[General] Photons vs. waves again

[John Macken]

Chandra



In the discussion, the subjects of electric fields and electrical charge
are being treated as an unknowable fundamental properties which cannot be
dissected to reveal the underlying physics. conceptually understood as a
quantifiable distortion of something more fundamental.  I claim that
electric fields, photons and charged particles can be conceptually
understood as quantifiable distortions of the quantum mechanical properties
of the vacuum which you are calling the CTF and I am calling the “spacetime
field”.  These two concepts are not exactly the same but they are probably
much closer than either of us have admitted.



I have described the energy density and some other physical properties of
the spacetime field.  My last post included a copy of a paper titled
“Gravitational Waves Verify the Existence of Vacuum Energy”.  This paper
shows that gravitational waves experience spacetime as being a very stiff
elastic medium.  This is experimental evidence that spacetime contains the
zero-point energy predicted by quantum field theory.  This quantum
mechanical vacuum fluctuation energy is not detected by fermionic based
instruments but strongly interacts with gravitational waves.  I give
equations for the energy density and show that the energy density
encountered by gravitational waves is frequency dependent.  I also show
that these equations indicate that a Planck length vacuum fluctuation can
explain the formation and annihilation of virtual particles.



Does the CTF have energy density?  If it does, I believe that the energy
density equations will show a similarity to the equations presented in this
paper..



I have also quantified the wave distortion of the spacetime field produced
by photons and electric fields.  This led to the realization that there was
an implied limit to the maximum intensity that a focused laser beam could
achieve for a given area focal spot.  This limit occurs when the EM
radiation achieves 100% modulation of the properties of spacetime.  This
was a counter intuitive prediction, but a quick calculation showed that
this 100% modulation condition corresponded to the condition where the
energy density would create a black hole.  This black hole would block
further transmission.  There is no need to do an experiment to confirm the
prediction.  A similar analysis predicts that there is a limit to the
maximum voltage that a vacuum capacitor can have because an electric field
can also achieve 100% distortion of the spacetime field.  This prediction
is also confirmed because the energy density would also form a black hole.



On a related subject, I believe that I can offer an explanation of why
gamma ray photons do not diffract.  However, I would first like to get some
references on this subject.



