[General] On photon momentum
ANDREW WORSLEY
member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk
Wed Feb 1 21:12:41 PST 2017
Hi John D,
Just a little comment.
Whilst I have to agree that the effects of electrons and photons interact by producing waves in space - and not by virtual photons, they are made as the same
stuff as space, but they are discrete packages of energy and no longer just waves in space.
Andrew
========================================
Message Received: Jan 31 2017, 09:49 PM
From: "John Duffield"
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
Cc:
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
John:
That sounds interesting. I have to go shortly, but for now:
There does seem to be some kind of limit to what you can do when you make space wave. I found this interesting when I first saw it some years ago:
http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html
It’s the quantization of electromagnetic change, not charge. Space waves, but only so much.
Regards
John D
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: 31 January 2017 21:27
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip, John D, Chandra – Interaction of Waves
I take the position that all waves propagating in a finite medium interact. The easiest to prove example of this is with sound waves propagating in a gas. When
sound waves propagate in a gas, the compression part of a sound wave causes an increase in temperature and the expansion part of the sound wave produces
a decrease in temperature. Since the speed of sound is temperature dependent, this means that a sound wave produces a modulation of the speed of sound in
the propagating medium. Another frequency sound wave propagation in the same volume of gas and the same direction will encounter this modulation in the
speed of sound and produce a second order effect which is new sound waves at the sum and difference frequency. I recall that there is experimental proof of the
interaction of sound waves, but I have not attempted to find a reference.
Water waves have also been mentioned as examples of the non-interaction of waves. If the depth of the water is infinite and the speed of sound in water is
vastly larger than the speed of the water wave, then there appears to be no interaction between water waves. However, imagine an experiment where the water
in in a shallow flat bottom pond. If the amplitude of the wave is on the order of half the depth of the pond, then nonlinearities become noticeable and there would
be detectable interaction between waves. In the limit, there is a definable maximum amplitude of the water wave. This occurs when the wave minimum equals
the depth of the pond. Similarly, when the sound wave produces a vacuum at its minimum, this is the limiting condition.
Another clear example with a great deal of proof is the interaction of two beams of laser light interacting in a nonlinear medium. There is the optical Kerr effect
which changes the index of refraction of the propagation medium. All transparent mediums including glass and even air exhibit the optical Kerr effect. Here is a
quote from Wikipedia.
"The optical Kerr effect, or AC Kerr effect is the case in which the electric field is due to the light itself. This causes a variation in index of refraction which is
proportional to the local irradiance of the light. [3] This refractive
index variation is responsible for the nonlinear optical effects of self-
focusing, self-phase modulation and modulational
instability, and is the basis for Kerr-lens modelocking. This effect only becomes significant with very intense
beams such as those from lasers."
There is a long list of nonlinear effects using laser beams in nonlinear crystals including sum frequency generation, difference frequency generation and second
harmonic generation. These examples of nonlinear effects in a transparent optical material illustrate an important point. The optical medium has a finite ability to
transmit light. The optical material is made of atoms which are bonded together by finite electrostatic forces. When the intensity of one or more laser beams
reaches a level that the electrostatic bonding force is noticeably approached, then we detect a nonlinear optical effect. However, even at undetectable levels the
nonlinearity is still present because of the finite properties of the transparent medium set a boundary condition. For example, even sunlight passing through a
glass window produces a slight change in the index of refraction of the window.
These examples set the stage for the big question: Does the vacuum of spacetime have a limiting boundary condition which produces nonlinear effects on light
as this limit is approached? We know that Planck force (c4/G = 1.2 x 1044 N) is a maximum possible force. I once referenced a paper which showed that all of
general relativity could be derived by assuming this boundary condition. The speed of light is another boundary condition. In fact, Planck length, Planck
frequency, Planck energy etc. are also boundary conditions when properly applied. Therefore, I am setting the stage to make the claim that light waves interact
when the intensity reaches the level that the boundary conditions (nonlinear conditions) of spacetime become detectable.
Chandra has written extensively on the non-interaction of waves. This is a very useful concept to understand optical effects at ordinary intensities. I have not
said anything challenging this before because he is correct for all experiments which can currently be conducted with available technology. However, I maintain
that he is not correct at the extreme limits of high intensity light which produce nonlinear effects in the vacuum. This statement is analogous to saying that
Newton's gravitational equation is very useful for calculating ordinary gravitational interactions. However, there is a nonlinearity as the limiting properties of
spacetime are approached. General relativity is required when the nonlinear effects become important.
