[General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light

[Richard Gauthier]

Hi Andrew and all,

   Thanks for that summary of your recent work. I hope you will find my new photon-model article  "Entangled Double-Helix Superluminal Composite Photon Model Defined by Fine Structure Constant” at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers (2nd article) helpful in studying the relationship of fermions and bosons in your light-wave studies.

   with warm regards,
        Richard



> On Dec 17, 2017, at 6:48 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear folks,
> 
> For the last several years, we (Hudgins, Meulenberg, and Penland) have been studying the interference effects of identical-frequency waves. Using a thin optical flat as a laser-beam splitter, it is possible to easily provide closely-spaced parallel beams of coherent light that appear to interact indefinitely (in vacuum, and even down to the individual-photon level?).
> 
> Over the last year, in parallel with the forum discussions of the photonic electron, the implications of this interaction have been evolving. The first step was the recognition that the two beams were equivalent to streams of identical particles. Furthermore, depending on their phase, the two beams acted as both bosons and fermions. In their constructive interactions (as a Bose condensate?) and destructive interactions (obeying the Pauli exclusion principle?), they attracted each other when in phase and appeared to repel one another when 180 degrees out of phase. This observation (a phase dependence, perhaps related to charge, as suggested by Penland) is beginning to expand into explanations and hypotheses for many of the laws (and tools) of physics.
> 
> Since many of this group believe that leptons are self-bound photons, the proposed dual nature of photons, which is dependent on a major characteristic of the wave nature of light (phase), could be fundamental to the understanding of much of physics. Despite being bosons, by definition, photons are seen to have both bosonic and fermionic natures in their interactions and, perhaps, within their very nature. Another concept includes that of symmetry and parity. Within a photon and its interactions, we can find both symmetric and anti-symmetric conditions as well as those of even and odd parity.
> 
> Thus, within the nature of a photon, we can find the physical bases for much of the mathematics that is the basis of theoretical physics. I believe that the macroscopic observations, which have led to much of physics theory, can be explained in the study of light and its interactions (including those with itself). The reasons that this observation is not obvious lie within our inability to 'see' the interaction. First, light is not composed of point particles. With the exception of a few manufactured cases, photons are many wavelengths long (up to 1E8 cycles?). Only if photons can interact  (collectively, in time and/or space) over a large percentage of these wavelengths will any effects be noticeable without the aid of matter as a detector to sum over many interactions. And, even then, it is mathematically impossible to distinguish the effects of transmission (non-interaction?) or reflection (interaction?) in the coincidence of identical photons. Nevertheless, the fact that the mathematics for identical particles is different from that of identifiable particles gives us the precedent for looking at this aspect of light.
> 
> The observation of particle (e.g., electron) interaction is possible because the photons composing the particles have all of their high-energy nodes collected in small enough regions for their energy density to be sufficiently high to distort the space in which they reside. The 'permanence' of these structures depends on resonance, which provides and depends on a fixed internal phase relationship. Thus, the particular interaction of light with itself is reflected in the nature of matter.
> 
> Neither the statement that "light interferes with light," nor the statement that "light does not interfere with light," is completely correct. It is the combination of these two statements, along with their exceptions and understanding, that provides the basis for understanding the physical universe. 
> 
> Andrew M.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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/20171219/b05ea91d/attachment.html>