[General] Photon Structure

Fri Feb 3 09:17:44 PST 2017

Hi Al

The definitions of “hypothetical” are various.  The least strict of which is simply, “assumed by hypothesis”.

The more general (and strict) definition is “conjectural; not well supported by available evidence”.

So if you intended the more general definition in the context below then I strongly object and disagree.

The T-Rex is also “hypothetical” in the sense that we have never actually seen one. But the evidence of its existence is convincing.

After all, when we get right down to the specifics, almost all of what we think we know is “hypothetical” in some sense.

But for me that does not mean the photon does not exist. Too much evidence suggests it does, and that it has a specific set of properties.

The meteor crater in Arizona was “hypothetically” caused by a meteor.  We did not see the meteor strike, but we have the evidence, the largest of which is the hole it left.

I understand your comments and I think I understand the motivation.

Cause and effect are strong indicators, even of things we can never see.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 5:59 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure

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 <mailto:john at macken.com> >
An: "'ANDREW WORSLEY'" <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk <mailto:member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk> >, "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto: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 <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>  Click here to unsubscribe  <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170203/8f625a6d/attachment.htm>