[General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Vladimir Tamari vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
Sat Jun 4 19:18:25 PDT 2016


Dear Chandra (and hi Eric ) thank you for your encouraging words to Eric but knowing him it is hardly social recognition that he seeks! :)  He has shown in painstaking experiments backed by solid theory ( threshold absorption)  that the point photon, Einstein's billiard ball,  so to speak, simply does not exist and there is no particle-wave duality for light. This is such a fundamental claim that it needs to be fully checked, widely understood and acknowledged by physicists. It demolishes concepts like probability other than a mere mathematical model, and explains Bell et al simply without resort to the usual QM nonsense like wave collapse. All QM weirdness, multiple universe interpretations etc dissipate like a bad odor as they should have done a century ago... but for the adoption of Einstein's  duality concept!!

Bravo yes Maxwell's epsilon and mu are indeed indicative of a vacuum tension field, a local ether phenomena that allows e/m transmission and much more. In my Beautiful Universe model I have provided a very specific mechanical model of how  this tension  operates on the smallest scale: Miniature Bloch spheres spinning in units of Planck's constant (h) - dielectric dipolar nodes attract and repel neighbors like slippery spherical gears and self-assemble to form the stuff of everything - matter, light, gravity, etc. There is nothing else there! 
In the attached figure (Fig 5 from http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf ) a node rotates (dashed black arrows) to provide forwards momentum ) even as it spins internally giving a local ' energy density' .  The  neighboring nodes must rotate too in a domino effect, hence the resistance or tension. If the gears were not slippery a local rotation will be transmitted instantly to all nodes to infinity and c would be infinite. Maxwell initially provided a similar physical model of gears, the slipperiness aided by ball-bearing- like sub gears, but the model was not developed properly and was abandoned. A photon is a pattern  of millions of such nodes while an electron is born when plus and minus poles of three or more contiguous nodes lock to form the particle. I am struggling with simulating this in 2D in BASIC!
Cheers and good luck to us all
Vladimir

________________
vladimirtamari.com



_____________________
vladimirtamari.com
On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

> Eric: Keep up your good work and learn to enjoy your own successes without waiting for social recognitions or rewards! You will feel much less frustrated. Of course, if it comes along the way, accept it and enjoy it even more. 
> Chandra.
>  
> PS: Non-Interaction of light waves was experimentally established, literally a thousand years ago by Alhazen. Then in 1678, Huygens postulated the same concept to promote his non-interacting “secondary wavelet” hypothesis as the basis for wave propagation. The generation of secondary wavelets, everywhere in the forward field, automatically demands the existence of a continuous tension field as the “platform” for wave propagation. I am sure, Huygens spent a lot of time watching propagation of water waves facilitated by the surface tension field of water. Then, in 1864 (?), Maxwell’s wave equation provided those necessary tensions (“epsilon” and “mu”), built into his wave equation.  

_____________________
vladimirtamari.com

> On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
> 
> Eric: Keep up your good work and learn to enjoy your own successes without waiting for social recognitions or rewards! You will feel much less frustrated. Of course, if it comes along the way, accept it and enjoy it even more.
> Chandra.
>  
> PS: Non-Interaction of light waves was experimentally established, literally a thousand years ago by Alhazen. Then in 1678, Huygens postulated the same concept to promote his non-interacting “secondary wavelet” hypothesis as the basis for wave propagation. The generation of secondary wavelets, everywhere in the forward field, automatically demands the existence of a continuous tension field as the “platform” for wave propagation. I am sure, Huygens spent a lot of time watching propagation of water waves facilitated by the surface tension field of water. Then, in 1864 (?), Maxwell’s wave equation provided those necessary tensions (“epsilon” and “mu”), built into his wave equation.  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Eric Reiter
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 4:01 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy
>  
> Hello Vivian and others who read this blog.
> You asked for evidence for photon models.  I agree that matter is composed of light speed energy because it explains relativity so well.  However, there are many problems with the photon model.  There is much misunderstanding of the photon model.  The key problem with the photon is whether such a quantity of light in any way holds itself together. An alternative is the threshold model that says: an hf is emitted and then spreads classically, and an hf is a threshold at absorption.  I did many experiments to substantiate this.  I recently delivered a talk at a conference and made a video.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgrQFyr2_Bg
> Wolfgang Baer who also attended our SPIE 2015 is part of this video.
