[General] Proposed photon wave functions
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Oct 6 13:39:47 PDT 2016
Richard,
you know my objection. Inertial mass and momentum are fundamentally the
same physical phenomenon. Just the result of a different application.
And so it is no real explanation to explain mass by momentum. Because
that means that you explain a physical phenomenon by the same physical
phenomenon.
Albrecht
(And you may have a look at www.ag-physics.org/rmass )
Am 06.10.2016 um 15:12 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> John and Vivian and others,
> Yes, inertial mass must be defined by F=ma and F=dp/dt as Newton
> defined it, though he couldn’t explain what causes it. It is caused by
> a particle’s circling internal momentum, as I derive in
> https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia ,
> which is attached.
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:49 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com
>> <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>> wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Thanks for the advice. I regularly reference Einstein's Ann. der
>> Phys. 17, 639-641 (1905) paper. By mass I have tried to think of it
>> as inertial mass mi, given by F = mi.a. Gravitational mass mg is
>> different by potential energy (PE) divided by c squared (mg = mi -
>> PE/c^2). Rest mass mr is mi measured at velocity = 0 with respect to
>> mi. Relativistic mass mrel is the mass measured at velocity v wrt an
>> observer. Invariant mass doesn't exist because its value depends upon
>> its positionwrt an observer, gravitational field and velocity. In
>> practice all mi, mg and mr will be measured the same within
>> experimental error, essentially making them invariant.
>>
>> IMHO, you are quite correct about aspects of the standard model.
>> There are some very serious problems.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Viv
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/10/2016, at 4:08 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com
>> <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Viv:
>>> Good stuff. I empathize totally.
>>> Re photons and mass, do make sure you call it/inertial mass/. And/or
>>> protect yourself with a reference toEinstein’s E=mc² paper
>>> <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/>, where the
>>> last line reads thus:
>>> /“If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia
>>> between the emitting and absorbing bodies”.///
>>> I say this because IMHO the sort of people who bang on about gluons
>>> or the 8^th spatial dimension will use anything cast aspersions on
>>> people like you.
>>> I’ve been doing some major writing recently, and in doing so I’m
>>> getting the feeling that there’s more wrong with standard-model
>>> physics than people appreciate. Much more.
>>> Regards
>>> JohnD
>>> *From:*General
>>> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]*On
>>> Behalf Of*Vivian Robinson
>>> *Sent:*05 October 2016 09:58
>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] Proposed photon wave functions
>>> Rear Richard and others,
>>> I submitted my results to the group in the hope that it would start
>>> debate on my topic. Richard I appreciate that you have taken time to
>>> make a couple of comments. I would like to add a few points to aid
>>> (I hope) further discussion.
>>> First, the so called "standard models" of matter suffer from some
>>> disadvantages, not the least of which is the use of invented
>>> concepts, e.g. quarks, gluons and strings that have never been
>>> separately identified. String theory is one very bad example. It
>>> uses several space dimensions that have never been detected along
>>> with particles too small to be ever detected to make predictions
>>> that don't match observation. However the mathematics is
>>> sufficiently complicated that referees are prepared to accept that
>>> it may have some future. That is another example of theoreticians
>>> being out of touch with reality. I am sure that if their funding
>>> body informed them that their salary has been paid in full in a
>>> combinations of strings in the 8th spatial dimension, our universe
>>> being the three detectable ones and they can collect it when they
>>> find the eighth dimension and unravel the strings, they would also
>>> be the first to complain. Yet they would have us believe that is the
>>> origins of the whole universe, not just their salary.
>>> Quarks and gluons are another example. They have never been
>>> separately isolated. So Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) theoreticians
>>> developed the concept that the gluon "force" between quarks
>>> increases as their separation distance increases. Unfortunately when
>>> "satellite" nucleons orbit a nucleus at a "significant distance"
>>> where quark separations are quite large, the binding is very weak
>>> and the lifetimes of these nuclei are measures immilli seconds. As
>>> some QCD practitioners will attest, QCD calculations are not good at
>>> matching observation so theoreticians keep changing their model
>>> until it does. They have devised 36 quarks, 2 types, 3 generations
>>> of each type. three "colours for each generation, plus their
>>> anti-particles, plus 8 colours or flavours of gluons, a total of 44
>>> undetected particles, and they still can't get good answers. Again
>>> by making their mathematics complex they avoid scrutiny by non experts.
