[General] Photon Structure

Thu Feb 2 21:22:10 PST 2017

Experiment has rejected wave models of light.
Know? By a simulation that posits the structure that agrees with experiment such as photon diffraction and interference.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k
  http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603 

Hodge

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 2/2/17, af.kracklauer at web.de <af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure
 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
 Cc: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
 Date: Thursday, February 2, 2017, 6:58 PM

 Challenge
 for those seeking to fathom the structure of
 "photons":   How will a candidate theory of the
 photon structure ever be verified?  This is a problem
 insofar as the best that can be done is to consider the
 result of measurement, which will then be an intrinsic part
 of the result.  It is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to observe what
 went on behind the measurement----thus it can never be
 known!  Therefore, photons are hypothetical entities built
 on the result of interacting by means of E&M (something)
 using "photo electrons", which are countably
 discrete giving the impression that, whatever made them flow
 was also discrete---an unjustified jump in logic!

 Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. Februar 2017 um 20:33
 Uhr

 Von: "John Macken"
 <john at macken.com>

 An: "'ANDREW WORSLEY'"
 <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>, "'Nature of
 Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
 <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>

 Betreff: Re: [General] Photon Structure

 Andrew, Richard, Chip and John
 D.

 The discussion has turned to
 whether photons possess discrete packages of energy or are
 quantized waves with no concentration of energy in a small
 volume.  My position is:  Photons are quantized waves
 propagating in the quantum mechanical vacuum energy of
 spacetime.  

 This is too big a subject to
 be covered in one post, so I will lay out the background
 information in this post, then build on this in other
 posts.  To explain my position I will first quote from my
 paper titled Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether.

 “Photons are usually described
 as possessing “wave-particle duality”. However, this
 phrase is just a name given to something that we do not
 understand. The essence of a wave is that it is an
 oscillating disturbance with a definable wavelength and
 distributed over a substantial volume. A wave transfers
 liner momentum and some waves are capable of transferring
 angular momentum. Any wave disturbs the medium through which
 it is propagating such that energy is being converted
 between different forms.

 The essence of a particle is
 that it is a single unit that differs from its surroundings.
 A fundamental particle is usually assumed to be energy
 concentrated at a point with no internal structure. A point
 particle or even a Planck length vibrating string is
 incapable of possessing ħ of angular momentum as a
 conceptually understandable physical rotation. The implied
 infinite energy density of a point particle also defies a
 physical explanation. Saying a photon has “wave-particle
 duality” is like saying that it has “top-bottom
 duality”. These are contradictory properties which cannot
 be equal partners. A photon must either be a particle that
 somehow exhibits wave properties or a wave that is somehow
 quantized so that it exhibits particle properties.”

 Skipping forward in this
 paper, the question of quantization is addressed.  This is
 an important concept because a wave can appear to have
 particle-like properties if the wave is quantized.  The
 following is a section titled “Strong Quantization” from
 the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New
 Aether.

 “It is often said that photons
 possess quantized energy of E = ħω. However,
 we will examine the limits of this quantization.  Suppose
 that we make an analogy to the equivalence principle having
 a “strong” and a “weak” definition. Similarly, the
 proposal is made that there is a “strong” and “weak”
 definition of quantization. A strong definition of
 quantization would imply that only integer multiples of the
 fundamental unit are allowed. For example, if energy met the
 strong definition of quantization, then energy would only
 came in discrete units such as integer multiples of 1 eV.
 Photons would only come in discrete frequencies which would
 be integer multiples of the universal fundamental frequency
 associated with the universal unit of quantized energy.
 Obviously energy and frequency are not quantized according
 to the “strong” definition. Instead, a photon’s energy
 is only weakly quantized. All of a photon’s energy is
 transferred when it is absorbed, but a photon can possess
 any energy up to Planck energy. The same photon has
 different energy when viewed from different frames of
 reference.

 Compare this to angular momentum
 which meets the definition of strong quantization. Angular
 momentum only comes in discrete units. All angular momentum
 in the universe only comes in integer multiples of ½ ħ.
 This is obvious with fermions and bosons, but a more
 revealing example can be made using a carbon monoxide
 molecule (CO) isolated in a vacuum. An isolated CO molecule
 can only possess integer multiples of ħ angular
 momentum. This translates into the CO molecule only being
 able to rotate at discrete frequencies which are integer
 multiples of its fundamental rotational frequency of 115
 GHz. This meets the definition of strong quantization. For
 another example, take a photon that is part of the cosmic
 microwave background.  Over the age of the universe this
 photon has lost most of its energy. However, the photon has
 kept 100% of its angular momentum. Angular momentum has
 strong quantization; energy has weak quantization.

 It is proposed that all
 quantization in the universe is ultimately traceable to
 angular momentum being strongly quantized. When a photon is
 absorbed by an atom, it transfers 100% of its angular
 momentum to the atom. All the photon’s energy is also
 transferred to the atom, but that is just a byproduct of
 transferring its ħ unit of quantized angular
 momentum. The amount of energy transferred from the photon
 to the atom depends on the frame of reference of the atom.
 However, the angular momentum transferred is independent of
 the frame of reference.”

 In future posts I will develop
 this idea and show that the particle-like properties of a
 photon can be explained by a wave that possesses quantized
 angular momentum.  

 John M. 

 _______________________________________________ If you no
 longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
 Light and Particles General Discussion List at
 af.kracklauer at web.de 
 Click here to unsubscribe 

 -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

 _______________________________________________
 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>