> 
> All this entanglement, and spooky stuff comes from this idea that somehow light holds itself together.  It does not need to do that to explain key experiments.  My tests show this.  It is like what Chandra says about non-interaction of light.   If light does not interact with itself, how can light collapse its wave function?  The answer is that we need to re-examine several key experiments.  I explain how in my 2015 SPIE paper.  http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2441836
> If you have trouble seeing this work please contact me and I will send it.
>    There is no wave function collapse.  There is no entanglement.  There are no photons.  The accumulation hypothesis was misrepresented to you in your textbooks.
>  Furthermore, I so often see hf=m^2  used to get a matter frequency.  This would give you only one frequency, except for relativistic effects.  When we do matter-wave diffraction we have a matter wavelength.  Since we know the velocity, it will not give you that freq we just calculated.  That freq from mc^2 is true only at the threshold of pair creation/ annihilation.  The way I do it is to say charge is the envelope of Schrodingers Psi, where I use a non- probabilistic interpretation the way Schrodinger originally intended.  The inner Psi matter wave goes c.   When I split the alpha like a wave, I kept reworking it for 3 years to convince myself.  I discovered my unquantum effect in 2001 and have been testing it many ways since.  What I/we always needed was to find someone to reproduce my simple tests.  
>  
> The key points in my experiments are that there are 4 steps: (1) we set thresholds to make sure we are not looking at half height pulses, (2) we do a sandwich beam-split coincidence test to ensure our source emits one-at-a-time, 3) we re-arrange the detectors to be one in front of the other and read a coincidence rate, 4) we shade the source to read background in coincidence and subtract it from step 3.   We will see the coincidence rate exceeds chance.  QM predicts chance.   QM falls and the threshold model covers these new experiments.  Plus, with re-interpretation, the threshold model covers key past experiments others used to uphold QM.  Now please do not say I am looking at half pulses or accuse me of something else without looking at my work. Thank you for your consideration.
>  Eric Reiter
>  
>  
> From: Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com>
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 7:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy
>  
> Richard,
>  
> Regarding your comments below. You consider my calculations to be in error. I do not. My philosophy on life includes, but is not limited to:- 
> 1       If I am in error, I wish to be the first person to know that, not the last. That way I can correct it quickly.
> 2       Experiment is the only arbiter of theory. 
> 3       I do not believe it is necessary for me to justify my theory because I won't publish it unless I have experimental evidence that my calculations match known properties. 
> 4       Reduce the mathematics to its simplest form. 
>  
> For a theory to be worth anything, it should also make predictions that can be tested. You will see that my article made 16 matches with observation. You will note that when you pointed out the error of my Bohr magneton derivation I accepted it. However I will still maintain that the value of the Bohr magneton is electric charge multiplied by its radius. You will also note that I have made 7 predictions of unknown or known and not recognised electron properties under this rotating photon model. These should be used to verify or disprove the model. I am happy to consider evidence that suggests verification or otherwise. 
>  
> As far as my use of gamma is concerned, I did not apply it as you suggest. That requires an unknown property of space to force gamma on to everything that moves. In my situation I suggest that gamma is introduced to individual moving particles, electron, proton, neutron, muon, etc, by their rotating photon structure and Pythagoras' theorem, as presented. I suggest you may have mis interpreted the change of radius. Experimentalists measure the electron as a point particle when accelerated to high voltages, e.g. 10^17 to 10^18 eV. You will find they agree with the reduction of radius as calculated in my paper. 
>  
> I do not wish to change my approach to the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength. IMHO it is physically sound, mathematically correct and matches observation. You are perfectly entitled to disagree. There are many pathways to calculating physical values. For one method to be preferred over another it must make predictions that other pathways don't make, which predictions are verified when tested experimentally. I will stick by my predictions. 