John M.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

> *"Hodge Experiment" rejects the wave model (HF assumptions) of light”.
>    “…..light is a photon that causes waves in a medium…”*
>
>
>
> Hodge: Like you, in 1905, Einstein had also rejected the HF-assumption by
> proposing “indivisible light quanta”. Then, some times before his death, he
> also declared that after fifty years of brooding over the nature of light,
> he still does not understand what photons are! This is a non-trivial
> admission by the originator of the concept of “light quanta”.
>
>
>
> Note that since the introduction of HF integral around 1817, entire
> optical science and engineering has been thriving based upon that integral.
> So, if you want the ‘Hodge-model’ to be taken seriously; you will have to
> show that all optical phenomena, and MORE, can be understood and explained
> by your model. Otherwise, people will continue with the model that has been
> working for them for two centuries. That is human nature and culture.
>
>
>
> Your second statement above implies the necessity of wave-particle
> duality; which brings in an extra and unnecessary conceptual complexity!
> Semi-classical model of light-matter interaction does not need this duality
> at all. The originator of the quantum concept, Max Planck of Planck’s Law,
> consistently promoted this approach where the materials are quantized and
> absorbs a ‘quantum cupful’ of energy out of the EM waves passing them by.
>
>
>
> Well, as humans, we all get wedded to our personal concepts that seem to
> explain nature. We like our mental comfort too, like physical comfort.
>
> I am attaching a 2003 publication where five well-known wise men of
> physics have written, like Einstein, that we still do not fully understand
> what EM waves or photons are.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.
> edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Hodge John
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 08, 2016 6:30 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
>
>
>
> Chandra.
> “Why do we always get perfect experimental validation by propagating
> Maxwellian wave packets, instead of Einstein’s ‘indivisible light quanta’?
> Not "always".
>
>
> The recent "Hodge Experiment" rejects the wave model (HF assumptions) of
> light. Instead light is a photon that causes waves in a medium (ether,
> "space" of GR, plenum, quantum vacuum). The Hodge Experiment passes
> coherent light with a higher intensity on one side of the slit and nearly
> no photons on the other side. Most of the photons land on the side opposite
> to the high intensity side. Waves according to the wave equation don't do
> this. This is also seen in the "walking drop" experiment that shows
> diffraction effects.
>
> Does someone have an model of Maxwellian wave packets that can explain the
> Hodge Experiment's observation?
>
> http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603
>
> http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1712
>
> Until our physics can create a universe, we can only expand our
> understanding (ability to create outcomes) to explain ever greater parts of
> our universe.
>
> Hodge
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:57 PM, "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> *Hello Everybody!*
>
> Please, look through the email. I am trying to respond to many of your
> comments through this same email; although, a big chunk is relevant to
> Grahame’s comments addressing me earlier.
>
>
>
> I think our debate & discourse is going well; in spite of many
> disagreements; which are natural.
>
>
>
> *Methodology of thinking**:* It is, of course, humanely comforting to
> know that somebody else’s attempt in mapping the cosmic system, which is
> only partially fathomable, is agreeable to that of mine. So, I appreciate
> Grahame’s comment. This is because all of our conceptual and mathematical
> models are limited by our neural network that originated for successful
> biological survival. We are finally recognizing this limit and trying to
> consciously redirect our cerebral evolution. In that process, it is smart
> to recognize that we are all “blind”, trying to model the cosmic elephant.
> To appreciate this, all we need to acknowledge that no sensors, bodily or
> technology driven, can give us complete information about any interactants
> under study. Of course, we know that. That is why we have been trying to
> convince each other of our different interpretations of the same set of
> experiment data that have been already done by others; or, we have done
> ourselves. Data from experiments never have 100% fidelity; neither do the
> instruments can talk objectively as to what they have experienced. We
> insert our diverse interpretations. That is why this continuous debate
> forum so healthy for all of us to stay humble. [I know I am repeating
> myself!]
>
>
>
> *Action at a distance:* Newton was the first one to recognize the
> “incompleteness” behind his model of Gravity, the inverse square law. The
> action at a distance is the reality. But this perceived “incompleteness”
> can be removed, while preserving the causality, once we map all the forces
> as structurally “existing” “force fields” (potential gradients) generated
> around the “particles” at the moment of their formation as localized
> oscillations of the CTF. My thinking is that the time varying potential
> gradients in space domain can be perceptible (experimentally verifiable)
> only during the very brief moment of particle formation (or their assembly
> for gravity) or during sudden destruction. Or, some distortion in the
> potential gradient when the “body” is moving at very high speed. [Yes, I do
> not want to have an SR interpretation here.]
>
>
>
> *Why particles are not built out of photons**?:* To me, the only reality
> of the cosmic system is a quiescent Complex Tension Field (CTF), except
> some 4 to 5 % of the energy in the state of various kinds of oscillations..
> Everything observable is a form of excitation of this stationary CTF.
> Perpetually propagating, and diffractively spreading, photon wave packets
> and localized particles are different kinds of *excited states of the
> same mother-field*, the CTF. The inter-convertibility of these two
> energetic excitations (light-matter interaction) always happens via the
