[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

[Viv Robinson]

Dear photon fans

As I see the discussions going back and forth, they all have a similar trend. Opinions are expressed and bounced between participants. I have tried to suggest the best or scientific method is to state the physics behind the theory or effect to be conveyed. Then use mathematics to determine the magnitude of that effect. If there is a match between the calculated and observed effects, there is some support for the theory proposed. 

To this end I append a link to an earlier presentation of my idea of what constitutes photons. It is an oscillation of electric and magnetic fields in the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space respectively. Their oscillatory nature gives them wave properties. Their limited extent gives them particle properties. 

IMHO their lateral extent allows diffraction and single photon interference. I suggest but haven’t shown that entangled photons would have the same phase and could allow dual and even multiple photon interference. I make other suggestions it it as well. This includes the origins of their mass and spin as angular momentum. Circularly polarized photons will have angular momentum (spin) of hbar. Linearly polarized photons will not. Other spins are possible.

This was forwarded for discussion. I am repeating it again to suggest that if you want to “get your message or opinion across to others", use that approach. That will give everyone an opportunity to consider the merits or otherwise of your presentation. 

If anyone feels my presentation cannot explain an observed photon property I would he happy to consider the observation and determine if it can, or there is a variation that is needed to explain the observation. Or indeed whether it is necessary to start over again.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson


On 9 August 2017 at 10:01:41 AM, Eric Reiter (unquant at yahoo.com) wrote:

Dear Chip, and other photon fans.  
Arguments trying to make wave-properties from some sort of fuzzy particle, or desperations like super-c, are very old.  They never worked.  Try thinking the other way like I did.  If you see wave effects, maybe it is a wave.  See how our particle-like effects can be understood with threshold and ratio properties of matter-waves.   It works.

I stand with Lorentz, Schrodinger, Sommerfeld, Debye and even Einstein saying there is something wrong with QM.  An early and very decent argument is by

 H A Lorentz, "Die hypotheses der lichtquantin", Physik. Zeitschrift, 1910, pgs 349-359 Vol 11.    

I had a translator read it to me. It is in German, and old.  He ends (in translation) like this: light quanta confined in space and time simply will not do.  His argument still holds.  The wave needs to go everywhere to give wave interference.  Also, consider the neutron interferometer.  Any particle construct will suffer in the face of wave interference.   There is a subtle difference between thresholding and quantizing; this similarity allows many experiments to look like quantization.   

As for Albrecht's experiment.  I read the paper he quoted.  I expect QM to be confirmed in that test.  I can see just as well that the threshold model will work.  However, if you do not have a working alternative to QM in your experimental design, you will see QM.  That is why I devised the experiments I reported at your conference.  My experiment shows the distinction.   

One more important point bears repeating.  The photon is a phenomenological model.  If you are trying to describe the nature of light, please do not do that in terms of photons.  The photon model equally embraces both wave-like and particle-like observations.  Wave-like and particle-like are opposites.  Please call it light and describe clicks in your detectors.
 
Thank you.
Eric Reiter


On Monday, August 7, 2017, 7:04:23 AM PDT, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi John, and Chandra
As John has pointed out, the electron behaves in the same manner as light in the double slit experiment.  This is one of the most convincing arguments for me, that light is also quantized.

However I feel that calling this behavior “interference” in the classical wave sense, is an oversimplification of what is actually occurring in these experiments.

 It seems to me that these quantized, coherent, oscillatory energy packets produce fields, and that these fields in space, travel with the particle and pass through the apparatus and interact with the apparatus, in turn producing forces on the electron or photon, guiding its path.

 But for this to work in simulation, like it does in experiment, these fields propagate much faster than light, from the origin particle, into space.

 Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 8:29 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

 

Sorry Chandra but, logic or not, single photon interference is an almost universally agreed experimental fact, as is the (more stringent) single electron interference.

Regards, JW.

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu]
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:58 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

Chip:

Since Einstein’s photoelectric equation basically conforms to measurements; I have attempted to show that it is also congruent with “Filling the QM cup” model, as per semi-classical approach for all light-matter interactions.

