[General] Proposed photon wave functions

Fri Sep 23 21:15:58 PDT 2016

Hodge and all,

There were a couple of numeral typos in my message yesterday. They are corrected below, the big red letters. Sorry, I was a bit a pushed for time. Only the relevant paragraphs are left.

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 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang. But there are many problems with that figure.

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, ≈ 10^7 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.

Regarding my space-time geometry calculations, space outside matter, I append a copy of that for those who may have an interest in it and haven't read it yet. Comments welcome. 

Regards,

Vivian Robinson

On 23/09/2016, at 1:08 AM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:

> Vivian:
> apologies.
> Diffraction experiment and its STOE
> photon simulation program rejects wave models of light,
> http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603 
> click on mse42MY.pdf
> 
> 
> I like your last sentiment about only 3 dimensions. Does this apply to cosmology, also? That is, dark matter, dark, energy, inflation, should be rethought in Newtonian terms. 
> 
> Hodge
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:50 AM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Thanks for your comments and encouragement. Regarding epsilon and mu "resisting the application of energy", a lot more debate on this is needed.  I am not happy with that wording, but was trying to express that photons have mass when traveling at c, because of their energy and momentum. Alternative wording or ideas would be appreciated.  I posted it to this group as a starting point for discussion of the "nature of light and particles". Get the nature of light right and the nature of particles follows from our toroidal rotating photon model, along with special and general relativity and, dare I say, the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics. 
> 
> Please send me the reference you would like me to include, a connection to the whole article would be appreciated. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Viv
> On 22/09/2016, at 2:10 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> 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 å0 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
>> 
>> 
>> </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>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at universephysics.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160924/89f41163/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: The_Conservation_of_Energy_Space-Time_Me.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 485338 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160924/89f41163/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160924/89f41163/attachment-0001.htm>