> parent CTF’s excitation energy taking different forms – whether emission of
> a photo electron out of a solid state photo detector, or conversion of a
> gamma-packet into electron positron pair (after interaction with some heavy
> nucleus). Neither propagating EM weaves, nor localized “particle”
> oscillations are built out of each other. They are two different kinds of
> excited states of the same CTF. We do not need any wave-particle duality.
>
>
>
> There may be transient quanta of photons at the very moment of quantum
> transition; but they must very quickly evolve as diffractively propagating
> EM waves. Photons could not exist as a localized quanta beyond the brief
> moment of its birth. Two arguments. (i) None of our great QED fathers, or
> their followers, have succeeded in cogently localizing photons; as they
> have been defined as the Fourier mode of the vacuum (to possess single
> monochromatic frequency demanded by quantum transitions). The second
> quantization really mathematical re-package of quantum transition of
> material particles releasing/absorbing a quantum of energy. They fail to
> formulate how this released energy evolve as perpetually propagating waves
> in the CTF. QM formalism does not have that capability. That is the core
> limitation of QM formalism that we ought to recognize to advance forward.
> (ii) All professionals scientists and engineers studying optical phenomena
> who need to propagate and manipulate light beams, use Huygens-Fresnel
> Diffraction integral and/or Maxwell’s equation. These equations have been
> helping model simple manipulations of light by macro mirrors, our
> eye-lenses, glass lenses, etc., all the way to micro entities like
> *nanoparticles*, the most thriving field of optics now, besides
> bio-photonics. However, in the nano-domain, the quantum properties of
> materials become clearly manifest and the nanoparticles’ energy exchange is
> then treated by using standard QM, without quantizing the interacting EM
> waves  -- *this is semi-classical model*. Propagation of EM waves, in
> free space and within material media, are always modeled by HF integral or
> Maxwell’s equations.
>
>
>
> *Hello Everybody again: *Based on the last paragraph above, I have the
> following generic question to all of you.
>
> *   “Why do we always get perfect experimental validation by propagating
> Maxwellian wave packets, instead of Einstein’s ‘indivisible light quanta’?*
>
>
>
> I have multiple reasons to frame such a question at this forum. Buried in
> there, into classical optical experiments, since ancient times to modern
> times, a lot of subtle light-matter *interaction processes* waiting to be
> explored further to better understand the Cosmic Elephant. Our, QM
> formulators were dominantly driven by the “elegance and beauty” of
> mathematics. Unfortunately, mathematics is only a human invented
> logic-system; albeit being the most crucial logic-system to model
> scientific thinking. We are not in a position to claim that this
> mathematical logic-system is definitely identical to that of the creator of
> the cosmic system!  I will promote the above question and solicit answers
> from through forums also, including (i) our coming biennial 2017 conference
> at San Diego; (ii) during my yearly workshop at the SPIE Photonics West
> Conference (Technical Event , “Nature of light: What are photons?”), and
> (iii) as an editorial comment in the Journal of Nano Photonics; etc.
>
>
>
> No optical engineer has ever propagated a “light quanta” in the radio to
> optical domain. But, most of them give lip-service to the word “photons”
> (light quanta), to avoid being perceived as living in the eighteenth
> century! Particle physicists do not have an equation for the propagation of
> Gamma-photon. They just have been drawing geometric straight lines between
> centers of interactions in cascading detecting systems. HF diffraction
> integral does predict diffraction spreading of EM waves to inversely
> proportional to the frequency. This brings the second question:
>
>
>
> What are the necessary physical properties possessed by CTF that allows a
> non-diffracting Gamma-packet, moving with velocity “c”, and then colliding
> with a heavy nucleon, generates a pair of self-looped oscillating particles
> with opposite charge properties? What properties of CTF endows Gamma-packet
> to remain non-diffracting? Can we visualize the physical processes? This
> last question is the key to doing good physics.
>
>
>
> *Are any of you prepared to delve into these discussions?*
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.
> edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:22 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
>
>
> Sorry, Chandra (not Roy! - it's late!)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com>
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:51 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
>
>
> Roy (et al)
>
>
>
> Thanks for this.  I believe I'm in full agreement with all you've said (as
> long as I've understood it correctly); my only slight difference in view
> is, I believe, a matter of semantics rather than science.
>
>
>
> Like you, I don't accept the concept of 'force-carrying particles'; this
> concept appears to raise far more questions than it answers (if it answers
> any) - it certainly doesn't in any way offer significantly greater insight
> than the 'action at a distance' proposed by Newton.  [Not to put too fine a
> point on it, I find it an insult to the intelligence as it appears to
> expect a whole raft of counter-intuitive notions to be taken on trust.]  I
> agree 100% with your definition of rest-mass, also the additional
> 'oscillatory energy' that relates to motion, induced by some form of 'force
> gradient' that is itself an extended consequence (part of the structure) of
> 'material particles' and moves concomitantly with them.  In this respect
> such 'force effects' are not in some way communicated at light-speed or
> faster, they are an integral part of the particle producing that effect: if
> a complete unified singular object moves as a whole, we don't propose that
> one part of the object 'communicates its motion' to another part (at FTL
> speed) so that it too moves - it just IS a unified moving body.  No threat
> to causality there.  The fact that our limited senses don't perceive the