     See slide #20 in the first attachment. Or, go to my web for papers and download my Colloquium given at the Institute of Optics, Rochester: http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

    It may take a couple of days for Michael to upload this memory-heavy presentation with the video clips for MZ-interferometry that makes the logic of “single photon interference” logically impossible. Besides, by virtue of the English meaning of the word “Interference” and its mathematical representation as sum of two or more waves with different phases; the proposal for “single photon interference” is a self-contradictory “Magical Thinking”. If indivisible photons and electrons are stable particles, then they cannot suddenly become multi-valued and carry multiple phases, the moment some human being sets up an interferometer to interrogate their “psychotic” behavior!!! The experiment without the videos are in the second attachment.

 

Chandra.

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:22 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

 

Hi Chandra

 Yes. Please send the derivation for multi-wave packet stimulation for practical photo electric effect.  I am quite interested.

 Recently I have been able to make good progress, and have written draft papers on inertial and gravitational mass, the electron, the fabric of space, and electric charge.  I am now working on the nature of light.

 Using a fresh approach to the concept that space is a tension field has yielded many productive and exciting (for me) results.

 I am also drafting a response to your requests for how this forum has been of benefit to my research.  Just wanted to thank you for the vision and drive to establish such a forum.  Will send that response soon.  Hope everyone will do the same.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2017 7:11 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

 

Chip:

My recent and latest response to Albrecht gives another articulation of my same old views about EM wave packets emitted by radio antenna, atoms and nuclei. For the latter two, the same entity can participate both as emitting or absorbing antenna; but only momentarily as they undergo level transitions. For radio, the emitters and receivers have to be designed separately and they are not inherently quantized.

 All EM wave packets propagate diffractively spreading and hence they all have to be divisible, whether radio wave or gamma wave. However, gamma wave being extremely low diffracting, it could be possible that a frequency-resonant nucleus can undergo the necessary transition, via absorption of the one single frequency-resonant gamma wave packet; provided the distance between the emitter (source) and absorber is reasonably small.

 Whereas, for visible light photoelectric effect, it would be practically impossible for a single visible wave packet to trigger a photo electron transition as they are highly diffractive. I have the necessary derivation for multi-wave packet stimulation for practical photo electric effect. If anybody is interested, I will be happy to send it.

Chandra.

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 11:48 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

 

Dear Albrecht and Chandra

If you don’t mind I would like to join this discussion on the nature of light.

This has been an area of study for me, also for decades, as Chandra has mentioned.

 But still, it is not so easy to resolve this issue.

 In this discussion group, many have made good points on both sides of this discussion.

 The best analysis I have been able to make of the experimental data so far, seems to indicate that light often acts like particles when reacting with particles, and acts like waves when propagating through space.

 As Chandra has pointed out, it is possible that light is a wave and the quantization we notice is induced by the particles (dipoles made of charges from particles).

 The underlying cause for action is what I feel we have to look for.  If energy behaves in a specific manner when confined within a particle, it is due to the properties of space. Which is to say that the rules which govern the quantization of energy in particles are rules imposed by the properties of space. So if those rules exist in space in order to cause particles of mass, it would follow that some of the same rules (since these rules are part of space) might govern the way energy behaves in light.

 As we analyze the available data E=hv becomes evident. This is a set of boundary conditions imposed on the behavior of energy in space. But E=hv applies to the energy in light. The energy in particles is better characterized by E=hv/2. And the frequency v in particles of mass is 2v the frequency in light.

 It occurs to me that the NIW property which Chandra has rediscovered could be due to the simple preservation of momentum, or it could be due to the point-like localization of the “energy” at the origin of what we call a photon.

 

So, I am still trying to sort all this out. But given the information which is known, it currently feels to me that we should consider that space imposes a set of rules on the behavior of energy in space.

 

If we follow the concept that space is a tension field, then we must also realize that in that model, energy must PULL on space, in order for us to sense that E=hv. This is specifically why we would see that more energetic particles are smaller particles. And following that premise to a logical conclusion, light would almost have to be a quantized wave packet.

