[General] Photon Structure
Roychoudhuri, Chandra
chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
Fri Feb 3 16:09:43 PST 2017
Hello John Hodge:
It is important for you to repeat your double-slit (please, choose ~100 micron each) experiment with a broad collimated beam so the slits are illuminated with a flat-phase wave front, such that both the slits are illuminated by precisely equal amplitudes. Then systematically record with a quantitative CCD camera moving, step-by-step, from the very near field, all the way to the far-field. It is of critical importance to appreciate that the lateral near field patterns are extremely complex and they also evolve quite rapidly with the distance from the slits. [All basic optics books present such fringes, including my “Causal Physics”; now low cost paperback available through Amazon.] Only the far-field gives the simple cos-squared fringes, but multiplied by the single slit pattern sinc-squared fringes. You need to learn to re-produce such fringes as they have been done by eminent scientists for well over two centuries.
Most of the eminent theoretical scientists of Quantum Mechanics have consistently neglected to recognize that the rapid evolution of near field patterns with distance is quite complex. They jump into Quantum Mechanizing the far-field cos-squared fringes, neglecting even the sinc-squared envelope!! All these distance-evolving complex patterns are precisely and quantitatively modeled by Huygens-Fresnel “wave theory” integral. As an eternally skeptic scientist, I would not say that Huygens-Fresnel integral is the final diffraction theory of light as waves. I already have noted in my mind some of the discrepancies in the basic postulates behind this integral. However, up to now, this is the best integral that models optical diffraction that I have seen.
To demolish Huygens-Fresnel wave diffraction integral; you need to come up with a better self-consistent one. You may be able to substantiate my lingering doubt about the H-F integral.
Thanks,
Chandra.
=================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 6:34 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure
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<mailto:john at macken.com>> wrote:
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>, phys at a-giese.de<mailto: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<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:19
AM
To: phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>;
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc:
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> <af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>>
wrote: Subject: Re: [General] Photon
Structure To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> Cc: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<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 -----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<mailto: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<mailto:phys at a-giese.de%3ca> 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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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 chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?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/20170204/77646254/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list