To prove these points, it is necessary to have a model of an electrically charged particle, electric field and a photon. I have developed a model of these, but I
want to tell a story about an experience I had during this process. I asked the question: What is the smallest volume that I can physically confine a photon? A
circularly polarized photon can be confined in a cylindrical waveguide that is slightly more than ½ wavelength in diameter with flat reflecting end separated by ½
wavelength. I define this as “maximum confinement”. There are several more steps but I concluded that a single photon would produce a Planck length polarized
distortion of spacetime that modulates the transverse distance across the waveguide diameter by plus and minus Planck length (designated Lp) at the frequency
of the photon. Multiple coherent photons, designated as “n” photons, would increase this modulation by the square root of n (by). Then I was struck by a serious
doubt because if this model of a photon was correct, it was predicting that there was a maximum number of photons which could be put into this maximum
confinement waveguide. The limiting condition was when the modulating distance equaled ½ wavelength which is the diameter of the waveguide. This would be
100% modulation of the properties of spacetime at the frequency of the photon. A different frequency would achieve this limit at a different intensity, but in all
cased the model was predicting a limit. This seemed impossible, but I quickly calculated the condition that would produce this limit. To my surprise, it exactly
equaled the energy density of photons that would produce a black hole with the diameter of the waveguide. What I thought would be a proof that I was wrong
turned out to be a proof supporting the model. An experiment with the intensity required to achieve a detectable modulation of distance is beyond our current
technology, but it is not necessary to do an experiment. A simple calculation proves that the predicted limiting condition forma a black hole. If it was possible to
arbitrarily increase the power of a focused laser beam, then there would be a limit where the modulation of spacetime at the focus reached the predicted 100%
modulation condition. No more light would be transmitted through this volume because a black hole would form. No further transmission would be possible.
The same model that achieved this success predicts that at a very high intensity approaching the formation of a black hole, the nonlinear properties of spacetime
become obvious and there would be detectable “interaction of waves”.
All of this is documented in technical papers and my book. For further reading I suggest first reading the paper I posted on January 21 titled “Gravitational
waves indicate vacuum energy exists”. This paper has recently been submitted to a technical journal. It sets the stage defining the properties of spacetime. The
paper titled “Spacetime based foundation of quantum mechanics and general relativity” gives the quantifiable model of particles and photons. It also describes in
more detail the photon thought experiment just described. Pages 13 to 16 of this paper describe the quantifiable model of electrical charge, photons and the
maximum confinement thought experiment. This paper is available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264311427_Spacetime_Based_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics_and_General_Relativity
John Macken
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:35 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
Thank you. Now I understand what you are saying, and the mechanics behind it. In your example, as the large ocean waves crest, the density is greater in the
water, and less in the valleys, net zero, but still it causes temporary changes in direction of the small intersecting waves because any change in density causes
the small wave to change directions (standard refraction).
I can model (simulate) this effect. I will do that to see what the conditions would have to be to get a closed circular wave.
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:21 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
Yes, you’re missing the simplicity of it. I didn’t actually say light refracts light. I said it causes a path change. This does occur in water. Think of an oceanic swell
wave. I gazed at them a few years back when I was on a cruise. An oceanic swell wave is maybe 200m wide with a wavelength of maybe 100m, and maybe 3m
high. Now imagine an ordinary little 1m wave intersecting it. The little wave goes up and over the big wave. Whilst it does so it changes path. Its path started
straight and ended up straight, but whilst the little wave was going over the big wave, its path was curved. If this didn’t happen, and if waves just went straight
through one another, you wouldn’t get “monster” waves. You can imagine a similar scenario with seismic waves and sound wave. If the ground is displaced to the
North by 1 metre, this alters the path of a sound wave through the ground.
Regards
JohnD
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 31 January 2017 13:15
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
You are saying that light refracts light. Is there any experimental evidence?
I have not found any evidence that waves of any sort behave in this manner, including water waves.
Do you have any supporting information?
The refraction of water waves in the ocean, as I understand it, is generally due to the depth of the water changing near the shore, or due to an object, not due to
other waves.
When we use a ripple tank, we see interference, but not a change in direction of the waves when they interact.
Am I missing something here?
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 1:43 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
When an ocean wave moves over another ocean wave, the curvature of the “up and over” path depends on the amplitude and wavelength of the other wave. If
however all ocean waves were 1m high, the curvature of the path waves would depend only on the wavelength. Given what I said about h, when an
electromagnetic wave moves through itself, the curvature of its path depends on the wavelength. So for the Dirac spinor, there’s only one wavelength where that
curved path is a closed path:
Regards
John D
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 30 January 2017 14:31
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
The amplitude of the wave not being the size of the wave makes sense in this context.
But if the electron’s mass is somehow dependent on the amplitude always being the same, then how does that relate to…
If you’re going to “wrap up” a wave into a spin ½ spinor to make a stable standing-wave standing-field particle, only one wavelength will do.
Wavelength is size.
So how do we equate amplitude and wavelength to make this electron with the size and mass it has in nature?
How do we show that only one wavelength will work?
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:16 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
My thoughts? The amplitude of a wave isn’t the size of the wave.
