[General] Non-Interaction of Waves

Wed Mar 30 09:32:20 PDT 2016

Andrew:

You can take my response as a “broken record” turned on again!
But, I feel I should spell it out again for the benefit of the broader audience of our participating community.

There are no physically stationary waves. It is a contradiction by definition – waves must always propagate. The mathematical wave equation, scrutinized carefully for its embedded “propagation process” (my philosophy of process mapping thinking), reveals this. That any linear combination of harmonic waves is also a solution of the same wave equation; validates my assertion, as long as the sum of the resultant amplitudes remains within the linear restoration strength of the parent tension field. This latter part is not explicitly built into the Maxwell’s wave equation. The field of nonlinear optics handles that.

There could be physically apparent stationary crests and troughs when two opposite going waves, with EXACTLY identical wave frequency, propagte through each other. The Poynting vectors for the two waves must be PRECISELY parallel and opposite to be able to see such “stationary crests and troughs” of water waves. Unfortunately, EM waves are not directly visible to human eye-sensors.

In the above demo, which my student has started putting together, if these two opposite going water waves, of exactly same frequency, are given a time-finite wave envelope by turning on and off the wave generators; then one will see stationary crests and troughs for a brief moment as the two opposite going wave patterns match up center to center. After, that it will be quite apparent that the two opposite going waves are emerging out unperturbed by each other’s physical propagation through each other (Non-Interaction of Waves, or NIW, in the linear propagation domain). Further, if the two frequencies are slightly different, then the crests and troughs within the superposed volume of the opposite going beams will never be stationary; they will appear to move “slowly”. This is the classic “beat signal”.

I have been showing for last several years a video simulation of two CW waves of same frequency with Poynting vectors at a small angle; which has been created by my student, Michael Ambroselli [defending his thesis this April 11, 2016! Any job suggestion?]. In his simulation, one can see STATIONARY dark and bright bands bisecting the two Poynting vectors (crests and troughs within the volume of intersection of the two spatially (lateral) finite beams. Outside the volume of superposition, the two CW waves emerge out and keeps on propagating unperturbed (NIW-property!). How come, we do not say that the two waves have become “somewhat” stationary within the volume of superposition where the troughs are completely stationary and the stationary crests are oscillating? Further, (simulation done by my student), when the frequencies of the two crossing beams are slightly different, the crests and troughs will move laterally (an example how not to set up beat or heterodyne observation system; a past NASA paper in our conference)!

Wave amplitudes do not interfere or interact with each other in the linear propagation regime. Waves do not exist on their own. They are just linear excited states of the cosmic Complex Tension Field; (particles are localized self-looped excited states of the same CTF). Mathematical Superposition Principle (SP) is a superbly crafted and correct mathematical starting platform.

Let us recognize here the FUNDAMENTAL conundrum of Quantum Mechanics; which was never explicitly spelled out by the founders of QM: The SP (or sum of “Psi”s) is not an OBSERVABLE or measurable phenomenon wherever the detector generates data only after undergoing some quantum transition (the detector responds only to the “Psi*Psi”). In contrast, the Superposition Effect (SE) is an observable phenomenon, irrespective of whether the observing detector is classical or quantum mechanical. These points have been amply illustrated in chapter after chapter in my book, “Causal Physics”.

Sincerely,
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:42 AM
To: Hodge John; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Structure of electron

Dear Hodge & Dave,
You have confirmed my fears. Hodge takes the opposite position from me and Dave, while providing good information and references (of which I'll use one or more in another paper), hedged. However, he says "a photon can be emitted." So he agrees with me in that usage.
Since I am concerned about bound radiation and, thus, standing waves and interference, what words can I use to describe how that EM energy density changes during the transit thru an eccentric orbit? Fearn's 1st article gives some good words and usages.  Not quite what I need; but, I won't ask for more information or belabor the point, since that is not what this thread is all about. However, I thank you both for the feedback.
Andrew
_________________________________________
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>> wrote:
Andrew:
Very subtle.
I define “radiate” as releasing or have removed a part of something. So photons radiate from hot material (classically).
I define “emit” as causing a change in something. So a boat traveling on water emits waves but does not radiate waves. “Radiate” is a subset of “emit”. The STOE model has a plenum that is infinitely divisible (water is not). We have no instrument that measures anything about the plenum directly. All measurements are of the effect the plenum has on hods (crudely -matter - descrete things subject to being counted). There is at least 10^6 hods per photon. Scale is part of the question. Some use these terms in reverse order or, worse, interchangeably (because the physics is lost or confused and we have a flaw in logic called changing definition of terms during the argument - very bad).