 

I have found remarkable agreement between Albrecht’s math and my research, but I have come to these equations using a totally different approach, and I do not think the two massless particle explanation for the electron is the most instructive way to envision this particle.

 

My view is more similar to Chandra’s view that space is a tension field, and particles are made of energy (which is pulling on this tension field, causing displacements,) which propagate at the speed of light.  But that premise seems to me to require that the reaction of space to energy sets up oscillatory boundary conditions, making more energetic particles smaller, and quantizing all transverse propagation of energy in space.  This means that I currently feel that photons exist. But I am willing to entertain alternate suggestions.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 5:09 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

 

Albrecht: Let me start by quoting your concluding statement:

“You have the idea of your Complex Tension Field. Now doubt that this is an intelligent idea. My goal, however, is to find a model for all this, which is as simple and as classical as possible (avoiding phenomena like excitations), and at present I believe that my model is closer to this goal.”

The implied meaning to me is that I have proposed a model that is totally irreconcilable to your model of the universe. My book, “Causal Physics: Photon by Non-Interaction of Waves” CRC, 2014) has given better explanations for most of the optical phenomena based upon this re-discovered NIW-property of all waves; which I have also summarized many times in this forum. See the last paragraph to appreciate why my mental logic was forced to accept the “Complex Tension Field” holds 100% of the cosmic energy. I understand that it is a radical departure from the prevailing “successful” theories. However, it makes a lot of mutually congruent sense even for some cosmological phenomena.

Differences in our opinions are OK. That is the purpose of this forum. Further, I would not dare to claim that my model of the universe is THE correct one; or even the best one for the present! I am open to enriching my thinking by learning from other models. This is the key reason why I have been investing decades of my time to re-energize the enquiring minds of many through (i) organizing special publications, (ii) special conferences and this (iii) web-based open forum. Because, I, alone, simply cannot solve the culturally and historically imposed tendency of believing what appears to be currently working knowledge, as the final knowledge. Presently, this is happening in all spheres of human theories (knowledge), whether meant for Nature Engineering (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) and Social Engineering (politics, economics, religions, etc.).

I also believe that we are all “blind people”, modeling the Cosmic Elephant based on our individual perceptions and self-congruent logical intelligence. We now need to keep working to develop some “logical connectivity” to bring out some form of “conceptual continuity” between our different and imagined descriptions of the Cosmic Elephant. Finding working logics behind persistent, but logical evolution, in nature cannot be resolved by democratic consensus. Further, we are in a position to declare our current understanding as the final laws of nature. The working rules in nature has been set many billions of years before our modern Gurus started defining the creator of the universe as various forms of gods. None of our major messiahs have ever alerted us that we must develop the technology to travel to planets in distant stars before the earth is vaporized due to the eventual arrival of Solar Warming due to its evolution into a Red Giant! Fortunately, some of our foresighted engineers have already started to develop the early experimental steps towards that vision.

However much you may dislike “philosophy” (methodology of thinking, or epistemology); it is the key platform where we can  mingle our ideas to keep generating something better and better and better. That has been the entire history of human evolution. Except, human species have now become too self-centered and too arrogant to care for the biosphere. We are now virtually a pest in the biosphere. Scientific epistemology that is totally disconnected from our sustainability would be, eventually, a path to our own extinction. Our epistemology must be grounded to sustainability for our own collective wellbeing. All the accomplishments, from the ancient times, then from Galileo, Newton, then from Einstein, Heisenberg, and then, all the way to recent times, would not mean an iota to our grand-grand-grand kids if the Global warming takes a decisive irreversible slide! None other than Einstein pronounced in 1947:

“Science without epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at all — primitive and muddled. ”

This is why I have started promoting the overarching concept, “The Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking”. The “Process” is connected to engineering (practical) thinking. It is not some grandiose and complex approach like mathematics behind the “String Theory”, which only a limited number of people with mathematically inclined brains can understand and participate after dedicating at least a decade of their professional lives.

