[General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy

[Vivian Robinson]

Richard,

Regarding the reference on relativistic Doppler effect on photons. The influence of that effect is in the calculation of redshift versus distance over galactic scales, associated with the expanding universe theory. Without that effect, the redshift, z, of light from distant galaxies would be given by z = v/c, where v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy and c is the speed of light. This would mean z > 1 was not possible. Adding that relativistic correction gives the relationship [(1 + z)^2 - 1]/[(1 + z)^2 + 1] = v/c, explaining why z > 1 is observed. It has no other effect. 

Regarding the cause of electric charge, my paper suggested that charge was due the rotating photon continually emitting and absorbing virtual (or field) photons to enable it to rotate. That places strict limitations on my model. Charge is generated at the circumference of the rotating photon and is two dimensional in nature (at least close to the electron). Please remember that QED theory postulates that charge is due to the exchange of photons. Those photons don't just suddenly appear when charged particles come close to each other. IMHO those (virtual or field) photons are being continually emitted and absorbed to enable the photon that is the particle to rotate. It is only when the two exchange photons that they influence each other, which influence can, I believe, be calculated from QED.

I won't go into detail here - it takes too long. One mechanism by which exchange can occur is by the energy of those photons increasing and then decreasing. If an external low energy photon (low frequency and long wavelength) were to approach the electron, the rotating photon could not distinguish it and would absorb it. In this manner, a very small particle like an electron can absorb a very large, low energy photon. In the reverse effect, the emitting rotating photon similarly loses its photon. Their changed state causes them to be either attracted or repelled to/from each other, depending upon the exchange. That is my suggestion for the origin of electric charge. 

If you read that paper you will see that my model has several other specific points. The positron is an electron energy photon rotating in the opposite direction with respect to the magnetic field from an electron. This makes it a mirror image of an electron.  A spin up electron is the "other side of the page" image of a spin down electron, or whatever spin nomenclature you choose to use. The rotating photon is always spinning. Fractional spin is not possible. Quantum superposition is not about an electron having two states imposed at once. It is always spinning in one direction only. It is that you can't tell the direction it is spinning until you measure it. The results of the measurement also depend upon from which direction the measurement is made.

An electron can only move perpendicular to the plane of its photon's rotation. It is at that stage that the relativistic correction gamma is applied. The photon corkscrews its way through space. However because it is required to travel at c, its time slows down while maintaining the same spin (angular momentum). This requires the rotation to slow down, giving it a forward slip motion. Thus it doesn't have to make as many spirals to get from its origin to its destination. That is the reason it sees itself travelling a shorter distance. That correction involves gamma. Under that model, any observer who measures c will always get the same answer, irrespective of his/her local conditions. 

All I am suggesting is that what I have proposed matches observation and makes some predictions that can be tested experimentally. Anybody is free to disagree as seen fit. However I must restate: Do it because my predictions don't match observation. I am unaware of any observation that doesn't fit the electron as described in that paper. Since writing it I have extended my work, including correcting my magnetic field error as you pointed out. 

I am not proposing a new type of photon, being prepared to work with what we call down under, "the common garden variety". I am just trying to work out what is that "common variety". One of my predictions about "common variety" photons is that circularly polarised photons have angular momentum and plane polarised photons do not. Wikipedia (not that it is an authority, but it does give easy access to information)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_angular_momentum_of_light

suggests that circularly polarised photons have their spin because of the rotating electromagnetic field. On the other hand, the extract attached, taken from the below reference, suggests that plane polarised photons don't have angular momentum.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwji55-yh5XNAhVi5aYKHToVBm8QFgg2MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcern.ch%2Fteachers%2Farchiv%2FHST2008%2Fteacherslab%2FThe%2520photon%2520angular%2520momentum%2520J%2520KOSEK.ppt&usg=AFQjCNG3XmzGkWUt8DuS-WSfZ4UCkYrq2w&bvm=bv.123664746,d.dGo
If you can't access it, try searching for:- Kosek, angular momentum. It is worth a glance if you are interested in photon structure. 

As far as I am concerned this supports the idea that photons are electromagnetic oscillation in permittivity and permeability and their existence gives those photons mass according to all the usual equations. The mass associated with their field rotating gives them angular momentum. Quantum mechanics practitioners call that spin, but deny that it is angular momentum. That is another reason why I don't like quantum mechanics. If they can't explain something, they invent a term. Of course you can get the right answer if you invent something. The problems come when you invent something and don't get the right answer. 