>  
> To All 
>  
> The original objective of this group was to discuss the structure of photons and try to come to a better understanding of them. I now find it has changed to people trying to justify their model of matter. Some are based upon toroidal (WvdM) or rotating (VR) photons, which have relevance. Both of those models suggest a reason for the electron to have charge. Richard, your model appears to be based upon rotating charged photons and assuming the special relativity is a property space imposes upon the electron (correct me if I am wrong). Why are some photons charged and others not? What is the property of space that imposes gamma upon moving particles? Others are based on hypothesised rotars, hods or other undetected particles. I wonder if this is the correct forum?  
>  
> Getting back to a proposed photon structure. I am happy with the idea that photons are electric and magnetic field oscillations in the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of space. The fields are perpendicular to each other. They are sinusoidal, at least at frequencies less than 10^18 Hz. They have velocity c and wavelength lambda, related through c = nu.lambda. They have an energy E = h.nu and mass h.nu/c^2. They only have that mass when travelling at c. They have a finite length made up of a number of oscillations of lesser amplitude. This is justified because they take longer to be emitted from an atom than the inverse of their frequency.  Most photons are circularly polarised and have a spin of hbar. This corresponds to their oscillation making a 360˚ rotation every wavelength. Plane polarised photons have the electric and magnetic fields always in the same direction and hence have zero spin. Other spins may be possible. Entangled photons are identical and sufficiently close that they adopt each other's orientation. When later separated, the spin of one will determine the spin of the other.
>  
> There is vastly more to the photon than the briefest introduction to an abstract given above. If people have other explanations supported by experimental evidence, or evidence that parts of the above are wrong, I would be happy to receive them. Please, when forwarding ideas, supporting them with experimental observation would be a huge advantage. IMHO, we should stick to the structure of the photons so that, by the time the next SPIE conference is held, Chandra can point to the success of this discussion group in contributing to a better understanding of them. 
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Vivian Robinson
>  
> On 04/06/2016, at 8:15 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello Vivian,
>  
>    Thanks for your recent comments, and for resending your electron model article, which gave me an opportunity to take a second look at it. It is definitely a pioneering article, particularly since you were unaware of John and Martin’s 1997 article at the time.
>  
>     The last time I critiqued your article, I pointed out three significant errors, one of which (the error in calculating the electron’s magnetic moment) you acknowledged at the time. For the others, you said that experiment would be the best judge.
>  
>      But let me repeat the two other significant errors that I spotted, which affect other relativistic derivations in your article.
>  
>      The first error occurs when you derive the radius of the circular orbit of the double-looping photon of a moving electron, where the electron is moving in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. You called the time t as the time for the photon to move in the purely circular orbit, so 2 pi Ro = ct  .  Then you use the same value t in calculating the triangular distance relationships for a moving electron, which are (2 pi Rv)^2 = (vt)^ + (ct)^2 , where Rv is the radius of the particle when it it is moving at velocity v.  In the first case, t is measured in the frame of the particle itself. In the second case, t is measured in the frame in which the particle is moving, as seen by a stationary observer.  Your derivation is analogous to the standard derivation of relativistic time dilation for a moving “light clock” in which the light pulse is traveling up and down vertically (perpendicular to the direction of the horizontal movement of the light clock) in the frame of the stationary light-clock, but the reflecting light pulse follows a zig-zag trajectory for the horizontally-moving light clock (mounted on a moving train for example) as seen by a stationary observer. The point of the light-clock derivation is that since the speed of light c is accepted as constant as measured in both reference frames, the value of time elapsed between “tics" of the stationary clock and between “tics" of the moving light clock is not the same. But you called both of these times t in your derivation. Based on this, you calculated that the moving electron would have a transverse radius Rv = Ro/gamma .  But by relativistic time dilation (which is what is actually derived in the light-clock thought experiment), the value of the second t in your derivation , as measured for the moving light-clock, should have been t’ = gamma t ,  due to relativistic time dilation for a moving electron as seen by a stationary observer.  If you put t’ = t/gamma into your equation instead of putting the same t for both times, you will find that you get Rv= Ro instead of the value Rv=Ro/gamma that you found. In other words, the light clock (and your particle) does NOT contract in the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particle. Special relativity predicts no relativistic length contraction perpendicular to the direction of motion of an object.
