[General] Getting over with "photon" semantics
Roychoudhuri, Chandra
chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
Wed Jan 27 13:00:43 PST 2016
Hello John D. and Everybody:
1. No Stationary Waves; only "stationary nodes and antinodes: It may sound only as semantics; but I think it is important to differentiate between "standing nodes and anti-nodes" vs. "standing waves". By mathematical structure of the wave equation (equating second derivative of time and space-tension-property), the oscillating tension values always moves away spatially. So, waves by, definition, cannot ever be stationary, even when multiple waves are propagating through the same space. This NIW, Non-Interaction of Waves. This is the key reason that Maxwell's wave equation can accept LINEAR summation of any linear harmonic waves.
But, within the volume of superposition spatially stationary superposition patterns arises, depending upon the Poynting vectors of the propagating superposed waves. When they are of exactly same frequency and only two opposite going waves, can sense STATIONARY nodes and antinodes, orthogonal to the common and parallel Poynting vectors (180-degree opposite going). When TWO Poynting vectors are at some angle, and again the wave frequencies are identical, we can again sense stationary nodes and antinodes patterns; this time bisecting the angle between the two Poynting vectors. For multiple beams at multiple angles, the patterns are complex but easily modeled by math.
So, my neural logic system gets deeply confused when I try to imagine "Stationary Waves", rather than "Stationary Nodes and Antinodes".
2. "Electrons as Modified Photons": Again, it may be interpreted as merely semantics; but to me, it is confusing. Perpetually propagating photons are classical wave packets, even though, at the emission, the energy content has been quantized due to quantized energy levels of the emitting atom. Emission is quantized; but not the propagation. Once the energy is released, it evolves as diffractively spreading and perpetually propagating wave. QM has never succeeded in constructing any equation better than that of Huygens-Fresnel integral to propagate light. A "photon" is just a propagating "wave packet", and an excited state of the CTF (or ether).
When our group finally succeeds in making a model of an electron as a self-looped and localized oscillation of the same CTF; it should not be described as a different form of photon. Then we will keep on looking for "photon" properties in the new electron. This self-looped oscillation is some excitation of the same CTF, correct; but it has nothing to do with "photon"; the energy can be supplied in many different forms. An electron is a novel localized, non-propagating oscillation of the same CTF. Gamma-Gamma interaction, facilitated by heavy nucleons, does generate electron-positron pair; but, I do not visualize them as photons getting converted into "localized" particles with "inertia" (mass). Gamma energies has been re-constructed into particles, facilitated by the heavy nucleon. Further, QM has never succeeded in localizing a "photon". QM definition of "photon" as a Fourier mode of the vacuum. This is an outright violation of causality since Fourier modes are non-causal.
Sincerely,
Chandra.
PS: Dear Wolfgang Baer: I still owe you further explanation on my view of Doppler Effect. Both the source velocity and the detector velocity are experimentally discernible, as was original perceived by Doppler himself. This point of view is re-validated by analyzing the stimulated emission as the response of a moving.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 6:04 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: {SPAM?} Re: [General] (no subject)
Importance: Low
Wolf:
Take a field variation and wrap it round a spin-½ path, and what you then have is a standing field. A charged particle. It doesn't blow apart because light is displacement current, and displacement current does what it says on the can. Light displaces its own path into a closed path. IMHO pair production and the wave nature of matter should have made all this common knowledge a long time ago. In atomic orbitals electrons exist as standing waves<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties>. Kick an electron out of an orbital, and it still exists as a standing wave. Standing wave, standing field.
Regards
John D
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: 26 January 2016 22:40
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
Albrecht:
I figured you would say something like this. But this group has published several intriguing papers ( W. F. Hagen) that suggest light
( won't say photons) curled up in cycles or tourus like shapes can become the basis of matter and explain various elementary particles.
There is something elegant and intriguing about these conjectures.
However both the charge repulsion and the centripetal forces that tend to blow things apart need to be explained in these efforts.