>>> The point is that "standard model" physics has many examples of
>>> theoreticians using non detected particles or entities and
>>> dimensions, to give unsatisfactory answers to some aspects of
>>> experimental observation. Trying to replace those with a further set
>>> of hypothetical particles, be they rotars, hods, microvita or faster
>>> than light (superluminal) particles does not make their concept any
>>> better than those forwarded by standard model practitioners. Being
>>> able to match a few physical properties by ascribing specific
>>> properties to undetected hypothetical particles is no advance if all
>>> it is doing is matching a few local properties.
>>> I am forwarding my work as different. It uses known properties of
>>> free space, namely its electric permittivity (ep) and magnetic
>>> permeability (mp). It suggests that these facilitate the passage of
>>> packets of electromagnetic energy called photons, possibly by being
>>> composed of vibrations in ep and mp. John W and I have used
>>> different wording to convey the idea that photons convey mass, as
>>> was proposed by Einstein in 1905. I feel sure a suitable set of
>>> words could be found to describe how those photon oscillations
>>> convey that mass. I have presented four wave equations that describe
>>> the Einstein-de Broglie wave function psi, along with a physical
>>> representation of them.
>>> I describe the angular momentum of photons as being due to the
>>> circular wave motion of the electromagnetic field in circularly
>>> polarised photons. This implies that plane polarised photons will
>>> not have any angular momentum and hence no intrinsic spin. This is
>>> able to be checked experimentally. Its rotating centre of mass only
>>> travels at sqrt 2 x c for a photon composed of a single wavelength.
>>> It is not a super luminal velocity. The centre of mass is a
>>> mathematical point that rotates. It is not a physical rotation of a
>>> mass traveling faster than c. The mass of the photon is traveling at
>>> c in its propagation direction. One might as well say that the wave
>>> motion of the electric field is superluminal because it follows a
>>> sine curve which has a length longer than the straight line travel
>>> of c. That does not mean that its mass is travelling faster than c
>>> and therefore all photons are superluminal.
>>> Mathematical points traveling at faster than c is not superluminal
>>> travel. There has been an often quoted example of waving a laser
>>> into space. If waved fast enough across the dark surface of the new
>>> moon, it could be possible to observe the laser point moving across
>>> the moon's surface at faster than c. That is a mathematical point
>>> moving faster than c. It is not superluminal motion.
>>> I submit that making models of hypothetical particles and ascribing
>>> properties to them is not the same as deriving those properties from
>>> fundamental considerations. Others are entitled to their own views.
>>> FYI, I have been working on this for three decades. I decided not to
>>> publish much of my work, apart from compiling it into some extended
>>> manuscripts, complete with ISBNs, that I made available to a few
>>> selected friends and interested parties. My career experience was
>>> that reviewers and critics have a habit of raising non relevant
>>> objections, bogging authors down and slowing further progress.
>>> Chandra, is that the kind of paper you would like presented at your
>>> next SPIE conference? It will be more advanced by then.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Vivian Robinson
>>> On 29/09/2016, at 11:25 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Vivian, Chip and others,
>>> The derivations of the radius R=lambda/2pi of my internally
>>> superluminal photon model and the corresponding 45-degree
>>> forward angle of the photon model's internal helical trajectory
>>> are given in Section 5, equations 8 through 17 in my published
>>> 1996 article “Microvita: A new approach to matter, life and
>>> health”, which I attach and which is available from Springer and
>>> at
>>> https://www.academia.edu/28777551/Microvita_A_New_Approach_to_Matter_Life_and_Health.
>>> My internally-double-looping model of the electron is also
>>> presented quantitatively there in Section 6. The electron model
>>> there has evolved into my SPIE relativistic spin-1/2
>>> charged-photon electron model since then. It follows directly
>>> from the photon model's helical angle of 45 degrees that the
>>> internal speed of the photon model is c sqrt(2), which I state
>>> explicitly in my published 2007 article “FTL quantum models of
>>> the photon and the electron”, attached below and available from
>>> STAIF-2007 and at
>>> https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron .
>>>
>>> Richard
>>> <Microvita A New Approach to Matter Life and Health.pdf>
>>> <FTL Quantum Models of the Photon and the Electron.pdf>
>>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Richard Gauthier
>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Hello Vivian,
>>> I’ve gone through your new article on the photon and it
>>> looks interesting. I appreciate that your photon model is
>>> now internally superluminal with an internal helical speed
>>> of c sqrt(2) and an effective radius of lambda/2pi. Your
>>> photon model has similarities to Chip’s model of the photon
>>> in this and other respects and I’m surprised that you didn’t
>>> reference his work. I would be interested to see a
>>> comparison between your photon model and Chip’s. I’d also
>>> like to hear Chip’s comments on your photon model.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2016, at 8:55 PM, Vivian Robinson
>>> <viv at universephysics.com
>>> <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>> wrote:
>>> Hodge,
>>> It would still be best if you sent the article. I
>>> (finally) accessed some of your STOE articles but could
>>> not find mse42my.pdf. I am not exactly sure to what you
>>> are referring.