> whole of that extended entity doesn't mean that it can't exist - its very
> action proves that it does, in accordance with our understanding of EM
> effects.
>
>
>
> My difference in view relates to your observation that particles "are not
> made of photons"; as I say, I believe this is a matter of semantics -
> essentialy how one defines a photon.  We agree that they are formed
> from light-like oscillations of the universal field - i.e. TEM wave
> packets.  If one defines a photon simply as a TEM wave packet
> then particles are formed from photons; if however we add the stipulation
> that a photon radiates rectilinearly from its dipole oscillatory source,
> then by definition that wave packet forming a particle cannot be a photon.
> The fact that elementary particles are (or at least can be) initially
> created from photons is, I believe, established by Landau & Lifshitz (1934)
> and demonstrated by the SLAC multiphoton Breit-Wheeler experiment of 1997.
>
>
>
> I'm interested in your observation that the 'force gradient' of a particle
> will be distorted by a state of motion; I agree that this must be true,
> since the configuration of its formative field will be somewhat different.
> As you say, it would be interesting if it were possible to construct an
> experiment to demonstrate this - I suspect one would first have to persuade
> the experimenters that SR is primarily a subjective effect, so that they
> don't apply 'SR logic' as an objective truth to their readings!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Grahame
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 27, 2016 12:24 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
>
>
> Chip, Albrecht, and the rest of the team:
>
>
>
> *Chip:*
>
> After reading the article by Flandern, sent by Chip, I dug out a possible
> later publication by Flandern. The link is given below.
>
> ……………………………..
>
> Foundations of Physics <http://link.springer.com/journal/10701>
>
> July 2002, Volume 32, Issue 7
> <http://link.springer.com/journal/10701/32/7/page/1>, pp 1031–1068
>
> “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic,
> and Quantum Field Interactions” by Tom Van Flandern
> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-1>
> , Jean-Pierre Vigier
> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-2>
>
> …………………………………………..
>
>
>
> The beginning caveat – I am not a theorist and am not conversant with the
> GR math. My knowledge of GR is mostly from review articles without math.
> Now, after reading Flandern, Now I believe, like that for SR, GR does also
> have rather serious foundational problems. And our understanding of
> momentum of a moving object needs to explored deeper in light of the fact
> that mass in not some immutable “substance”. It is the perturbation energy
> that creates the resonant self-looped oscillation of the cosmic Complex
> Tension Field (CTF); the rest mass being the original oscillation-inducing
> energy. Spatial (definitely not space-time) velocity, induced by some
> “force gradient” adds further energy to a particle in the form of “kinetic
> oscillations”. We need to carefully analyze how we measure and interpret
> “momentum” since mass is not an immutable intrinsic property.
>
>
>
> Even with my limited experimental expertise, I have always intuitively
> believed that forces are not mediated by various force particles. Thus, I
> clearly disagree with Flandern and Vigier. I have said that in many of my
> publications, including my book.
>
>
>
> Based upon the various intrinsic physical tension properties of the CTF,
> the self-looped oscillations in the CTF generate various kinds of decaying
> potential gradients of the CTF properties around the oscillating
> “particle”. These gradients are not exactly like the physical curvature in
> a stretched membrane (prevailing GR analogy). Then the “particles” in the
> vicinity of each other will move towards or away from each other depending
> upon the sign of the potential gradients. all into or are repulsed by this
> gradient. Hence*, these force gradients are mobile with the particles and
> would suffer spatial distortion at very high velocity.* Attempts to
> measure these distortion should open up new frontiers of physics. “The
> potential gradients representing “forces”, obey the principle of linear
> superposition; very much like the EM wave amplitudes; even though the
> former is “stationary” around the parent particle; and the latter is true
> propagating wave that follows the classic wave equation.
>
>
>
> LCH should accommodate a new group of experimentalist to design
> experiments to measure the distortions in the electrostatic “force
> gradient” generated by speeding electrons and protons. Speedy
> protons-electron collision might help reveal the distortion in their
> gravitational potential gradients. These potential gradient based “forces”
> are not *communicated* by some particles. Causality is not violated. “c”
> is not exceeded by anything since even the particles are light-like
> self-looped oscillations. Note that I am using the phrase, light-like
> oscillations of the CTF; they are not constructed out of photons. Photon
> wave packets are linear propagating excitations of the CTF; perpetually
> running away from the original point in space where they were created by
> some dipole oscillation (from radio to nuclear).
>
>
>
> *Albrecht: *
>
> In a separate recent email you have raised a very important point, which
> in some of my epistemology articles underscore as the necessity of
> assigning the physical parameters in any physics equation with the
> hierarchy of “primary”, “secondary”, “tertiary”, etc., based upon the
> physical roles they play in interactions with other entities; or their
> emergence out of the CTF. So, I like your argument related to √μ₀=1/c√(ε₀).
> In this context, we may note that Einstein preferred to write
> m=E/c-squared;  because m is not an immutable property; it is an emergent
> property in our methods of measuring it.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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 jmacken at stmarys-ca.edu
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/jmacken%40stmarys-ca.edu?
> 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/20160908/fa51f5a2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160908/fa51f5a2/attachment.png>