[General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Sun Jun 5 08:11:25 PDT 2016

Thanks, Chip, for bringing out Khrennikov’s paper.
He briefly served as a co-chair of our conference series.
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 10:43 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Hi Viv

Regarding entanglement:  The attached article is quite informative.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:34 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Hi Chip and All,

Momentum requires two factors, mass and velocity. For anything to have momentum it must have mass.

I am not aware of it being observed. I am only aware of the spin of a photon being changed as it passes through the appropriate filter, e.g. polaroid lens.

I am suspicious of all studies that treat anything as a point (full stop excluded). In the physical world there is no such thing as a point particle. This can give mathematics extra "degrees of freedom". This allows non physical effects to be derived mathematically, even though in this case it would be nice to agree with the findings.

Having said that, enough experiments have been conducted to suggest that something similar to entanglement is observed. As such it needs to be explained. My suggestion is that explanation. It doesn't require "spooky action at a distance" to explain it. I am not aware of any observation that is not explained by it.

I am quite happy to ignore quantum physics because I believe there are other explanations. However that does not mean that I will ignore measured effects that are attributed to quantum mechanical effects.

Cheers

PS        Are you, or anyone else, prepared to add to the brief list of photon properties given? After all that is what we want to establish.

On 04/06/2016, at 9:00 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Vivian

Some questions embedded in the text below.

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. Is it correct to state that these waves themselves have mass? Would it be more accurate to state that they have momentum? 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. Is it possible that it takes two opposite spin photons to create plane polarization? 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. Have you read work from Robert Close and others which explain Bell’s inequalities? It seems Bell’s math considered the particle to be a point instead of a spinning extended object. Since rotations do not commute and Bell assumed point particles with commuting local variables it seems that entanglement may be an illusion?

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:56 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf>,  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<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:31:33 -0700
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
CC: jsarfatti at aol.com<mailto: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<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 viv at universephysics.com<mailto: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 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/20160605/68fc2f4b/attachment.htm>