[General] Photon Structure
Hodge John
jchodge at frontier.com
Fri Feb 3 15:33:44 PST 2017
Hi Al, Chip, Albrecht, Andrew, and John D.
the diffraction experiment with low intensity (one photon in the experiment at a time) produces a diffraction pattern. The pattern characteristics such as the spacing of the minima depends on the photon's energy. that is it depends on the photon. in the experiment say between the mask and screen. So it cannot be from all other photons in the universe.
Problem, how does the wave / alternations effect the photon. I suggest reflection from matter (mask and screen).
Electric charges are reflected from surfaces (see books o antenna theory). So, it is plausable that such a model could satisfy my photon diffraction experiment. Slight changes in my equations would probably yield the same solution. I chose the gravity wave model to unite it with GR, to allow spin=1, and to yield the polarization of photons in magnetic fields.
Hodge
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2/3/17, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, phys at a-giese.de
Date: Friday, February 3, 2017, 3:30 PM
#yiv0878927544
#yiv0878927544 --
_filtered #yiv0878927544 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv0878927544 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv0878927544 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11
6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv0878927544 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2
11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#yiv0878927544
#yiv0878927544 p.yiv0878927544MsoNormal, #yiv0878927544
li.yiv0878927544MsoNormal, #yiv0878927544
div.yiv0878927544MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv0878927544 a:link, #yiv0878927544
span.yiv0878927544MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv0878927544 a:visited, #yiv0878927544
span.yiv0878927544MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv0878927544 pre
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}
#yiv0878927544 p.yiv0878927544msonormal0, #yiv0878927544
li.yiv0878927544msonormal0, #yiv0878927544
div.yiv0878927544msonormal0
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv0878927544 span.yiv0878927544HTMLPreformattedChar
{}
#yiv0878927544 span.yiv0878927544EmailStyle21
{color:#20188C;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none
none;}
#yiv0878927544 .yiv0878927544MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered #yiv0878927544 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#yiv0878927544 div.yiv0878927544WordSection1
{}
#yiv0878927544 Al, Chip, Albrecht, Hodge,
Andrew, and John D. My post yesterday made the point
that angular momentum comes only in discrete units of ½ ħ.
This was defied as “strong quantization” because angular
momentum comes only in discrete units. The energy of a
photon is defined as “weakly quantized” because even
though all the energy of a photon is absorbed as a unit, the
energy is not quantized into discrete units like angular
momentum. In the future, I will attempt to prove that all
examples of quantization in the universe are the result of
angular momentum being quantized. This gives particle-like
properties to quantized waves.
I will start by examining the
concept of a “field”. What is a field? It appears to
be a term describing a ghost-like concept that is never
given a conceptually understandable model. Electric fields
and magnetic fields have quantifiable energy density, so
they must be physical entities which demand testable
models. However, what about the 16 other fields of the
standard model? Each named particle of the standard model
has as associated field. There is an electron field, a
muon field, a Higgs field, etc. Each named particle is
considered to be an “excitation” of its respective field
(reference given in the attached paper).
The standard model has 17
overlapping fields existing in the vacuum. This is chaos
that screams for simplification. Into this environment, I
introduced the observation that gravitational waves (GWs)
are propagating in spacetime and they experience spacetime
as being a very stiff elastic medium. If it was possible
to do a Michaelson Morley experiment using GWs, we would
find that GWs propagate at the speed of light as seen from
all frames of reference. In other words, spacetime
exhibits the property of being a propagation medium with the
relativistic properties postulated by Einstein. It is
generally thought that Einstein rejected the concept that
the vacuum had a physical content often called the ether or
aether. However, only from about 1905 to 1916 did he hold
this view. Here is a part of the attached paper where I
give some Einstein quotes.
“Einstein intuitively knew there
was a physical component of space. From 1916 until his death
he used the terms: “relativistic ether”,
“physical space” and “total field” to express this
concept. [29] Here are two
representative quotes. In 1934 he said “Physical
space and the ether are different terms for the same thing;
fields are physical states of space”. [30] In 1950 Einstein
wrote an article for Scientific American where he
said, “According to general relativity, the concept of
space detached from any physical content does not exist.”
