[General] Proposed photon wave functions

[davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]

Vivian,
As I am working on a couple papers using total angular momentum of the photon where both spin and orbit momentum are taken into account. So I would welcome reading any papers on angular momentum or momentum in general for that matter.  
Thank you
David

PS Rant - Your Mileage May Vary
To know the limits in the universe one is to constantly be challenged by nature itself to go beyond the experimentally verified and venture a bit further beyond whatever appears in Phys Rev letters into the realms beyond the good approximations but not the full story of nature, notably Newtonian, GR, and quantum physics. After all, special relativity is fine with fixed velocities presenting a number of challenges that boggle the mind. For those who pass the SR POV, there is general relativity, a good approximation of non-linear acceleration which most physicists are of the mind to vectorize. Even so, the math is limited to acceleration, and fails to address higher derivatives. Recently, the linear version of general relativity (Hoyle-Narlikar) has become popular with at least four different mathematical physics derivations to reach the same conclusion. 

The undiscovered country of physics is at times like building castles in the air on a starry, starry night. How can one build a castle without a rock in a gravity well and do so with straight walls and a straight face, and still stay within the fine approximations of physics: Newtonian, General Relativity and even the problematic Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. FWIW I prefer a Bohmian approach. 
A little persistence and even perseverance is needed to overcome failed experiments and even false positives. 
I'm reminded of Dirac's fermion including positron and magnetic monopole were crazy ideas at the time. Positron was a great discovery; magnetic monopole is part of an undiscovered country. He and Schroedinger were awarded the Nobel 1933  "for the discovery of new productive forms of atomic theory." 
When asked, "Who is the smartest person in the room?" PAM Dirac's quick reply was "I am, unless Weyl is in the room." 
Weyl fermions proposed massless charge in 1930; these quasiparticles were discovered in 2015, 85 years later. Weyl fermions may be considered as emergent quasiparticles in a low-energy condensed matter system.  After 85-year search, massless particle with promise for next-generation electronics found
The past 100 years or so has shown that what was once fantasy can become reality. What is impossible today, is improbable tomorrow, and all of a sudden is in product development.  The fantasies of Jules Verne, became science fiction in the musings of Arthur C Clarke, especially 2001: A Space Odyssey, which became real science of wonders with Apollo, Space Shuttle, Hubble and ISS. Star Trek became a series of product blueprints in the minds of youngsters globally who are intent on building everyone of those writer's fantasies for real. 
One can build a pure box, a castle with towers of physics, vetting acceptable papers with theories and experiment to the limited set of only fundamental constants that are backed by direct measurement experiments. The castle built on such a solid foundation provides a nice and safe rock upon which to stand with a tight grip limited to a firm grasp of the obvious using couplings that are both strong and weak.
Einstein casually and thoughtfully wrote m= E/c^2. A very general equation that serves as a guiding light even though mass has to be carefully delineated by gravitational, inertial or quantum mass as well as real, virtual, or quasi mass. Depending on your POV, or frame of reference, your mass may vary. 
Beyond the obvious 4 dimensions, there are a number of candidates claiming the prize for "5th dimension". Most notably, energy density. Yet, physics persists on using the useful approximation of point-like physics until one has to include the total angular momentum of the system in which case the geometry and topology as well as fluid dynamics begin to play a major role. Point-like physics becomes a convenient approximation.
In some 5th dimensional theories the idea that one can use a yardstick to measure everything (x,y,z,t) is supplemented by energy density or some other scalar or dimension, scaleable or not. 
Over 100 theories have attempted new and improved approaches to GRT. None so far has succeeded. However, GRT appears to be a good approximation. While Special Relativity is for constant velocity, General relativity goes into non-linearities but stops at acceleration by ignoring the higher level derivatives. So there is room above general relativity for another theory.
As to the Standard Model. pick a direction. As you alluded to SM, the theory is a mess. Anomalies and violations rule the day. The building blocks don't fit together. Charge is poorly understood if at all. (Gimme a break...1/3,  2/3 and other fractional charges are simply bad bookkeeping in an archaic system of accounting where no one yet knows the base currency.
Currently, the motion control folks who build robots understand the simple need for any body undergoing acceleration to implement jerk/jolt control. Even the amateurs recognize the need and build software tools to measure 6th derivatives up through snap, crackle and pop. Yet, GRT is limited to constant acceleration.
The stop sign imposed by the speed of light is seen by some as a yield sign. Perhaps the speed of light should be interpreted as a local speed limit that varies by local conditions. Variable speed of light theories (VSL) from both physicists and engineers suggest that simply changing permittivity may change the limiting barrier of the speed of light. Even so, VSL theories usually note that GRT does not assign a specific value to c, so that for higher c values, GRT applies using a higher value of c.
So the situation is that mainstream physics has a point in the gravity well in part ignoring  inertial mass and influences by quantum mechanics (Copenhagen or Bohmian). And even when we do our best, something like Aharonov-Bohm shows that we still don't understand the couplings and interactions and especially the very subtleties of nature. 

To even be viable in the future, 21st Physics needs a breakthrough. A good foundation is necessary even if one has to build castles in the air.
David





















On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au> wrote:
Richard,
I agree with Albrecht. For a physical relationship between energy and mass through E + mc^2, you have seen my paper on it. Energy is the photon travelling in a straight line. Mass is the same photon confined in a circle of radius equal to half its wavelength. That relationship is directly E = mc^2 and it explains many other properties associated with mass particles. 
Mathematics comes in many forms, the same as languages. Not every one is specialised in all forms of mathematics, anymore than everyone is specialises in all languages. Almost all physicists understand physical descriptions. A physical description of the process accompanied by the appropriate mathematics will go a long way towards helping others understanding the message being presented.
Cheers,
Vivian 

On 07/10/2016, at 7:39 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:

 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> 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 position wrt 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> 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 to Einstein’s E=mc² paper, 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 8th 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]On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
 Sent: 05 October 2016 09:58
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <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> 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> 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> 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> wrote:    
   
      
       _______________________________________________
 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 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>
  
 
 
|  | Virenfrei. www.avast.com  |

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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>

_______________________________________________
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 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>


    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20161009/963d0cd9/attachment.htm>