[General] charged photons
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Wed Aug 30 22:15:57 PDT 2017
Andrew:
I realy like you paper because I think the whole topic of how a photon
if ther is such a thing has a volume in physical space is an important
but not often discussed topic. It is my understanding that the size of a
photon is determined by the constraints i.e. the boundary conditions
However your idea that light even in vacuum focuses is intriguing. i
understand how lasers can ionize air and create a wave guide , which is
wat you used because i can visualize a tube of ionic substance. I have
trouble when the taking that visualization to a vacuum and wonder if we
are ot ultimately talking about an aether of some kind.
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 8/21/2017 6:48 AM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
> Dear Chip,
>
> I've quickly gone thru your paper and find a lot of common ground
> (often separated by language, sometimes by concept). There are many
> things that I would comment on had I the time. Over the next couple of
> years I should be able to do so.
>
> A couple notes to start with;
>
> 1. You talk of energy causing 'displacements' of space. I would say
> that energy is a result/measure of 'distortions' of space. There
> is little actual difference between displacements and distortions.
> However, causality is an important issue. You make the case for
> energy as the causal agent and I cannot deny that energy is
> required to distort space. However, what is the source of that
> energy? We can go back to the Big Bang; but, I don't think that we
> are going to solve the problem. Thus, I should not complain about
> your choices here.
> 2. You make a very important statement in the paper, the consequences
> of which I have never seen published or properly taught:
> "Experiment seems to indicate that the spin angular momentum of
> the electron is the same /_when measured from any direction_." /Do
> you have any references for it? Recognition of this fact (?), many
> years ago, led me to my present view of the electron and,
> apparently, also led you to yours. I have not seen it discussed on
> this forum, where it is crucial; but, not being active I may have
> missed it. So I have started a new chain.
>
> No material body (gas, liquid, or solid) can have this property of a
> fixed angular momentum in any/all directions. Quantum mechanics put
> this concept into the realm of QM 'magic' (e.g., "It is quantum
> number, not a real, physical, angular momentum"). On the other hand,
> light, being able to travel thru light without net interaction, can
> provide exactly what is observed. If bound in a spherical shell, it
> can have equal ang mom in _all_ directions. I thought that I had
> written this up in one of my Nature of Light Conference papers, but,
> if I did, I can't find it readily (parts of it are in A. Meulenberg,
> “The photonic soliton,” Proc. SPIE 8832, The Nature of Light: What are
> Photons? V, 88320M (October 1, 2013); doi:10.1117/12.2022001)
> attached. I apparently did not have time or space to extend the story
> of photon self confinement to its self confinement to form an electron
>
> The transmission of light thru light in a bound system is seen in the
> standing waves of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave#Whispering-gallery_waves_for_light.
> If self bound in a wavelength (electron) dimension, rather than in a
> multi-micron sphere of the picture. The Goos-Haenscen
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goos%E2%80%93H%C3%A4nchen_effect) or
> Imbert–Fiodaraŭ
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect) effects
> will cause a photon to shift it alignment as it wraps around, and
> interferes with, itself in a spherical geometry (resulting in ang mom
> in all directions), rather than in a cylindrical geometry (with fixed
> ang mom).*I think that this picture becomes the incontrovertible
> evidence for the bound-photon model of the electron.*
>
> While your view and mine for ang mom (and the charge separation of
> components) of a photon apparently differ, I believe them to be
> mathematically equivalent, if your model is slightly extended. Your
> pairs of orthogonal components can represent ang mom vectors in _any_
> direction. If you take a linear sum of all your pairs, then you can
> model the observed ang mom vector in _all_ directions.
>
> Since the above two points will likely elicit a major discussion, I
> will stop here and continue later as to how our models of the photon,
> as composed of two charge components, both correspond and differ.
>
> .Andrew M.
