[General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light

[Wolfgang Baer]

Always been interested in your experimental setup for showing beam-beam 
interactions

do you have a description of exactly what you do show interactions in a 
vacuum - how can you tell identical frequency waves in closely spaced 
parallel beams apart if they d interact?

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 12/17/2017 6:48 AM, Andrew Meulenberg 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 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/20171219/1d6b407a/attachment.html>