>>> Some aspects of your work have commonality with mine. I
>>> use detectable photons as the basis of everything, you
>>> use hods. We are both trying to show that everything
>>> follows from that one particle. I prefer my approach
>>> because photons are detectable and have properties to
>>> which my work must comply. The wave functions in my
>>> article are their restriction. Like you I prefer
>>> Newtonian mechanics to relativity and quantum mechanics.
>>> There are many observations that confirm relativity and
>>> quantum mechanics that don't match Newtonian mechanics.
>>> My work must match those observations.
>>> I have found that the toroidal (John W and Martin vdM)
>>> or rotating photon (Viv R) model of an electron is one
>>> in which an electron consists of a photon of the
>>> appropriate energy (≈ 0.511 MeV at rest) makes two
>>> revolutions in one wavelength. It is this that gives the
>>> electron spin (angular momentum) of half hbar. The E -
>>> mc^2 relationship between mass and energy is mass is the
>>> photon rotating twice within its wavelength. Unlock its
>>> angular momentum gives it energy E = mc^2. As the
>>> particle moves its structure means that it is
>>> automatically subject to the special relativity
>>> corrections of mass, length and time. I make mention of
>>> other properties, although as Richard G pointed out, my
>>> derivation of the magnetic moment of the electron was in
>>> error in that paper. I have now corrected that.
>>> I suggest that all other particles, stable or otherwise,
>>> are composed of appropriate rotating photons and have
>>> derived the structure and properties of many of them
>>> based upon that model. If this is the structure of all
>>> matter, the special relativity corrections are due to
>>> the rotating photon being "stretched" as it moves.
>>> They are not some mathematically imposed restriction.
>>> You will find that when you apply Newtonian mechanics to
>>> a photon with those waveforms and mass, you get
>>> Einstein's general theory of relativity for space
>>> outside matter, ie, gravity as we know it. The exception
>>> is that there is no singularity at the Schwarzschild
>>> radius and therefore no black holes. That doesn't
>>> prevent the existence of massive objects, which is all
>>> astronomers are detecting. It is the theoretical
>>> physicists who call them black holes. Astronomical
>>> measurements are still thousands of times less accurate
>>> than required to distinguish between my metric and the
>>> Schwarzschild metric. I am confident that when they do
>>> improve, my metric, with the gravitational singularity
>>> at the centre of mass and not at the Schwarzschild
>>> radius, will hold.
>>> You will then recognise that gravity is not inverse
>>> square law. If you studied Newton's Principia you will
>>> see that he also worked out what would happen if gravity
>>> was stronger or weaker than inverse square law. His
>>> observations showed that the planets were following the
>>> trajectories predicted by the inverse square law
>>> calculations, leading to the conclusion that
>>> gravity is controlled by inverse square. However, not
>>> all observations follow the inverse square law.
>>> Conclusion - gravity is not inverse square.
>>> The only reason the Big Bang theory was accepted was
>>> because early calculations showed that, if gravity was
>>> inverse square law, an infinite static universe would
>>> collapse in on itself through gravitational attraction.
>>> That clearly hasn't happened. Einstein tried to overcome
>>> it with his cosmological constant. His field equations
>>> only allowed for an expanding or collapsing universe.
>>> Since forwarding the Big Bang theory, they have done
>>> everything to match a new observation into that theory,
>>> ignoring the other possibility. If gravity isn't inverse
>>> square, other possibilities exist.
>>> Again, using Newtonian mechanics to the structure of the
>>> photon I propose, shows that gravity is either inverse
>>> square law or stronger for space outside matter: Or
>>> inverse square law or weaker for space inside matter,
>>> something that applies to the structure of the universe
>>> as a whole. If you have a universe in which gravity is
>>> weaker than the inverse square law by an amount
>>> predicted from my photon's wave function, then an
>>> infinite static universe will not collapse under
>>> gravitational influence. Photons from distant galaxies
>>> will still be redshifted, as observed. Things like
>>> gravitational lensing still occur, although I am not
>>> convinced that everything forwarded as gravitational
>>> lensing is actually gravitational lensing.