>
> PS When I taught physics lab to engineering students many year ago, I
> had to often emphasize the concept of significant figures. Just
> because their calculators could give results to 8 decimal places, this
> did not improve the significance by writing all of them. They needed
> to use other criteria for how many decimal places they should include
> in their answers. Your use of 15 decimal places in most of your
> results indicates that you did not get such a lesson.
> _ _ _ _
>
> Aug 19, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> *Hi Andrew*
>
> I have been thinking about you recently. Some of the research I
> have been doing reminded me of some of the things you suggested
> earlier about the nature of the photon and electron.
>
> Once you talked about how it appears that an electron is made of a
> “rectified” half of a photon.
>
> I have come to a similar conclusion, but got there from a
> completely different approach.
>
> If you are interested please read the attached paper.
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> *Hi All*
>
> **
>
> *Attached is a paper on electric charge. It approaches the subject
> from a completely different perspective.*
>
> *Please comment.*
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins
> <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] *On Behalf
> Of *Andrew Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 03, 2017 3:40 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] charged photons
>
> Dear John,
>
> I look forward to your new paper. If it is based on a
> time-dependent model, then it could address: several problems with
> the 'common' interpretation of QM, Wilczek's concept of
> sequestration, and my view of phase transitions rather than
> quantum jumps.
>
> Andrew M.
>
> _ _ _
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:03 AM, John Williamson
> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> I think the mechanism for photon radiation from an electron is
> an overlap of a specific field configuration with an internal
> electron wave-function. The electron wave-function contains
> both mass-like and field-like components. If one overlaps this
> with a specific field configuration - equal and perpendicular
> (but static) electric and magnetic fields, the resultant
> cancels the mass like terms and the result is a copy of the
> original wave-function, but at lower energy, plus is a
> PROPAGATING pure field part of the resultant. the propagating
> part is quantised if the emitting charge is quantised (which
> it usually is). The reverse process is also possible -
> propagating field converted to localised energy. That is the
> internal electron wave-function acts as a generator or
> absorber of photons. This process is described, though not
> very well, in my first SPIE paper. There is also a (much
> better explained) version nearly ready to submit. Will copy
> this to the group when I send it off.
>
> Regards, John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on
> behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 02, 2017 6:53 AM
> *To:* Andrew Meulenberg
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Hans
> Montanus
> *Subject:* Re: [General] charged photons
>
> Hello Andrew, John W and all,
>
> Andrew, thanks for the link. A Weyl fermion, though not
> the same as a spin-1/2 charged photon, could be a step in this
> direction, since a Weyl fermion is a massless chiral fermion.
> It also has not been detected as a separate fundamental particle.
>
> By the way, a new colleague Hans Montanus wrote to me
> recently “For all the photon models for the electron, always
> the question raises to me: how can photon be radiated off from
> an accelerating electron? If the electron is a circling (or
> double circling in the toroidal model) photon, then it rather
> is a photon radiated off from an accelerating (the circling
> photon as a whole) photon. Similarly, pair creation would mean
> two circling photons coming of from a single (usual, non
> circling) photon. Do you know if there are models for such
> processes?”
>
> Do you have any thoughts on these questions about
> radiation of a photon from an accelerated circling photon, and
> pair creation from a single non-circling photon?
>
> Richard
>
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 4:16 AM, Andrew Meulenberg
> <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> We have demonstrated experimentally that photons can
> exhibit fermionic as well as bosonic natures. The
> charged-photon model, as a transient during the transition
> between photon and lepton pair, can be supported
> theoretically as well. It may be possible to use
> additional concepts to support your model:
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-gravitational-effect-observed-in-lab-crystal-1.22338
> <http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-gravitational-effect-observed-in-lab-crystal-1.22338>
>
> The Weyl Fermion,
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_semimetal
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_semimetal>), as a
> charged, massless, particle, might be worth exploring in
> that context.
>
> I don't have time to explore the concept myself right now;
> but, I would be interested in your comments, if you (or
> others) do get the opportunity to look at it.
>
> Andrew M.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20170830/b49d8193/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list