[General] Proposed photon wave functions
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Oct 13 13:01:22 PDT 2016
Richard,
the question is here again: why does the photon have a momentum? The
answer is straight: because the dynamic photon has a mass. And why does
the (dynamic) photon has a mass? This is the question to be answered. My
answer is: because the photon has an extension. - Without this answer
(or an equivalent one), this question is still open, which means neither
mass nor momentum is explained. Just to remind you of this point.
Albrecht
Am 13.10.2016 um 00:41 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Albrecht,
> My point is that a photon of momentum E/c = mc moving in a circular
> path of any radius R will have an inertial mass m, according to my
> simple analysis. If the photon forms a closed loop whose circumference
> equals a single photon wavelength h/mc, this will determine the radius
> R of the loop to be a particular value like hbar/mc and this may then
> be applicable to a particle particle model like an electron.
> Richard
>
>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> that are correct equations which you have listed here for Newton's
>> description of mass and its rules. But that does not answer the
>> question what the physical mechanism is, which causes inertia.
>>
>> You may compare the situation with Galileo's law of free fall. His
>> law was correct, even today it is accepted. But also this law does
>> not give us any information of why an object falls down in a
>> gravitational field. That is a similar situation like Newton's law of
>> motion. We are asking for the next step.
>>
>> As an explanation for the mechanism of inertia I know two theories.
>> One is the Higgs model, which is believed by main stream but delivers
>> numerical results which are wrong by many orders of magnitude. The
>> other one is the mechanism which I have proposed. It is not accepted
>> by main stream (but by many colleagues outside main stream) and it
>> delivers precise results. In this model the mass depends on the
>> radius (only), and in practise the radius can be determined
>> classically by the magnetic moment if there is electrical charge.
>>
>> You are saying that the mass is independent of the radius. Here
>> please look at the Bohr magneton. It says (for the electron)
>>
>> Magnetic moment = (e/m) * h(bar)/2. If this magnetic moment is
>> classically calculated on the assumption that an elementary charge e
>> is orbiting with speed c (which is necessary for dilation), then the
>> magnetic moment depends linearly on the radius. So, m must be
>> inversely proportional to the radius; which is exactly what my model
>> of mass says.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 12.10.2016 um 05:37 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello John, Allbrecht and all,
>>>
>>> As you know, I have a different approach to a massive particle's
>>> inertial mass. Normal photons don’t have a rest mass but they do
>>> have an inertial mass hf/c^2 as I think Martin at least would agree
>>> based on “Light is Heavy”. When a photon model (whether an uncharged
>>> photon-like object with spin 1 or a charged photon with spin 1/2)
>>> curls up to form an electron model, the photon model still has
>>> inertial mass = hf/c^2 which for the electron model is hf/c^2 =
>>> Eo/c^2 = mc^2/(c^2) = m. The inertial mass m of a resting electron
>>> is conventionally just called the mass m of the electron.
>>>
>>> The electron model's inertial mass m is also derived from Newton’s
>>> 2nd law applied internally to the electron model: F= dp/dt = ma
>>> where “m” is the circling photon-like-object’s inertial mass, “a"
>>> is the circling photon-like-object's centripetal acceleration a =
>>> c^2/ R= w^2 R where R is the radius of the photon-like-object’s
>>> circular loop, and F=dp/dt is the time rate of change of the
>>> photon-like-object's circulating momentum hf/c = Eo/c = mc^2 /c =
>>> mc. Here, dp/dt = pw = mcw (where w is the angular velocity omega
>>> of the circulating photon-like object).
>>>
>>> Solving this Newton’s 2nd law equation gives the circling
>>> photon-like-object's inertial mass m = (dp/dt)/a = (mcw) /( w^2 R)
>>> = mc/(w R) =(mc)/c = m which, as above, is the inertial mass of the
>>> circulating photon-like object and therefore it is the inertial mass
>>> of the particle with mass being modeled (in this case the electron
>>> model composed of the circling photon-like-object.) This derived
>>> inertial mass m of the circling-photon-like-object electron model is
>>> independent of the radius R of the circular loop and independent of
>>> whether the loop is a single or double loop.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>>>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear John,
>>>>
>>>> this can be answered, and it is not too difficult. Look:
>>>>
>>>> Photons do not have a rest mass, true. But they are never at rest.
>>>> The fact that they have no rest mass is an extrapolation from real
>>>> existing photons which have some energy (and so mass) to (only
>>>> theoretically assumed) photons without energy.
>>>>
>>>> And if the photon would be at rest (and so have m = 0) then it
>>>> would not transfer any momentum. Not so surprising!