>  
>     You will see in my attached SPIE article “Electrons are spin-1/2 charged photons generation the de Broglie wavelength” that to get the change in the radius of the trajectory of the moving double-looping photon, you need to take into account that the moving electron is associated with a helically circulating photon whose frequency f is proportional to the total energy E=gamma mc^2  of the moving electron:  hf = gamma mc^2 . The corresponding wavelength of this higher energy photon along its trajectory is easily found to be lambda = h/(gamma mc) .  When this wavelength and frequency for the higher energy helically-moving photon are taken into account, the radius of the trajectory of the moving photon is found to decrease as Ro/gamma^2 as the speed of the electron increases. Now, the actual total radius of the helically circulating photon may decrease as Ro/gamma with increasing electron velocity, but this is a different story.
>  
>   The second significant error I pointed out to you before is that, near the end of your article, when using the relativistic energy-momentum equation (bottom of page 13), you add energies using the Pythagorean triangle: resting energy hFo + kinetic energy hFke = total electron energy hFv. But energies are scalar quantities and don’t add vectorially by the Pythagorean theorem. So the frequency Fke for your frequency corresponding to the kinetic energy of the moving electron has no physical meaning, and so to derive the de Broglie wavelength lambdaKE  from this  FrequencyKE has no physical meaning either.
>  
>    A better approach, as I show in my article, is to interpret the electron's relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4  as corresponding to the vector relationship of three MOMENTA: the transverse momentum of the circling photon mc in a resting electron, plus the longitudinal momentum of the linearly moving electron p=gamma mv, to give the total momentum P of these two momentum components, where P= E/c and E is the total energy of the helically moving charged photon forming the relativistically moving electron, which equals the total energy E of the moving relativistic electron. This momentum addition DOES corresponding to the Pythagorean theorem: P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2  and to the relativistic energy-momentum equation. The de Broglie wavelength of the moving electron is derived from the wave vector K corresponding to the total momentum P of the helically-moving higher energy charged photon, since this wave vector K has a component k=K cos (theta)=K v/c  along the longitudinal axis of the helical trajectory of the circulating charged photon. It is this longitudinal component of the higher energy helically moving photon that generates the relativistic de Broglie wavelength.
>  
>     with best regards,
>          Richard
>  
>  
> <electrons are spin one half charged photons generating de Broglie wavelength SPIE copy.pdf>
>  
>  
>  
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
>  
> Hi Chip,
>  
>         Regarding your comments, you will see from the book I sent you and my earlier paper on the proposal of an electron being a photon of the appropriate energy making two revolutions within its wavelength, it is essentially the same model as the Williamson and van der Mark. I was unaware of their work when I wrote my paper and reference and acknowledge it now. In that paper you will see a derivation for E = mc^2, in which energy is the photon travelling in a straight line and mass is the same photon making two revolutions within its wavelength. Experiment is reality. So far I am unaware of any experiment that separate those three masses, inertial, gravitational and electromagnetic.
>  
>         That same paper shows that the moving particle will subject the electron to the special relativity corrections of mass, length and time with velocity.
>  
>         You will also see that I suggested the reason a photon could travel in a circle was because it continually emitted and absorbed "virtual" photons, giving it the property of electric charge. My use of "virtual" is different from that used in QED, where they use "virtual" to indicate photons that are exchanged during electric interactions. For the rest of this presentation I will call them field photons because they are responsible for generating the electric field. I did not calculate a value for the unit electrical charge e because I required an unknown constant. In that case the constant may well stay as e. The rest mass of an electron, when it is not affected by an electric or magnetic field, includes the field photons being emitted and absorbed. When they are influenced by an electric field they pick up or lose a photon, changing their mass and hence velocity.
>  
>         As Richard G pointed out, my calculation for the magnetic field was in error. It is suggested that the magnetic field can be explained by a combination of the rotating charge and the residual magnetic field from the direction of the photon's rotation. 
