[General] charged photons

Thu Aug 31 15:55:18 PDT 2017

Dear Wolf,

*To answer your question, I need to give much more than you wanted to know.
The background:*

I consider energy and fields to be measures of the distortion of space from
its equilibrium condition. While not critical to the nature of the
distortion, I think of it as a displacement into time (which, with its
associated linear distortion, satisfies the Lorentz condition); but, it can
also be an increase in rotational tension in the 'plane' of 3-space (a la
Chandra's cosmic tension field) without displacement into time. Mass is a
net displacement into (+ or -) time. Oscillation in time can give mass
energy (both matter and anti-matter) without necessarily giving a net
displacement into (+ or -) time.

Stationary charge is torsion about the time axis only and therefore is
isotropic in 3-space and binary about time. This rotation about the time
axis gives spin (angular momentum) that is isotropic in 3-space. Stability
of charge probably also requires displacement in time; e.g., that which is
made possible in the joint paired-mass formation of electrons and positrons
leading to conservation of charge (as seen in the Falaco soliton). Motion
of charge alters the distortion patterns giving both kinetic energy and
momentum (relativistic effects). Linear motion gives a momentum component
which interacts with the ang mom vector to produce a fixed precession of
the net momentum axis. I propose that the precession frequency,
proportional to the velocity, is the basis for the deBroglie wavelength
(and therefore of the principal quantum number). Non-linear motion
introduces additional precessions of the net ang mom vector that, for
resonances, lead to additional quantum numbers.

Photons oscillate in time and therefore have no net displacement (mass).
Photons also oscillate in a 3-space rotation and therefore have
time-varying potentials, but no net charge. Their oscillating fields result
from tension from the displacements and rotations.

*Now to the answer to your question*

Many years ago, a mentor mentioned that:energies in the wave equations were
equivalent to refractive index (including both real and imaginary
components). I accepted this as just a strange quirk of the mathematics for
wave equations until I figured out the physical reason for the similarity.
This was a major observation/revelation that has developed many levels of
understanding in my mind.

While the ionization path of a laser beam in matter can increase the
refractive index of the path and provide a self-generated waveguide, the
photon does something similar in a vacuum. The average energy density of a
photon is low. Nevertheless, it is composed of oscillating high-field
regions that have high energy densities and therefore, in my model, higher
distortions of space. These higher refractive index points match the
high-energy points of the photon and create the self-focusing nature of
photons. This is accentuated when a photon is self-confined in a
whispering-gallery mode to create an electron positron pair.

So, as Einstein came to realize, an 'aether' does exist. It is just not of
the type expected from experience in the material world. In my picture,
light travels along the 3-D surface at a fixed velocity. As a 1st
approximation - assume that, for a non-rotating force, the displacement
between points on the surface is negligible compared to the displacement of
3-space into time. Since the distortion of the 3-D space into time (and
rotation) increases the distances between surface 'points' relative to
those of the undistorted 3-space, then the projection of the distorted
surface onto a virtual equilibrium surface would give an apparent reduced
velocity on the latter. Since we calculate velocities based on the
equilibrium surface, the velocity of light appears to slow down when it
enters a high mass/energy region. A high mass/energy region is thus a high
refractive-index region and the photon path is ts own light-pipe (with
total-internal reflection from a gradual gradient in refractive index).
Similarly, the light path can be considered to be a linear sequence of
self-generated graded refractive index (GRIN) lenses. That is why photons
are solitons and leptons are trapped photons in a whispering gallery mode.
Unique resonances are key to both the relationship of energy and frequency
in photons and mass, charge, and spin in leptons.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:

> Andrew:
>
> I really like your paper because I think the whole topic of how a photon
> if there 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
> what you used because i can visualize a tube of ionic substance. I have
> trouble when taking that visualization to a vacuum and wonder if we are not
> 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> 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=
>> 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>
>>
>> *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> 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] on behalf of Richard
>> Gauthier [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> 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-obs
>> erved-in-lab-crystal-1.22338
>>
>>
>>
>> The Weyl Fermion, (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" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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/20170831/b91ea5ef/attachment.htm>