The QM explanations, as I understand them, simply describe what must be so. Dirac's eq. does not answer how charge hangs together
or what contracts gravitational spin energy induced centrifugal forces.
Are you saying this entire category of explanation should be ( has already been) discarded in favor of your strong force model?
Best,
Wolf
Chandrasekhar;
Reading your "could space be considered as the inertial rest frame" in the SPIE vol 9570
I would very much like to find an alternative explanation for the red shift and am interested in your absorption line argument
but do not understand your logic.
If a star is moving away from us both the inner and outer corona are moving at the same velocity.
The inner corona atom emits light "f0'that is red shifted To "f" in the media due to its motion
The outer corona atom absorbs light at frequency "f" that is blue shifted relative to its natural "f0' frequency because it is moving toward the source
This leaves a hole in the spectra in the media at "f" red shifted
An atom on earth is not moving toward the source and therefore the arriving light will still be at red shift frequency "f"
atoms on the earth with natural "f0' frequency will not be able to absorb the light
All light frequencies shift and the hole at "f" is red shifted due to the motion of the star away from us.
Why do you say this is not a Doppler effect?
I would like to find a gravitational argument rather than a Doppler argument for the red shift, but do not understand how your argument works.
What am I doing Wrong?
best again,
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
On 1/26/2016 1:36 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
Hi Wolf!
The famous equation E=mc^2 is in my understanding one of the mystifications in physics created in the last century. Einstein did it in a very drastic way: according to him E and m are two symbols for the same physical phenomenon. Here I strictly disagree. Look to the definitions of mass and energy, they are definitely different. If one has a working model for elementary particles, this relation results as a relation (nothing more) originating in the internal structure of an elementary particle.
You see a problem with the electron regarding the repelling force and the centrifugal force in an electron. Since the 1930s well known physicists have tried to explain the electron classically on the basis of the electric force. Their model failed all. So the conclusion was (written in text books) that the electron cannot be understood but only mathematically treated by QM.
In my model I have gone another way by assuming that the essential force in any elementary particle is the strong force. The strong force is composed in the particle by positive and negative "charges". With this assumption the electron can be calculated (like the other leptons and also quarks) with very precise results. Particularly the centrifugal force is not a point as the internal parts in an elementary particle are mass-less. And the electron looks neutral from the outside regarding the strong force.
Albrecht
Am 25.01.2016 um 20:44 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
Does this not all start with the E=mc^2 energy mass equivalence postulate?
A moving photon has energy therefore mass , if the wave is confined to a circular path the mass could be considered stationary
The equations can all be manipulated to come up with various quantities and interpretations.
What to me is problematic is the centrifugal forces. What balances the tremendous outward pull?
An electron only has charge that repels, and now centrifugal forces, what holds it all together?
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
On 1/25/2016 8:33 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
Dear Richard,
you know that I object to your derivation of inertial mass. You deduce it from momentum. That is mathematically possible by using the known relations. But it is not logical in so far as momentum depends on inertia. In a world without inertia there would be no momentum.
So we have to explain first the mechanism of inertia itself, then we can derive the momentum and the inertial mass.
Best
Albrecht
Am 24.01.2016 um 20:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
Hello Vladimir and Chandra and all,
Yes, I definitely support the idea of the ether as material space, and that all physical particles are derived from this ether. This ether can also be called a plenum or Cosmic Tension Field.
I don't however think that it is necessary to explain the inertial mass of particles in relation to a "coefficient of inertia" or "the amount of momentum the ether resists." I have shown (https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia ) by a very simple derivation that the inertial mass m of an electron may be derived from the momentum of the circling photon in a circulating-photon model of the electron, whose circling photon has momentum mc where m = Eo/c^2 = hf/c^2 , where Eo is the rest energy 0.511 MeV of the electron and f is the frequency of the circulating photon in the resting electron. Secondly, in a similar way I derived a linearly moving photon's inertial mass to be M-inertial = hf/c^2 , where f is the photon's frequency, even though a photon has zero rest mass. Thirdly, I derived the inertial mass of a relativistic electron, whose momentum is p=gamma mv, to be M-inertial = gamma m , even though the moving electron's rest mass is m.