Think of a seismic wave with an amplitude of 1 metre. It moves from West to East. As it does, your house shakes 1 metre to the North, then 1 metre to the
South. At the same time a house 10km North shakes 10cm to the North, then 10cm to the South. A house 100 km North shakes 1cm to the North then 1cm to the
South. Et cetera.
Regards
JohnD
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 29 January 2017 22:58
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
Yes Planck’s constant applies to all wavelengths. However experimental evidence and experience tell us that the transverse physical size of a wave gets smaller
as the longitudinal wavelength gets smaller with energy.
An opening which will allow a high frequency wave to pass through, will also completely block a significantly lower wavelength from passing.
So it seems that all wavelengths do not have the same physical transverse extents.
(My thoughts are that the wave extents are the wavelength / 2 pi. This seems to match the evidence and works well in the RF spectrum for system design
considerations. Openings in Faraday shielding, unshielded trace lengths etc. need to be kept within a prescribed limit (fraction of a wavelength) based on the
expected interfering frequency and the attenuation required.)
Your thoughts?
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:37 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
Planck’s constant h is common to all photons regardless of wavelength. Look at those pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum. Irrespective of wavelength, the
depicted amplitude is always the same.
If you’re going to “wrap up” a wave into a spin ½ spinor to make a stable standing-wave standing-field particle, only one wavelength will do.
As for which characteristic of space, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s something like an elastic limit.
Regards
JohnD
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 29 January 2017 14:36
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
I am not understanding your idea. Can you explain how you feel that h contributes to the specific rest mass of the electron and not some other mass value? To
which characteristic of space are you referring?
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:25 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
'Hodge John' < jchodge at frontier.com>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
I think the electron has the mass that it has because h is what it is, because space has a particular characteristic:
Some people liken it to a crystal.
Regards
JohnD
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 29 January 2017 13:45
To: 'Hodge John' < jchodge at frontier.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John Hodge
Thank you. I think you have made a good point here. For diffraction to work the way it does it seems the “photon” must have momentum.
Hi Chandra.
It seems to me that the simplest explanation of all we observe is to suspect that momentum is inherent in the motion of energy in space, and the cause for
inertia. This approach allows us to derive E=mc^2 from the circulating energy in a particle. This would keep the particle stationary until it is acted on by an
outside force. It would then also explain the property of inertia. It helps us to understand why light wants to travel a straight line unless deflected (diffracted).
Like John D I feel space waves as energy propagates. However unlike a water wave, which is a simple displacement of particles of mass, a wave in space is a
differential displacement of a transverse wave, with one part moving one way and the other part moving in the opposite direction. This differential displacement is
what can give us part of the Chandra CTF type behavior of space. It yields things like electric charge naturally. It also causes things like the type of confinement
in elementary fermions which Albrecht talks about.
But in all this discussion I think we, and physics in general, have missed something important. Space cannot be a linear medium. Our equations generally
describe space in “linear” relationships, like E=hf. But this ignores the resonant conditions which cause the specific masses of stable particles. It seems that
resonances must be included in our physics before we really understand why the electron at rest is the specific mass and energy level which it possesses. I also
think that once we identify and quantify the non-linear resonances of space, and their causes, we will be able to see better how all the pieces fit.
Hi Andrew
I have been able to detect EM radiation which is slower than 1Hz, so I am having a bit of trouble accepting the integer approach to the solution of quantization of
waves. But I understand your example and appreciate its simplicity, and the smallest value of n could be whatever nature has chosen.
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:10 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
I do. And it explains diffraction.
Hodge
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:12 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell < grahame at starweave.com> wrote:
Dear All,
[Notably Chandra & Chip],
I'm having a bit of a problem over this question of: 'How does a photon carry momentum'? (or similar words.)
It seems to me that in order to even beginning to address this question, one needs a clear definition of 'momentum' that's applicable to the momentum carried by
a photon.
I may be looking in the wrong places (if so please advise), but the only definitions of momentum that I can find either refer to 'mass' or refer to some other
phenomenon which in turn refers to momentum - i.e. circular references.
If I'm going to figure, or be persuaded, how a photon carries momentum I first need to know what momentum IS in respect of a photon (yes, I know it's E/c, that's
a measure it's not a definition).
Of course I'm aware of the paper "Light is heavy", but I don't feel it's appropriate just to extract from that some sort of mass-equivalence of a photon. If we do,
we get the result that 'm'=E/c^2, so 'm'c = E/c - gives the right result, but appears to be some sort of convoluted self-confirmation (i.e. a circular argument
dressed up in fancy clothes). It certainly doesn't DEFINE a photon's momentum, just evaluates it.
Does anyone have a convincing definition of momentum that's applicable to a photon? One that can be used as a firm basis for theorising?
(I'd be glad if colleagues didn't use this as an excuse to yet again present their own personal theory/model - I'm looking for a definition that would be agreed by
all, or at least most, physicists.)
Thanks in anticipation,
Grahame
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
jchodge at frontier.com
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
More information about the General
mailing list