>>> Forget the Big Bang theory. Therefore no inflation
>>> (straight after the Big Bang). Dark matter is required
>>> to explain the more rapid rotation of galaxies. Based
>>> upon other aspects of inverse square law, galaxies and
>>> even clusters of galaxies would be expected to rotate
>>> about their centre of mass much faster than is
>>> determined from gravity alone. The detected components
>>> in galaxies will cause them to rotate significantly
>>> faster than predicted from either Newtonian or
>>> Relativistic gravity. That statement can be justified by
>>> experimental evidence (courtesy of Uncle Sam whose work
>>> is much appreciated at least by this author) beyond the
>>> mere detection of more rapidly rotating galaxies. Forget
>>> about dark matter.
>>> As for dark energy, it is based upon the observation of
>>> apparently anomalous type 1a supernovae (SNe1a)
>>> intensities. In order to match the observed SNe1a
>>> intensities to my work I need our galaxy to be in a
>>> region of space with a density of about 10^-24 kg/m^3.
>>> This is about 1,000 times the density required under the
>>> Big Bang theory for the universe to exist in its current
>>> form some 23.8 billion years after the Big Bang. But
>>> there are many problems with that figure.
>>> The odds of the universe having this structure 13.8
>>> billion years after the Big Bang are about 1 : 10^60. (I
>>> doubt that any Big Bang proponent would risk his/her
>>> money when she/he had only 1 : 1000 chance of winning.
>>> If they are, I am prepared to wager against as many as
>>> are prepared to show their faith in low odds.) Yet they
>>> expect us to believe the whole universe exists because
>>> of 1 : 10^60 odds and we are the one universe in over
>>> 10^60 other universes in the multiverse. Talk about
>>> having lost touch with reality. Another feature is that
>>> a "quick" (i.e., long and involved) calculation will
>>> show that the density of the visible universe is higher
>>> than ≈ 10^-27 kg/m^3. Thirdly, for an expanding universe
>>> in which there is only light from up to 13.8 billion
>>> light years distance, there are far too many stars
>>> visible in the Hubble Extreme field images (again,
>>> thanks Uncle Sam). I am sure some of you can think of
>>> other observations as well.
>>> Going back to dark energy. In order to match the
>>> observed SNe1a intensities, my model requires a local (<
>>> 10^8 LYs radius) density of just over 1 x 10^-24 kg/m^3,
>>> dropping down to a background average of ≈ 8 x 10^-26
>>> kg/m^3. Or another effect I haven't yet included. Both
>>> of these figures are much higher than the "official"
>>> (i.e. matches their theory) value of ≈ 10^-27 kg/m^3. A
>>> brief look at the stars in our local region, ≈ 10^6 LYs
>>> radius, gives the number of sun mass stars, ≈ 200 x 10^9
>>> for Milky Way, ≈ 300 x 10^9 Andromeda, and others, gives
>>> a star mass density approaching 10^-25 kg/m^3. Here is
>>> where astronomers are a little vague. The mass of
>>> galaxies is usually quoted in terms of number of stars
>>> of the same mass as our sun (luminous matter). They also
>>> add to that figure, the observation that the average
>>> galaxy has about ten times as much matter in a gas and
>>> dust cloud surrounding the galaxy (non luminous matter)
>>> as there is luminous matter. Adding the mass of the non
>>> luminous matter to the mass of the luminous matter, if
>>> it isn't already included, gets me close to 10^-24
>>> kg/m^3. I admit I am not quite there. I am not out by as
>>> much as a factor of 24 times the observed mass of the
>>> universe and that is without dark matter to make the
>>> galaxies rotate faster than they should under gravity alone.
>>> There are many other problems associated with the Big
>>> Bang theory. Just think about the additional mass a
>>> galaxy must have to a receding velocity that gives a
>>> redshift of 10. Perhaps you know a few more of them.
>>> In summary, I believe the photon model just forwarded
>>> can be used with the rotating photon or toroidal
>>> electromagnetic field structure of matter and Newtonian
>>> mechanics give a continuity between quantum "weirdness"
>>> and special and general relativity. Much of what is
>>> called quantum "weirdness" can be explained by the
>>> structures of the photon and the particles composed of
>>> rotating or toroidal photons. Yes they need refinement,
>>> but we have to start somewhere. As I said, the object of
>>> my communication was to have a general discussion on the
>>> nature of light and particles.
>>> I append my paper on the electron structure FYI.
>>> Regards,
>>> Vivian Robinson
>>> <Proposed electron structure.pdf>
>>> On 23/09/2016, at 1:08 AM, Hodge John
>>> <jchodge at frontier.com <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20161006/b90c9808/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list