I present these derivations below, taken from the academia.edu<http://academia.edu> session on my electron inertia article at https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link :
"One reason people don't think that a photon has any inertial mass (because it has no rest mass) is that how do you get a photon to change its momentum (i.e. accelerate) in order to measure its inertial mass. It can't go faster or slower than c in a vacuum, so it can't accelerate in a linear direction, and in normal physics a photon doesn't follow a curved path (except with gravity), which would make it possible to measure its centripetal acceleration c^2/R . But as I showed in my short electron inertia article at https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia<https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin%20_o%0A%20f_%0A%252%0A0th%0A%252%0A0e_Elect%0A%0Arons_Inertia> , the electron model in a resting electron has the photon going in a circle, with momentum mc and speed c, and the electron's inertial mass is then calculated to be M-inertial =(dp/dt)/Acentrifugal =wmc/(c^2/r)= m which is the inertial mass of the electron. But this calculation of the circling charged photon's inertial mass is independent of the radius of the charged photon's circular orbit. Let that circular radius go towards infinity and you get a photon traveling in essentially a straight line, still having its inertial mass M =hf/c^2 (where the photon frequency f decreases as the radius of the circle increases) . So according to this logic, a linearly moving photon DOES have inertial mass M-inertial =hf/c^2 even though a photon has zero rest mass. And when a relativistic electron with momentum p=gamma mv travels in a circle with speed v, th e inerti al mass cal cul ation ab ove gives M -in ertial = gamma m for a circling relativistic electron, and not just m the electron's rest mass . Extending the radius here towards infinity also gives a linearly moving electron an inertial mass M = gamma m and not just the electron's rest mass m."
As far as I know these are all original derivations of the inertial mass of a resting electron, a photon and a relativistic electron based on a circulating photon model of an electron. I would be pleased to be shown otherwise.
Richard
On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>> wrote:
Yes, Vlad, that is also my viewpoint.
I do not remember whether I have attached this paper while communicating with you earlier. I call the "plenum" Cosmic Tension Field (CTF), to be descriptive in its essential properties.
Chandra.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 7:00 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)
Hi Richard
I barge into your discussion without knowing your views on a "plenum field" but if it is an ether I definitely think there is one. A "coefficent of inertia" might be defined as the amount of momentum the ether resists. In a charged or gravitational field this coefficent would increase...I think of this in terms of my Beautiful Universe ether of dielectric nodes, except this may give the wrong idea it is something matter wades in.. not so. Matter and ether are made if the selfsame nodes of energy!
Cheers
Vladimir
_____________________
vladimirtamari.com<http://vladimirtamari.com/>
On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Hodge,
I don't remember asking that. But if I did, I'm glad the question was helpful.
I'm thinking about inertia these days. Do you or others have any insights about its nature?
Richard
On Jan 20, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>> wrote:
Richard Gauthier:
You asked if the galaxy redshift, Pioneer anomaly, Pound--Rebka experiment model had a velocity term. I looked at redshift data for 1 galaxy and found no indication of a velocity term.
I had not noticed this in the equations. Your suggestion that the plenum field can look like the Higgs field seems valid. That is, the acceleration of the plenum field looks like it adds energy (mass) is a Higgs Field characteristic. Thus, the plenum is closer to the idea of a quantum field and Higgs field (weak force).
Thanks for the insight.
Hodge
_______________________________________________
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-natureoflightandparticles.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 atvladimirtamari at hotmail.com<mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
<2012.2_JMP_Space as real field.pdf>_______________________________________________
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-natureoflightandparticles.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 phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?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/20160127/3d856614/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2941 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160127/3d856614/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2930 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160127/3d856614/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8832-49_Doppler_1231_Dissem.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2614350 bytes
Desc: 8832-49_Doppler_1231_Dissem.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160127/3d856614/attachment.pdf>
More information about the General
mailing list