>  
>         Since then, John and Martin have written a paper in which they indicate there is a mathematical reason for the photon to rotate in a circle. I believe these effects are not mutually exclusive. 
>  
>         As far as i am concerned, the rotating photon structure of all matter is the reason for the special relativity corrections. As far as general relativity is concerned, space-time distortion is nothing more than the effect of gravity upon the mass of a photon m = hnu/c^2. Flat Minkowski space-time is when a photon is unchanged as it moves through that space. Curved Minkowski space-time is when gravity changes the direction and/or frequency of a photon. I have written a little about that in:
>  
> http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf
>  
>         IMHO, photons are responsible for everything. They are energy and mass, related through E = mc^2 and the rotating photon structure of matter. They generate the electric and magnetic fields and are responsible for the special and general relativity corrections. That is why it is so important to understand the structure of the photon and what I believed was the purpose of this discussion group. 
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Vivian Robinson.
>  
> PS   A copy of my electron paper, sent for the benefit of new participants is in the following email.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 02/06/2016, at 12:09 AM, "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear John Williamson and Martin van der Mark
>  
> Your 1997 paper on the electron may have had a much greater influence than you thought.
>  
> The aspect of this which I would like to address is the simple premise that matter is made from confined light-speed energy.
>  
> If this is true then there is only one form of “relativity” which can be supported.
> The consequences of matter being comprised of confined light-speed energy lead to inescapable conclusions regarding “relativity”.
>  
> Are there comments from the group?
>  
> Chip
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 9:30 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: Re: [General] inertia
>  
>  
> Richard, 
>  
> without going into the details of your model, you mentioned:
>  
> "It may be that vector momentum is just not conserved within fundamental particles even though it is conserved between two or more particles in their mutual interactions"
>  
> In cellular-automata schemes, such as my Beautiful Universe,  a particle is made up of a pattern of spinning nodes in a matrix. The same type of spinning nodes also form the surrounding magnetic, gravitational or electrostatic field etc.  Any changes in the angular momentum or the axis of spin of the constituent nodes of a particle (or photon wave) is transmitted as a domino effect adjusting the angular momentum of surrounding nodes both internally and externally. The domino effect is diffused unto infinity in inverse-square fashion. Nothing is hidden or lost or subject to uncertainty, and energy is always conserved. 
>  
> In your case by taking the photon and electron in isolation conservation issues seem to be arising? Hope this helps.
> Best wishes
> Vladimir
>  
>  
> From: richgauthier at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:31:33 -0700
> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> CC: jsarfatti at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [General] inertia
> Hello all,
>   I’ve been thinking about the unexplained 0.424 Newtons force acting on a circulating double-looped charged photon to keep it in its trajectory. Any double-looping-photon electron model should have this force acting on the circling photon, such John and Martin’s model and Chip’s model.  The force doesn’t have an obvious source. It continuously changes the direction of the circling momentum without changing the resting energy of the photon. It may be that vector momentum is just not conserved within fundamental particles even though it is conserved between two or more particles in their mutual interactions. I believe that the Dirac equation solution for a free electron hints at this internal non-conservation of momentum  also during zitterbewegung motion of the free electron whose average velocity is v but whose eigenvalue for speed is c. The position-momentum relations for the double-looped photon model of the electron, as I recall, are below or just at the  the exact uncertainty expression of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: delta x  times delta p > 1/2   hbar , for position and momentum of an object in a particular coordinate direction. So it might not be possible to experimentally determine if linear momentum is conserved or not within a particle. The indirect evidence that there is such circulating momentum in a particle is the inertial mass m=Eo/c^2 of the particle as it is derived from the photon’s circulating momentum p=Eo/c . If there is circling momentum for a single particle, then momentum conservation within the particle IS being violated. An analogy: just as an electron has spin but it not experimentally known what inside it is “spinning", an electron has inertial mass but it is not known what inside the particle is “massing”. But but the spin and the inertial mass are known experimentally. A double-looping photon model explains both what is “spinning" and what is “massing" in an electron.
>      Richard
>  
> </a>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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 viv at universephysics.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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 unquant at yahoo.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%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 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160605/9d6d9ac5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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>


More information about the General mailing list