Getting back to the "common variety" photon and the structure of matter. The oscillation gives the photon its wave properties, frequency, wavelength, diffraction, interference etc. Its limited extent gives it the properties of a particle. IMHO photons are not point particles with properties attached as in a Hamiltonian. The photon can have both wave and particle properties at the same time.

It doesn't take too much to work out that individual charged particles, electron, proton, muon and tau, are rotating circularly polarised photons. Individual neutral particles, neutron and neutrino, are rotating plane polarised photons. This explains the hbar intrinsic spin difference between a proton and neutron. The neutrino has a very small mass and some other unique properties. 

If you believe I am wrong, please support it by experimental evidence. I have made enough predictions about the electron for it to be challenged if there is evidence it is not correct. I wish to learn as much as I can about the "common variety" photon. In the interest of this discussion, I believe we should first understand the "common variety" photon and only when it can't explain much, should photons made up of rotars, hods or any other new variety, be hypothesised.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson 



On 07/06/2016, at 1:54 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Vivian,
> 
>   Thanks for your further comments.
> 
>       Circulating photons cannot be the origin of gamma because gamma occurs in relativistic doppler shifting of normal photons. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect .
> 
>       I do not insist on the correctness of my model. Only a fool would do that. 
> 
>      No one knows why an electron is charged. How should I know what causes a spin-1/2 charged photon, proposed to compose an electron, to be charged? The circulating photon in your electron model is also charged. Why is that? 
> 
>      The property of free space that requires gamma to be applied, is the same property of free space that causes the speed of light c to be the same as measured in all inertial frames. And nobody knows why that is. Do you? But experimental high energy physicists work with gamma every day with the momentum equation p=gamma mv  and the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4  where E=gamma mc^2 , in order to get particles to circle round and round at a constant radius with increasing energy but always at speeds less than the speed of light. Let’s say that gamma is an unexplained experimental fact that also follows from the unexplained (apparent) constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, independent of the speed of the source or receiver of the light.
> 
>      Louis de Broglie didn’t support his theoretical prediction of the electron’s wavelength lambda=h/(gamma m v) with experimental observations as you recommend. Those came later, and by others, for which he then received the Nobel prize, as did the experimenters who confirmed his hypothesis. You don’t get this prize for predicting what is already known or experimentally established.
> 
>   If we have different interpretations of p, the momentum of a particle with or without mass, mine is the standard interpretation:  p=gamma mv for a particle with mass and p=h/Lambda for a photon. Both expressions fit into the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 .  What is your interpretation of momentum? 
> 
>   I’ve proposed a new variety of photon that carries spin 1/2 and is electrically charged. Just recently spin 1/2 photons were discovered.  What have you proposed about photons? I think that this discussion list is doing exactly what it should be doing—promoting an exchange of ideas in a group effort to increase our understanding of the nature of light and particles.
> 
>     with best regards,
>          Richard
> 
>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 12:50 AM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Richard,
>> 
>> You are missing my points.
>> 
>> First and foremost this started as a discussion group on the nature of photons. Somehow this topic, which is not well understood, has been side tracked to discussions of people's favourite model for the structure of some aspects of matter. I have made a few comments about the nature of photons as I understand them. Chip has added some comments. Surely we should all revert to that and add our own thoughts about the nature of photons, supporting them with experimental observation.
>> 
>> Second, it is best to support any theoretical work with experimental observation. What experimental observation does my work not fit? I am not concerned with it not fitting according to someone else's theory. 
>> 
>> Third, you insist on the correctness of your model. Fine, so a theoretician should! You wish me to change my calculations to match your model, yet you haven't answered the two questions pertinent to the physical aspects of your model. What causes the photon to be charged? What is the property of free space that allows the gamma correction to be applied? My work strongly implies that the gamma correction is due to the rotating photon model. 
>> 
>> Fourth, I agree that energies add linearly as scalar quantities, in Newtonian mechanics. In relativistic mechanics adding energy changes both velocity and mass. I have no intention in going into detail on this, but these are separate quantities that combine to give momentum. IMHO, part of the applied energy generates velocity and part increases mass. This means the energy is not added linearly. Rather, that is the origin of E^2 = p^2.c^2 + m0^2.c^4. It is possible that we have different interpretations of p. 