The recognition of the importance of “Evolution Process Congruent Thinking” is trivially simple. What has been the basic urge common to all species, from bacteria to humans? (i) Keep striving to do better than our current best and (ii) live forever pragmatically through our progenies. For knowledgeable humans, it means to assure the sustainability of our biosphere that collectively nurtures mutually dependent all lives.

Finally, I need to underscore the origin of my concept of Complex Tension Field (CTF). This was necessary to accommodate (i) constant velocity of light in every part of the universe and (ii) Optical Doppler Shifted spectra from atoms in any star in any galaxy, including our Sun. All atoms, whether in earth lab or in a distant star corona, are experiencing the same stationary CTF. But, the trigger point to conceive CTF came from my re-discovery of the Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW); which is already built into our current math. However, the inertia of our cultural tendency is to continue believing in non-causal postulate of wave-particle duality from the erroneous assumption that Superposition Principle is an observable phenomenon. It is not. The observable phenomenon is the causal and measurable Superposition Effect reported through physical transformation in detectors. My book, “Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves”, is the result of some 50 years of wide variety of optical experiments. By my own philosophy, it is definitely not infallible. However, it would be hard to neglect, at least in the field of optical sciences. Please, go to the web site to down load my recent Summer School course summarizing my book.

http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

It summarizes the breadth of my book as applied to optical sciences. [Indian paperback is already published. I am now working on a Chinese edition and then convert to Senior level optics text.

Sorry, Albrecht, for such a long reply.

Chandra.  

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 2:30 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

 

Chandra,

do you really see a structural difference of photons (or of EM waves) depending on their frequency/energy? You surely know that this does not conform to the general understanding of present physics? And now in your view: at which frequency/energy does the structure change? Because at some point there must be a break, doesn't it?

Why do you think that photons (Gamma wave packets) do not have inertial mass? They have energy, no doubt. And energy is related to inertial mass, agree? Photons / Gamma wave packets - also low energy wave packets - have a momentum and cause a radiation pressure. We know - and can measure - the radiation pressure of the sun. Spaceships react on it. To my knowledge, no one has never met a photons which no mass. The assumption of no-mass is the result of a model, nothing more.

The conversion of particles is an unresolved question of present physics. QM is giving descriptions - they have generation operators - but as usual  no physical explanation. -  I find it funny that photons can be generated in large numbers when an electric charge experiences a changing field, supposed the necessary energy is present. The other reaction, the conversion of a photon into an electron-positron pair is in the view of my particle model not surprising. You may remember that in my model a lepton and a quark is built by a pair of massless "Basic" particles (which have electric charge). I find it possible that also a photon is built in this way, but as the photon has twice the spin of a lepton/quark it may be built by two pairs of basic particles rather than one, which have in this case positive and negative electric charges. And if now the photon interacts with another object so that momentum can be exchanged, it may break off into two halves, so into an electron and a positron as all necessary constituents are already there.

Why does a photon cause scattering, interference, and so on? Because in this model it has positive and negative electric charges in it. And as these charges a orbiting (with c of course) they cause an alternating electric field in the vicinity, and so there is a classical wave causing this wave-related behaviour. I find this simple, and it fits to de Broglie's idea, and in addition it solves the particle-wave question very classically. And this works independent of the energy (=frequency) of the photon.

You have the idea of your Complex Tension Field. Now doubt that this is an intelligent idea. My goal, however, is to find a model for all this, which is as simple and as classical as possible (avoiding phenomena like excitations), and at present I believe that my model is closer to this goal.

I think that this is the difference between our models.

Albrecht

 

Am 01.08.2017 um 23:55 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:

Albrecht:

Your “photon” is of Gamma frequency, whose behavior is dramatically different from those of frequencies of X-rays and all the lower ones to radio. Yes, I agree that the behavior of Gamma wave packet is remarkably similar to particles; but they are not inertial particles. They are still non-diffracting EM wave packets, always traveling with the same velocity “c” in vacuum and within materials, except while directly head-on encountering heavy nucleons.  