>>>>
>>>> It is also simple to show that the angular momentum (spin) is a
>>>> constant independent from the actual energy of the photon. That can
>>>> be classically deduced. Also this fact is not in conflict with my
>>>> statement. Do you want to see it calculated?
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 11.10.2016 um 05:50 schrieb John Williamson:
>>>>> Dear Albrecht,
>>>>>
>>>>> With the greatest respect, this view is far too simple and you are
>>>>> simply wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proof: photons are (rest) massless and yet they transfer momentum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, John.
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>>> on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
>>>>> *Sent:*Monday, October 10, 2016 8:18 PM
>>>>> *To:*Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>> Discussion
>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] Proposed photon wave functions
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>> you are right that inertia and momentum are related to each other.
>>>>> The relation is that inertia is the cause of momentum, without
>>>>> inertia in our world there would be no momentum in our world.
>>>>> Mathematically spoken: momentum = mass * vector_of_motion. The
>>>>> vector_of motion is a vector, so the product "momentum" is a
>>>>> vector. An explanation of momentum needs the explanation of mass
>>>>> as a precondition. Not the other way around.
>>>>> Inertial mass can in fact be explained if one accepts that an
>>>>> extended object necessarily has inertia. And as the electron has
>>>>> to be extended (in order to have angular momentum and magnetic
>>>>> moment) it has inertial mass just from this reason. And I like to
>>>>> repeat: the assumption that an extended object has inertia is not
>>>>> only an idea but can be deduced quantitatively with precise
>>>>> results without the use of any free parameters which had to be
>>>>> adjusted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 09.10.2016 um 03:00 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>> Hello Albrecht, Vivian and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Albrecht: Of course, if you say that an apple is essentially the
>>>>>> same as an orange (despite their different properties) then you
>>>>>> can also say that inertial mass is essentially the same as
>>>>>> momentum (despite their different properties). But inertial mass
>>>>>> is not the same as momentum, and apples are not the same as
>>>>>> oranges. Inertial mass is a scalar quantity and momentum is a
>>>>>> vector quantity, which is fundamentally different. They also have
>>>>>> different physical units. My point is that inertial mass is NOT
>>>>>> the same as momentum although they are related. A linearly moving
>>>>>> photon has inertial mass hf/c^2 (while having no rest mass) as
>>>>>> well as external momentum hf/c. A resting electron has inertial
>>>>>> mass m= Eo/c^2 while having no (or minimal) external momentum. In
>>>>>> circulating-photon electron models (which your electron model is
>>>>>> not), the circulating photon also has inertial mass
>>>>>> m=Eo/c^2=hf/c^2 of its circulating photon, and this inertial mass
>>>>>> m of a resting electron is called the rest mass m of the
>>>>>> electron, or simply the mass m of the electron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vivian: I think you are agreeing with Albrecht too quickly.
>>>>>> Physicists have been trying hard to understand the nature of
>>>>>> inertia since Newton failed to. Mach tried and failed. Several
>>>>>> modern physicists such as Einstein, Woodward and Haisch et al
>>>>>> have also tried unsuccessfully to explain the nature of inertial
>>>>>> mass (the fact that the rest energy stored in a mass m is Eo=mc^2
>>>>>> is NOT in itself an explanation for inertial mass). The Higgs
>>>>>> Field (as I understand it) also doesn’t explain inertial mass,
>>>>>> although it may explain the origin of a particle's invariant mass
>>>>>> as is claimed. Anyway, I won’t accept any explanation from you
>>>>>> about particles and inertia as long as you continue to insist
>>>>>> that the relativistic kinetic energy of a particle is KE = pc =
>>>>>> gamma mv c (instead of the well-known experimentally established
>>>>>> formula KE = (gamma - 1) mc^2 ) as you claim on p 13 in your
>>>>>> article “A proposal for the structure and properties of the
>>>>>> electron” (attached).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au
>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>> <mailto: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 atwww.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 mgis different by potential energy (PE)
>>>>>>>>>> divided by c squared (mg= mi- PE/c^2). Rest mass mris
>>>>>>>>>> mimeasured 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, mgand mrwill 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
>>>>>>>>>>> atviv 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
>>>>>>>>>> atrichgauthier 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 atphys 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>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>> Virenfrei.www.avast.com
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
>>>>>>>> of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>> atviv at etpsemra.com.au <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
>>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
>>>>>>> of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>> atrichgauthier 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>> Virenfrei.www.avast.com
>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>> Virenfrei.www.avast.com
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
---
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/20161013/16aa3d84/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list