concluded
that, only the sum is real, all components are fictitous.
It may,indeed, be described as such at some level- but the quantum-mechanics
of the process is simply not encompassed by the formalism. For me better
onta than charges, magic delays and 4-potentials are space and time and
root-energy. These lead, for me to the (4) potentials AND the fields – both
from a deeper level. I do not think one is ever going to “get” fields
properly by presuming they are really just arising from point charges.
Perhaps I am wrong, but that is a personal choice.
Counter arguments welcome. I will be delighted if I hear a new one!
I cannot imagine my arguments above were new to you!
Best regards, Al
Cheers, John.
Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 13:22 Uhr
Von: "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> >
An: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Betreff: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Hi Al
This idea of modeling the electron from a photon when we know so little
about light and whether photons are real, or just illusions caused by the
quantization of matter, has troubled me too.
When we model the electron in this manner, it winds up (eventually) defining
a thing called a photon. This seems to always happen because the
quantization we observe in the energy of the electron “spills over” into our
understanding of what the nature of propagating energy (light) must be. Spin
angular momentum, it seems, MUST also be due to a form of confinement. The
same set of balanced forces which cause spin angular momentum would have to
also cause a form of quantization and “localization”. And when we create
equations, much as John W has done, to describe a condition in which this
spin angular momentum is created for the electron, it means that the rules
we suggest to describe the observed properties of the electron also have an
impact on the way light behaves.
For some time I had been of the opinion that it is possible that light is
simply continuous radiation. In some ways I would be delighted if we found
that is the case. However it now seems to me that there simply has to be a
form of quantization in order for light to display any spin angular
momentum. So in my personal view I am back to considering the “photon” to
actually be a quantized energy form (no matter how distasteful that is to
me).
Thoughts?
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:29 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; pete at leathergoth.com
<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> ; david williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk
<mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk> >; Nicholas Bailey
<Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk> >;
Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Hi John:
Some mothers are more erudite than others. But, erudite mothers matter too!
Much of what I see in your papers tickles memories of things I once knew
rather well regarding differential manifolds, diffential forms, Clifford
algebras, etc. dF=0, for example, written as d²A=0 says that A is an exact
form, which gives it lots of nice propeties---and so on and so forth. This
is all very nice, but your terminology appears to me to be distinct from
that in math/phys lit on the matter.
Do you have a paper somewhere that makes the comparison? Can you start your
story in the histrocially conventional notation and then carefully introduce
your specaializations so that the known maths consequences of what you'r
about can just be looked up rather than rediscovered?
Likewise, there are giant software packages for Clifford algebra
applications in existence. While not at all easy to jump in and use them,
it is still much easier than redoing the whole thing.
BTW, as one who holds that photons do not exist (just photo electrons) I
have grave indigestion over the idea of modeling the electron on the photon!
Seems it ought be the other way around; there is credible empirical evidence
for the existence of electrons, where as there is none for photons
(distinguished from photo electons!).
ciao, Al
Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 05:20 Uhr
Von: "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "david williamson"
<david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "pete at leathergoth.com" <pete at leathergoth.com>, "Mark, Martin van der"
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>, "Nicholas Bailey"
<Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk>
Betreff: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Hello everyone,
Yes Al – I could not agree more. We can do better though, as I have said
before. I always say to others that, if one truly understands anything, one
should be able to explain it at any level. Mums are important!
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> to
unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> Click
here to unsubscribe
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151116/3c875440/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32211 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151116/3c875440/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 16864 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151116/3c875440/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list