[General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light

Thu Dec 28 21:28:56 PST 2017

Dear Andrew,

No problem for the photon. Energy can be represented in a number of ways.

My 2 papers on are available online.

The first was published by the Engineering journal of Kazan State U in 2007. The same journal that published Marmet's paper. Their journal was still paper only, but a copy of my paper is made available on the GSJournal site.

This paper analyzes Marmet's derivation from the Biot-Savart equation, from which separate electric and magnetic fields equations can be defined for the electron rest mass and separately for its carrying energy, one half of which turns out to correspond to Marmet'magnetic mass increment that adds to the rest mass:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2257

The second paper was published in 2013 by a different Engineering journal. This one upgrades Newton`s non relativistic kinetic energy equation to full relativistic electromagnetic form from the understanding provided by Marmet's derivation established in the first paper.

The standard momentum and relativistic equations can be derived from the resulting fully Maxwell compliant relativistic electromagnetic equation:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3197

Best Regards

André

---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:19:44 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:

DearAndré,

Our views on the photon appear to be irreconcilable, so I won't continue on that line. However, in regard to an area in which we seem to agree, you stated:

"In 2005, I ran across a derivation by Paul Marmet revealing the simultaneous increase of an electron magnetic field and of its relativistic mass, from which derivation, it can be established that this excess momentum energy is related to this magnetic mass increase in such a way that it can then be established that the "carrying energy" of the rest mass of the electron also is transversally oscillating in the same manner that I previously mentioned in accordance with Maxwell's theory (I have 2 papers on this issue if interested)."

For over 5 years, I have been sure that the relativistic increase in mass was a result of the increase in bound EM fields with increasing velocity. I have never found the time to prove it; so, if you could provide copies of the 2 papers, I would be greatly appreciative. I no longer have access to a university library and its journals; so, if you can't post the papers on the forum, could you please send them to my gmail?

Thank you,

Andrew M.

_ _ _ _

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:22 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:

Dear Andrew,

My comments below in red.
---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/ 

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 08:58:23 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

DearAndré, 

comments below 

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:15 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote: 

Dear Andrew,

First, note that I became aware of your answer to me only through Hodge's answer to you. I was not forwarded a copy of your answer directly to my email address.

Thanks for mentioning this. I've noted that my "reply all" function does not include the sender. Now I see that sometimes not all of the recipients are included. I'll try to keep track of that.

Your comment "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"

Brings the following question to me:

Isn't the fact that a photon of the right frequency always succeeds in ejecting a bound electron from its orbital the very physical proof that the whole complement of the photon's energy and momentum is communicated in a single instantaneous event?

The key is understanding what you mean by instantaneous. If a photon may be 1e3 - 1e8 cycles long, with wavelength of e.g.1 micron, and travels at v = c, then the interaction could be ~3e-12 to 3e-7s long.

Ok. I see what you mean, You mean that if the whole complement of energy of the photon longitudinally spreads over a length of 1 micron (which would be in this example the actual wavelength corresponding to this particular photon) before it completely arrives at the meeting point point of the actual collision with the electron if travels at c.

Here is how I see the instaneity of the process of the photon meeting the electron.

Lets look at the photon first.

The "wavelength" is a mathematical concept that helps us measure the "amount" of energy of which the photon is made of: E=hc/lambda.

The "frequency" of this "amount" of energy of the photon is related to this wavelength in this manner: f = c/lamda, that is, the frequency is the number of times this "amount" of energy transversally cycles between its electric state and its magnetic state, according to the Poynting vector.

>From my understanding, this is to be related to the cross-product of both electric and magnetic fields vectors (both perpendicular to each other) resulting in the outwards velocity vector c of any point on the wavefront of Maxwell's spherically expanding theoretical EM wave, moving in a direction perpendicular to both fields.

So even in standard Maxwell's wave treatement, we have a "point-like location" moving at c related to the cyclic transverse EM oscillation of the energy involved.

So what is in the proces of "moving" at c in Maxwell's wave theory seems to be a point-like behaving "amount" of energy that doesn't seem to have any longitudinal component, that could spread lengthwise in time, but whose quantity or "amount" we calculate with the help of what I see as the mathematical "frequency" and "wavelength" concepts. 

This is why I conclude that all of the "amount" of energy of the quantum arrives in one shot. This what I mean by instantaneity in this case.

I think it is important to be very aware that contrary to sound in a medium whose oscillation is due to "longitudinal" oscillation of the medium, the electromagnetic oscillation of the photon's energy is by structure "transverse" to the direction of motion and not "longitudinal" as your comment seems to assume, which does not preclude the possibility that all of its energy longitudinally behaves as a point-like event even in time, unless I do not understand your comment correctly.

In the photon frame, its transit across the universe is instantaneous. Nevertheless, we do not experience it that way. Likewise, we must consider the ionization process to be a transition of finite duration and great complexity within that period. Each cycle of a photon must accelerate the bound electron (creating a different EM field) until sufficient energy and momentum is exchanged for another resonant mode to be established. That new mode could Compton scatter the incident photon, totally absorb it, or simply delay it (creating a refractive index). 

Clearly you are right, if the localized "amount" of energy that the photon turns out to be arrived over a finite period of time, the ionization process would indeed be very complex to describe. But if this amount arrives in one local lump (whose frequency and wavelength are only our mathematical measuring means) then the ionization process would greatly simplify.

>From this perspective, I use to conclude that complete absorption of the incoming photon would correspond to direct line head-on "collision", and Compton scattering as possibly a "glancing collision" resulting only in partial transfer of the energy of the "localized lump" of the energy of which the photon is made.

Most of the time, we simply 'black-box' the operation and call it instantaneous. We are trying to go beyond engineering here, so we must better examine and understand the nature of both light and the electron.

I absolutely agree. 

After having explained why I see the incoming photon as arriving in one lump, so to speak, whose "amount" we measure with its frequency and wavelength, here is how the electron may turn out to be structured at the receiving end, considering that it also is electromagnetic in nature.

We know that its rest mass is invariant, but that it also requires momenum energy to move about. This momentum energy is in excess of its rest mass energy by structure.

In 2005, I ran across a derivation by Paul Marmet revealing the simmultaneous increase of an electron magnetic field and of its relativistic mass, from which derivation, it can be established that this excess momentum energy is related to this magnetic mass increase in such a way that it can then be established that the "carrying energy" of the rest mass of the electron also is transversally oscillating in the same manner that I previously mentioned in accordance with Maxwell's theory (I have 2 papers on this issue if interested).

If it turns out to really be so in physical reality, this would mean that when the "localized incoming lump" of the photon's energy meets the electron, it could simply merge in a single shot with the "momentum lump" of energy that is already in excess of the rest mass energy of the electron, both lumps now becoming one that would simply be more energetic in consequence, and cause the electron to escape.

Anyhow, the idea I wanted to communicate is that it seems to me that the wavelength and frequency only measure the amount of energy of the photon quantum, and that it is the actual amount of energy which would be localized point-like and move as a single point-like lump that may not involve any lengthwise component 
Best Regards

André

Best regards,

Andrew M.

Best Regards

André

---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/ 

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Hodge John wrote:

Were the experiments done with very low intensity light (single photon)?

Did the pattern change for the same setup single photon v. high intensity?

The double-slit experiment shows no difference.

Hodge

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 1:01 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:

DearAndré,

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.natureoflig htandparticles.org/options.cgi /general-natureoflightandparti cles.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 jchodge at frontier.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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/20171229/5e2a7e04/attachment.html>