>> 
>> So why don't we agree this is the end of the discussion on our respective models, at least until there is experimental evidence that establishes further facts that demonstrate the situation one way or the other.
>> 
>> In the meantime, let us concentrate on defining photon properties. Can you add anything?
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Vivian Robinson
>> 
>> On 06/06/2016, at 9:16 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Vivian,
>>> 
>>>    Thank you for your detailed reply. It’s always better for one’s written mistakes to be pointed out by a well-wisher. An arXiv article http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265  by Qiu-Hong Hu on “The nature of the electron"
>>> made the same mistake (on bottom of p.13)  in calculating the magnetic moment of a double-looped electron. I emailed him twice pointing out his error but he never replied (so I’m not sure he received my emails), but his article was never corrected on arXiv (I just checked.)
>>> 
>>>     Here’s an error in your article that you can correct quickly:    At the bottom of page 13 in your article, the vertical leg of the right triangle is labeled KE = pc = h Fke . But the kinetic energy KE of a relativistic electron is not equal to pc= (gamma mv)c .  The relativistic kinetic energy KE of a particle is  KE = (gamma-1)mc^2 which is clearly not equal to pc = (gamma mv)c  although both terms go to zero as v approaches zero. Actually the vertical leg of your triangle is correctly labeled as pc but not as KE, according the the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 .  It is also correct that E = gamma mc^2 = mc^2 + KE = mc^2  +   (gamma-1)mc^2 . But this is a linear and not squared  sum since energies add linearly as scalar quantities. 
>>> 
>>>       Now, it turns out that there is some usefulness in equating KE with h Fke as you did, although KE = h Fke should not be on the vertical leg of your triangle. On the second page of my article at  https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation (attached below), I show that the electron’s kinetic energy KE can be expressed as hbar w (where w means angular velocity omega), or as you expressed on the vertical leg of your triangle: KE = h Fke , where Fke = w/2pi. This result is derived from the earlier expression in my article that the total energy E of the circulating charged photon is given by E=h w(total) = h (wo + w)  where h wo corresponds to mc^2 of a resting electron and h w corresponds to the electron’s KE. Since E=mc^2 + KE =  h wo + h w  and since mc^2 = h wo,  it follows by subtraction that KE = h w which corresponds to your formula KE = h Fke .   In the non-relativistic limit (where Schrodinger’s equation is used) we have KE=(p^2)/2m . So for a  free non-relativistic electron we have (p^2)/2m = h w . And for a non-relativistic electron in an electric potential well V(x) we  have  (p^2)/2m  +  V(x) = h w  . You can see how this leads to the  time dependent Schrodinger equation:   
>>>  -hbar^2/2m d^2 PSI (x,t) /dt^2  + V(x) PHI (x,t) = i hbar d PSI(x,t)/ dt    where for a free electron ( V(x)=0 ) ,  PSI =Ae^i(kx-wt)  where p=hbar k  and KE=hbar w
>>>   
>>>     So your Fke = w/2pi corresponds to the w in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. This correspondence is in my opinion is why Schrodinger’s time dependent (and also time independent) equation works — its basic formula  KE  + V = hw comes from the circulating spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron with its relativistic momentum equation P^2 = (mc)^2 + p^2   where P=E/c , which corresponds to the electron’s relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4 .
>>> 
>>>    The other significant mistake in your paper was in your electron radius derivation, by treating the time interval t as the same in two different reference frames, although it should have been t’=gamma t (t being the proper time), where gamma comes into the derivation of time dilation because the speed of light c is (taken to be) constant in all inertia frames. You choose to not correct this mistake, claiming that you will go by experimental results. But you are not the only one predicting (from your incorrect calculation) that the transverse radius of an electron decreases as 1/gamma with the electron’s increasing velocity. John Williamson claimed the same relationship 1/gamma relationship based on general energy considerations for a moving electron. In my spin-1/2 charged-photon model of the electron, where the radius of the charged photon is directly proportional to the photon’s wavelength (R=L/4pi) and therefore inversely proportional to its energy, also gives the same 1/gamma relationship the change of the transverse electron radius with increasing electron speed. 
>>> 
>>>    If you will not believe me, I request that someone like John W or Martin (or anyone knowing basic relativistic time dilation calculations) take a few minutes to check your time-electron radius calculation in your article and give his opinion to all of us. If they concur with my result and you still wish to insist that only experiment will tell if your radius calculation is correct, then I have nothing more to say on this.
>>> 
>>>      with best regards,
>>>         Richard
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron.pdf>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160607/cd090f81/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 89630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160607/cd090f81/attachment.tiff>