[General] Photons vs. waves again

Fri Sep 9 20:30:01 PDT 2016

Chandra.
Your second paragraph is kinda correct in my view. One way to advance new models is to model each success of accepted models plus 1 that accepted models fail to explain (the problem observations). Another way is to show the new (proposed) model corresponds to the successes of the accepted models. The STOE does the latter in my papers. The STOE through correspondence with the Bohemian Intepreation of Quantum Mechanics which corresponds to the Schrodinger Equation.The other suggested criteria for science is the "acceptance" by science community (a social criteria not a reality test criteria). The social society is dedicated to defending the status quo because the powers that be want to keep their position and change can only endanger their position. Human nature-- true, science-- no. Why should I want to follow the "accepted" and obviously false concepts -- they offer no enlightment.Trying to convince such closed minds will yield little and is not worth my effort. If the STOE model is modeling reality, new and upcomming revoltionaries in physics will evenually have to recognize it. If not, I like doing the mental exercise. I do like to see what other peoples ideas are because they present food for thought. Hence, I follow the posts of NOL. I'm 74 years old. Being 74, the time for the next generation and any acceptance of the STOE will be long after I'm dead. For example, some months ago you asked what engineering effects a new model of light might suggest. The STOE diffraction papers suggested the reflection of plenum waves off the surface was mathematically equivalent to a Fraunhofer equation without needing the HF ad hoc assumptions. That is, each position of a virtual atom of the surface of the slit is a trasnmitter of the Fraunhofer waves. These virtual waves then serve the pilot wave function. But the transmitter also transmits waves backward to effect the path of particles (photons) traveling toward the mask. This effect is noted in the trace of the simulation as a slight change of direction toward the edges of the slit. This effect is noted in diffraction experiments as an appearant brightness at the slit edges. This is also seen in the path of the walking drops. This is contrary to the obliquty factor of HF. It also suggest a way to model particles in a "wave guide".Water and other material waves do not need to have the obliquity factor in their calculations. Some other posts were questioning inertia. After some thought, I concluded the plenum was the carrier of inertia and the hod the cause of gravity, thus proving the Equivalence Principle from more basic principles. Thanks folks.The STOE is that there are 2 agents of the universe - plenum and hods - that produce the autonomous enity called the photon. This is NOT wave--particle duality (a quantum weirdness concept). The photon is always a photon  in all experiments at all times (a classical concept). Part of the model is a description of the particle photon that others have been seeking. Wave--particle duality and other weird QM notions of accepted science society are unnecessary in the STOE model. As mentioned in one of the recent papers, I suggest all QM weirdness issues can be describes by classical (Newtonian) concepts. The STOEs path toward describing EM waves began with the paper on spin (Stern--Gerlack experiment). It is a work in progress as suggested by others in the NOL. My current thought is that the photon is a magnet that then induces the charge effect (unlike Maxwell that holds the charge is the fundamental source). Hodge

    On Thursday, September 8, 2016 1:43 PM, John Macken <jmacken at stmarys-ca.edu> wrote:

 Chandra In the discussion, the subjectsof electric fields and electrical charge are being treated as an unknowable fundamentalproperties which cannot be dissected to reveal the underlying physics. conceptually understood as a quantifiable distortionof something more fundamental.  I claimthat electric fields, photons and charged particles can be conceptually understood as quantifiable distortions of the quantummechanical properties of the vacuum which you are calling the CTF and I amcalling the “spacetime field”.  These twoconcepts are not exactly the same but they are probably much closer than eitherof us have admitted.   I have described the energydensity and some other physical properties of the spacetime field.  My last post included a copy of a paper titled “GravitationalWaves Verify the Existence of Vacuum Energy”. This paper shows that gravitational waves experience spacetime as beinga very stiff elastic medium.  This isexperimental evidence that spacetime contains the zero-point energy predictedby 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 andshow that the energy density encountered by gravitational waves is frequencydependent.  I also show that theseequations indicate that a Planck length vacuum fluctuation can explain theformation and annihilation of virtual particles.  Does the CTF have energydensity?  If it does, I believe that theenergy density equations will show a similarity to the equations presented inthis paper..  I have also quantified the wave distortionof the spacetime field produced by photons and electric fields.  This led to the realization that there was animplied limit to the maximum intensity that a focused laser beam could achievefor a given area focal spot.  This limitoccurs when the EM radiation achieves 100% modulation of the properties ofspacetime.  This was a counter intuitiveprediction, but a quick calculation showed that this 100% modulation conditioncorresponded to the condition where the energy density would create a blackhole.  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 believethat I can offer an explanation of why gamma ray photons do not diffract.  However, I would first like to get some referenceson 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=mailto: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 <mailto: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=1712Until 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" <mailto: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 ofexcited 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]On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:22 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity Sorry, Chandra (not Roy! - it's late!)
----- Original Message -----From:Dr Grahame BlackwellTo:Nature of Light and Particles - General DiscussionSent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:51 PMSubject: 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, ChandraTo:Nature of Light and Particles - General DiscussionSent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 12:24 AMSubject: 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 PhysicsJuly 2002, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 1031–1068“Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions” byTom Van Flandern, Jean-Pierre Vigier………………………………………….. 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 notcommunicated 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 atjchodge 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>

_______________________________________________
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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160910/7c7a2972/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/20160910/7c7a2972/attachment.png>