[31].
Today, most physicists hold the
opposite view and believe space has no “physical
content”. However, it is proposed that failure to
recognize the physical presence of vacuum energy (VE)
ignores the largest component of the universe and removes a
key element required to conceptually understand the cause of
many of the laws of physics.”
The attached
GW paper contains important concepts required to understand
the photon model. This paper is currently “under review”
by one of The Royal Society journals. In this paper I
analyzed the experimentally observed properties of the GW
designated GW150914. These LIGO observations generated the
GW amplitude, frequency, and intensity. Combining these
measured properties with speed of light propagation allowed
me to calculate the properties of spacetime encountered by
this GW. From this analysis, I obtain equations for the
energy density encountered by GWs of any frequency as they
propagate through spacetime. This energy density corresponds
to the energy density predicted for the vacuum by quantum
field theory when extrapolated to Planck frequency. The
model proposed and tested in this paper is that the vacuum
of spacetime is Planck length vacuum fluctuations
oscillating at Planck frequency. This sea of quantum
mechanical harmonic oscillators forms the universal field
that fills the vacuum of spacetime. All other fields are
proposed to be multiple resonances of this single universal
field. I show how these fluctuations generate the correct
energy of virtual particles, generate the energy density of
black holes and generate the Friedmann equation for the
critical energy density of the universe. In future posts I
will show how this model of vacuum energy leads to testable
models of electric fields, charged particles, and
photons. John M.
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:19
AM
To: phys at a-giese.de;
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc:
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Photon
Structure Hi
Albrecht: Well, I have lots of problems;
rather formal logic reveals lots of problems of which I am
aware of some of them. To start the 'photon'
creation event offers no way of checking what is actually
created. Your claim is that the balance between
bremstrahlung from the electrons and pair creation implies
that the transfer had to happen by means of packaged E&M
energy. But, it could just be a coincidence that the
measured energy levels matched (within whatever tolerance
your setup was subject to) while lots of off-beam energy was
also involved in a way which was not (could not) be
measured. Or, it could have been the the bremstrahlung was
effectivy "needle raadition" (a classical solution
to Max's Eqs.); etc. etc. In the end, (or beginning)
whatever E&M interaction was involved cannot be observed
except by means of the photo electric effect, and that
process hides as much as it reveals. DeBroglie's ideas as he
presented them suffer from a lack of molel for the source of
pilot waves. An SED interpretation as a residue of
outgoing radiation from all other charges in the universe
renders the story credible, however. See my old Found. of
Phys. Lett article. ciao, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 03. Februar 2017 um
17:48 Uhr
Von: "Albrecht
Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Betreff: Re: [General] Photon
StructureHi
Al, hi John Hodge,The
question of a photon as a corpuscle can be answered in a
positive sense. There are measurements which give us
constraints.One
is the experiment of my thesis done in a high energy
laboratory. We have created photons by stopping electrons.
These photons made a flight of about 3 meters through the
air and were then detected by pair production in a thin
layer of metal. The energy of the pair could be precisely
measured. It reflected the energy used in the creation
process. So, there was an object flying from the source to
the (pair-)detector which carried a well defined energy. And
notice that the pair production process cannot collect EM
energy until a certain amount is achieved. No, it is one
single event going on with one object. This object is
conventionally called "photon". Next question for the particle wave
problem: How can this corpuscle "photon" cause
interference patterns? The answer is not difficult if we
follow the original idea of de Broglie: This corpuscle
"photon" is accompanied by an alternating field
which causes the interference. And how is this field
created? I think there is no other way then to assume that
the photon has a pair of electric charges inside. This pair
is in permanent motion and causes the alternating field; and
causes so during the motion of the photon a wave.
Any
problems with this?Albrecht
Am
03.02.2017 um 06:22 schrieb Hodge John: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> _______________________________________________If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">Click here to
unsubscribe</a>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
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>
More information about the General
mailing list