Much of the standard model terms derive form classical analogies such as rotation (revolution about a center), spin (on an axis). Digitations and quantization have been evoked to describe the energies measured such as “space quantization”. I think there are much better analogies and models than should be used. My recent paper starts down this path for elementary particles. The start was really the photon and the diffraction papers. The result of varying illumination across a slit predicted an experimental observation that no other model to date can explain. Another characteristic that had to be invoked was the idea the plenum had to have inertia energy and the hod had gravitational energy.

I thought of 2 models of the electron in an atom, which I haven’t explored to yield experiment consistency. One is that electrons are held by photons (millions of hods in a column). An analogy would be spokes holding a mass at a fixed distance from a hub. Moving from one energy level to another requires a change (add or subtract material for the spoke) in the length of photons (frequency, color, wavelength) of established (discrete lengths). This is not a physical process of orbiting and no angular momentum is involved although the math of the angular momentum energy change may be used. There is no energy change without the spokes. Shooting spokes at the electron will be absorbed only if the spoke is the correct length. Otherwise the matter just flies off. The physics of angular momentum is an incorrect language/math to describe the physics. Therefore, we can have electrons in an atom without absorbing or emitting energy.

The analogy for the other thought is the “walking drop” experiment. Two drops have been observed to revolve around each other because each is in a minima of the others wave in the medium and the summation of the waves has a slight slope toward the center of the drops. Here we get discreteness in a continuous medium because of the minima of the waves being a discrete distance apart (wavelength) - Like de Broglie suggests. This form of discreteness in a continuous medium is why Fourier analysis works in quantum mechanics. Hods (the only measured things) seek the minima or the waves in the plenum. Note the walking drop medium is excited by external medium to be just below the point where waves would form spontaneously. This is energy input. The waking drop alternately puts potential energy into and takes motion (kinetic energy) out. Potential energy - hod related such as gravitational energy. Kinetic energy - plenum energy such as inertial energy. The plenum energy is not measured except through the plenum’s action on hods. If the input photons are not correct, the plenum response is not measured except through the increase of temperature (the energy bath like the oil bath has an average energy reflected in the heat [temperature] energy of the universe. The movement of the electron around the nucleus may absorb and emit (plenum) equal energy without “friction” (dampening). (at this scale there is no “friction”).

I was asking the “exhaustion” question to have other’s answers to help develop my model.

Hodge

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:15 AM, "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> wrote:

John

Sorry, I forgot about the lod.

Not sure about the radiation vs emission issue. Radiation usually suggests radiation reaction and radiation resistance issues.

What is really puzzling is how a photon can be emitted without a radiation reaction as if conservation of momentum may not matter at the quantum level.

Here are some recent papers that discuss radiation reaction that may be of interest.

arXiv:1212.4469<http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4469> [pdf<http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.4469>, ps<http://arxiv.org/ps/1212.4469>, other<http://arxiv.org/format/1212.4469>]
Radiation Reaction Force on a Particle
H. Fearn<http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Fearn_H/0/1/0/all/0/1>, J. Bengtsson<http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Bengtsson_J/0/1/0/all/0/1>
Comments: 13 pages, 0 figures
Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)

