[General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light

Tue Dec 26 22:01:40 PST 2017

Dear André,

I am not sure that the energy/momentum dilemma is not resolved when
examined in the context of relativity (as must be the case for light);
however, I am not sure that momentum and energy are equally distributed
within a photon and therefore can be analyzed in necessary detail. QM does
it in a before and after manner and thus integrates over the process. The
assumption that both electrons and photons are point sources is legitimate
in this context. The fact that the beginning of a real photon alters the
bound electron orbit before the later portions of the photon interact with
the electron is completely ignored (and rightfully so for most cases).

In short, I can't answer your question.

Best regards,

Andrew M.
_ _ _

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 6:02 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
> Isn't the translational momentum of the incoming photon moving at c
> transfered to the target at the same time its kinetic energy is
> communicated to the target in the photoelectric effect, right at the moment
> when the photon velocity becomes zero in absentiam ?
>
> Best Regards ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 16:02:21 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Dear Andre,
>
> Einstein was correct; but, he may not have been complete. Frequency
> addresses energy, but not momentum (a vector).
>
> As presented by one of my professors, "The conservation of kinetic energy
> (a quadratic) and momentum (a linear relationship) of two particles do not
> have a common solution unless the velocities are zero."
>
> We are presently trying to understand (and resolve) the ambiguity of
> transmission and reflection in these terms.
>
> Andrew M.
> _ _ _
>
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 9:59 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Andrew, Chip and all.
>>
>> Andrew, Your observation during your experiment that intensity doesn't
>> seem to be critical but that frequency appears to be directly connects with
>> EInstein's photoelectic effect, which confirmed that frequency was the
>> critical factor in knocking electrons out of their orbitals and that
>> intensity did not matter.
>>
>> Best Regards ---
>> André Michaud
>> GSJournal admin
>> http://www.gsjournal.net/
>> http://www.srpinc.org/
>> On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 07:37:24 -0600, "Chip Akins" wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew
>>
>> In an experiment like the one you describe, why do you assume that the
>> light itself is curving (reflecting or refracting) in its trajectory? Using
>> the “interference” concept at the target produces exactly the intensity
>> results of the experiment with the trajectory of the light not curving at
>> all. When simulating this experiment this turns out to be the simplest
>> explanation which yields the observed patterns. Attempting to simulate this
>> using reflection and refraction requires adding a lot of unnecessary math
>> and rules in order to obtain the patterns observed in experiment.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.
>> natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
>> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2017 11:32 AM
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.
>> natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>;
>> robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com>; Ralph Penland <rpenland at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light
>>
>>
>> Dear Wolf,
>>
>> comments below
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 -
>>
>> I have had to make the assumption that air is so much lower density than
>> any detectors that any interaction of light with air can be neglected. Lack
>> of funds and time prevent me from actually performing the experiments in
>> vacuum. Air does effect the refractive index in the light path; however,
>> the effect is so small that it would not be noticed in our experiments. It
>> is known that high intensity light can alter the refractive index (general
>> relativity?); but, the effect is very many orders of magnitude below our
>> sensitivity.
>>
>> how can you tell identical frequency waves in closely spaced parallel
>> beams apart if they d interact?
>>
>> You have asked an important question. It is similar to one that I have
>> recently raised myself.
>>
>> After interacting with our beam splitter (a parallel surface
>> neutral-density filter), a single laser beam becomes two parallel beams
>> with a fixed phase relationship. The relative phase of the 2 waves depends
>> on the path length of the beam thru the filter. As the beams spread with
>> their natural individual divergence angle, the two beams will begin to
>> overlap. Eventually the overlap will become almost complete and the two
>> beams with identical individual 'footprints' willhave a nearly identical
>> joint far-field footprint (however the light pattern will be quite
>> different). If they are out-of-phase, then, even as they overlap, there
>> will be a 'null-zone' between them. If in-phase, the central zone of the
>> common far-field pattern will be bright and have at least one pair of
>> null-zones enclosing it.
>>
>> If the two out-of-phase beams just out of the splitter have the same
>> intensity, then, in the far field, there will still be two same-intensity
>> beams. Are these the same two beams? That is the question. Blocking one of
>> the beams leaves the other intact but eliminates the null zone that had
>> separated the two. Thus, it appears that the two uninterrupted beams each
>> reflect from the null zone and do not interact further. When the null zone
>> is removed by blocking one beam, light 'bleeds' across the central line and
>> spreads into the shadow of the blocking mask.
>>
>> If the two beams just out of the splitter have the same intensity, but
>> are in-phase, then, in the far field, there will now be three beams (a
>> bright central beam ad two weak side beams). Obviously, none of these three
>> is one of the original two. The two original beams interact to provide
>> three nearly independent beams. Blocking either of the small outer beams
>> will leave the other two beams nearly unaffected. It only eliminates one of
>> the null-zones. The other null-zone remains between the two remaining beams
>> and keeps them separated. The fact that the two remaining beams, of quite
>> different intensity, maintain their relative size and intensity tells an
>> interesting tail. The two beams are not identical, yet together, they
>> create a null-zone as a reflective barrier that prevents more than a small
>> bit, if any, of the more intense beam from crossing into the weaker beam
>> region. In its turn, the weak beam will shift intensity further away from
>> the center line.
>>
>> The null-zone is established as a region where the two beams have no net
>> flow. The fact that the two beams are not equal intensity undermines my
>> hypothesis that only identical-frequency and intensity beams, exactly in or
>> out of phase, act like identical particles. Surprisingly, the intensity
>> does not appear to be critical. The phase and frequency appear to be the
>> critical features. This intensity problem and its implications must be
>> investigated further.
>>
>> Andrew M.
>>
>> 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" <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/20171227/2cf08a13/attachment.html>