[General] Proposed photon wave functions

John Williamson John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
Wed Sep 21 21:10:10 PDT 2016


Hello Viv,

Thanks for your substantive contribution to the debate. I have just read the article you posted over the last hour or so with some pleasure. This fits in to the framework of what my friend Nick would say is “don’t tell me- show me”. Quite a breath of fresh air!

I have a few comments, however, but it would be good to have many more in a proper session.

One thing: I think it is a mistake to speculate on the basis of no evidence: a mistake I make often myself. You are usually very good at filtering these out, but one or two have crept through.  One example of this is where you say on page 2 …

“It is suggested this ability of •0 and μ0 to resist the application of energy gives the property of mass
to the disturbance.”

No they do not. Light is rest-massless where both are well-defined.  They express that “space” is stiff and strong but carry, themselves, no mass either in the equations or in nature. As you so aptly put it later on page 10, “They are a property of nothing”. Nice sentence!  I corrected it at first in my mind to “They are a property of empty space” but decided that your phrase was better, leading to a new version for myself of “They are a property of no-thing”.  One could also have the cryptic line “They are a property of no-thing and everything”. Keeping it simple, as you do there, is probably the best option!

I would perhaps say earlier something like “…to resist the application of energy that allows momentum transfer across the disturbance as a whole.” This could be followed with something like …

This momentum is imparted to an object on which the photon impinges transferring mass-energy from emitter to absorber.

This is then more consistent with what you say later.

I like the fact you assume a falling exponential laterally and agree this is the best guess. This is supported by the extension to the 4D wave-function I proposed in the first of my SPIE papers I you want to refer to it.

Anyway thanks for the good contribution Viv and keep up the good work. Hope to talk to you in the not too far distant future.

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Vivian Robinson [viv at universephysics.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:55 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] Proposed photon wave functions

Dear all,

Appended is an article that I suggest uses classical concepts to give a wave function psi for different types of photons. I further suggest that its structure is responsible for the quantum effects attributed to photons. It has been posted on ResearchGate. As some of you know, John W, Martin vdM and Chip A included, I have used the photon as the basis for the structure of all matter particles. Many of you will have seen my paper on electrons being composed of photons making two revolutions within their wavelength. I have done the same for protons, neutrons and neutrinos, the only other stable fundamental particles. The same explanation has been used for muons, pions and some of the large range of short lived "elementary" particles.

The wave functions I propose for photons forms the basis of my work. It uses only known particles in three space dimensions and time. It does not require the use of any undetected particles, undetected dimensions or a density greater than that observed. I suggest the so-called quantum effects of probability and "weirdness" are attributable to the structure presented. Throughout my work I have made many predictions that can be tested experimentally to verify or disprove my findings. IMHO this structure of the photon is responsible for the relativistic corrections in Einstein's special relativity theory and for the general relativity corrections, space outside matter. In that regard it matches all GR observations that support Einstein's gravitational equations except that there are no black holes because the singularity is at the centre of mass.

This is a general discussion group on the nature of light and particles. This is my contribution on the nature of light. If we can get past that we have the nature of the other particles in only three space dimensions, using only detected particles.

Comments welcome.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson




_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/john.williamson%40glasgow.ac.uk?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/20160922/86a2a7c3/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list