 

I have written many times before that the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral correctly predicts that the propensity of diffractive spreading of EM waves is inversely proportional to the frequency. Based upon experimental observations in multitudes of experiments, it is clear that EM waves of Gamma frequency do not diffractively spread; they remain localized. Buried in this transitional behavior of EM waves lies deeper unexplored physics. I do not understand that. But, that is why I have been, in general, pushing for incorporating Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E), over and above the prevailing Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).

 

Current particle physics only predicts and validates that Gamma-energy, through interactions with heavy nucleons, can become a pair of electron and positron pair. Similarly, an electron can break up into a pair of Gamma wave packets. Their velocity always remain “c”, within materials (except nucleons), or in vacuum!! They are profoundly different from inertial particles.

 

This is why, I have also postulated that the 100% of the energy of the universe is in the form of a very tense and physically stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF). This CTF is also the universal inertial reference frame. Elementary particles that project inertial mass-like property through interactions, are self-looped resonant oscillation of the same CTF. This internal velocity is the same c as it is for EM waves. However, their The linear excitations of the CTF, triggered by diverse dipoles, EM waves are perpetually pushed by the CTF to regain its state of unexcited equilibrium state. This is the origin of perpetual velocity of EM wave packets. For self-looped oscillations, f, at the same velocity c, the CTF “assumes” that it is perpetually pushing away the perturbation at the highest velocity it can. Unfortunately, it remains locally micro-stationary (self-looped). The corresponding inertial property becomes our measured (rest mass = hf-internal). When we are able to bring other particles nearby, thereby introducing effective perceptible potential gradient to the first particle, it “falls” into this potential gradient, acquiring extra kinetic energy of (1/2)mv-squared = hf-kinetic. This f-kinetic is a secondary oscillatory frequency that facilitates the physical movement of the particle through the CTF. This f-kinetic frequency replaces de Broglie pilot wave and removes the unnecessary postulate of wave-particle duality. [See the attached Ch.11 of my book.

 

Most likely, you would not be happy with my response because, (i) we model nature very differently, and (ii) I do not understand the physical processes behind the transformations: Gamma to Electron+Positron, or Electron to Gamm-Pair.

 

Chandra.

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:30 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

 

Chandra,

I now feel a bit helpless. I thought that I have written clearly enough that the Compton Effect is NOT the aspect I wanted to present and to discuss here. True that this was the original purpose of the experiment, but the aspect of the experiment used for my question was different. But now you write:  "So, I assume that you are asking me to explain physical process behind Compton Effect by classical approach."   What can I do that you do not turn around my intention? Write in capital letters?

So once again the following process: An electron of a certain energy is converted into something called traditionally a "photon". Then after a flight of about 10 meters through air this photon is re-converted into an electron-position pair. The energy of this pair is exactly the energy of the originating electron. And again my question: How can one explain this process if it is not assumed that this "photon" carried exactly this amount of energy? And what is wrong with the assumption that this "photon" was - at least in this application - some type of a particle?

You have attached several papers about photons. I have looked through most of them (as much as it was possible in a limited time). I have found almost nothing there which has to do with my question above.

The first paper is about the Compton Effect. So, not at all my topic here.

The second paper is a combination of several sub-papers. In the third of these sub-papers the author (Rodney Loudon) has presented different occurrences of a photon with respect to different experiments. And in his view the photon can exhibit a behaviour as it appeared in my experiment. In the others I did not find something similar. (Perhaps I have overlooked the corresponding portions and you can help me with a reference.)

The third paper (of W.E. Lamp) denies the occurrence of a photon like in my experiment completely. How should I make use of this paper?

Or what did I overlook?

In general I see good chances to explain many physical phenomena classically which are according to main stream only treatable (however mostly not "understandable") by quantum mechanics. This is a master goal of my work. But the papers which you have sent me are all following main stream in using quantum mechanics. So, also the mystification of physics done by QM/Copenhagen. I thought that also you have been looking for something alternative and new.

Albrecht

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170809/f9731c86/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 308361359_Classical_Aspects_of_a_Photon_Wave_Function_PS.webloc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 553 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170809/f9731c86/attachment.obj>