arXiv:1301.7051<http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.7051> [pdf<http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.7051>, ps<http://arxiv.org/ps/1301.7051>, other<http://arxiv.org/format/1301.7051>]
On radiation reaction and the [x,p ] commutator for an accelerating charge
H. Fearn<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Fearn_H/0/1/0/all/0/1>
Comments: 8 pages, 0 figures
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mathematical Physics (math-ph)
2.  arXiv:1501.00970<http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00970> [pdf<http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.00970>, ps<http://arxiv.org/ps/1501.00970>, other<http://arxiv.org/format/1501.00970>]
A delayed choice quantum eraser explained by the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics
H. Fearn<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Fearn_H/0/1/0/all/0/1>
Comments: 24 pages 4 figures, fifth draft
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
3.  arXiv:1412.5426<http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5426> [pdf<http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.5426>, ps<http://arxiv.org/ps/1412.5426>, other<http://arxiv.org/format/1412.5426>]
Mach's principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology
H. Fearn<http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Fearn_H/0/1/0/all/0/1>
Comments: The work is related to advanced waves and Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. The paper has been submitted to the Journal of Modern Physics (jmp) a special issue on "Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology"
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

________________________________
From: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>>
To: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>; "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Structure of electron

David:
“made of” - your thinking in the standard model. Magnetism is the property of the smallest particle - the hod. As I mention in the photon construction. In any model, there must be a start. As I mention in the 1st paragraph of the discussion - magnetism (2 poles N and S) rather than a positive of negative charge is a property of the smallest particle. The charge then must be derived from the magnetic field rather than the magnetic field of rotation charges.

Others have suggested a circulating something. A circulating anything is inconsistent with the variable illumination of the diffraction and interference experiment (hodge2015a and 2015c). That is the photon must generate a diffraction wave like a linear array of dipole antennas (the analogy). Circulating anything that then goes to make a photon assembly becomes incredibly complex and unlikely. The photon must have variable energy to make the different frequencies. That is circulating quanta is inconsistent with the experiment.

But I see you suggest one model. So the challenge is to match the properties with the experimental results such as in hodge2015c. I don’t see how to do it.

Rotating anything must emit radiation. What keeps it from exhaustion?

Hodge

On Monday, March 28, 2016 2:18 PM, "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> wrote:

John

Interesting work by explaining that only elementary particle theory is needed and not spacetime theories.

> The polarization of photons in a magnetic field suggests the photons are magnets.

And what is the magnet made of? Are we talking of an oscillating monopole states or some sub-elementary (sub-sub-atomic) particle such as an energy, quanta or quantized spacetime?

If there is an quanta circulating within a photon, could it be that the quanta has both subliminal and superluminal velocities, and we can only see the subliminal. With twisted light, the paper suggest a c - 0.1% variation and the mere possibility that  c + 0.1% variation might be enough to block direct observation of FTL.

Just like the photonic electron models, could there be a quanta circulating within the photon in some topology such as a cylinder or washer configuration. After all, the parametric equations for a photonic electron can produce both topologies of ring and spindle torus. If one tunes the variables in the parametric equation, cylinder and washer topologies can be obtained. In either case, the quanta would travel forward on the inner surface and return on the outer surface.

Obviously , the cylinder would support the magnet theory of the photon.  However, so would a soliton wave with a washer topology.

This leaves open the possibility that the sub-elementary particle may be a resonant circulating g magnetic monopole.

David

________________________________
From: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>>
To: "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 9:52 PM
Subject: [General] Structure of electron

This may be of interest.

https://www.academia.edu/23702413/Structure_and_spin_of_the_neutrino_electron_and_positron

Structure and spin of the neutrino, electron, and positron

The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) model of photons is extended to a model of the structure of neutrinos, electrons and positrons. The polarization of photons in a magnetic field suggests the photons are magnets. This observation and the STOE model of the photon suggest the hods are magnetic. Using disc magnets as an analogy of hods suggests the structure of elementary particles. The relative abundance of elementary particles and anti--particles is dependent on their relative probability of formation that depends on the difficulty of forming their structure. The structure of the neutrino explains why its velocity is the velocity of photons. The structure of large neutrinos suggests how they can transform into electron neutrinos. The position of north seeking magnetic poles relative to the direction of movement is qualitatively consistent with the ``spin'' observation. The postulate of ``space quantization'' is unnecessary. The structure models are consistent with several observations of elementary particle behavior.

Hodge

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%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 mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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/20160330/866af236/attachment.htm>