[General] Photon Structure

Fri Feb 3 22:05:22 PST 2017

Chaandra
Yes, having the experiment you suggest would be nice. I am retired and don't have access to the equipment you require. 
However, the experiment I have done should be explainable to any photon model. The STOE model does - the HF model fails. Further, STOE model can correspond to the Young's experiment.
I'm retired. I don't have access to such equipment. Can anyone else do it? Any recommendations.
Is anyone willing to repeat my experiment?
Given the STOE applicability range, The HF model looks like an ad hoc model. That is, it is more self-consistent then the HF model and those 4 or 5 flaky ad hoc assumptions. 
Your "CTF" may be my "plenum". I remember reading one (2?) of your papers and thinking this.  However, the emegent philosophy driving the STOE requires 2 constituents of the universe (a gravitational agent that warps the plenum - the inertial agent).
The STOE also doesn't need dark matter to explain rotation curve and asymmetric rotation curve (see papers or video on many galaxy mysteries).
Al has mentioned another issue with the photon emitting an EM field rather than a wave in a gravitation (plenum) field.
Hodge

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2/3/17, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure
 To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
 Date: Friday, February 3, 2017, 7:09 PM

 #yiv7357356722
 #yiv7357356722 --

  _filtered #yiv7357356722 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
  _filtered #yiv7357356722 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
 #yiv7357356722  
 #yiv7357356722 p.yiv7357356722MsoNormal, #yiv7357356722
 li.yiv7357356722MsoNormal, #yiv7357356722
 div.yiv7357356722MsoNormal
 	{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}
 #yiv7357356722 a:link, #yiv7357356722
 span.yiv7357356722MsoHyperlink
 	{color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}
 #yiv7357356722 a:visited, #yiv7357356722
 span.yiv7357356722MsoHyperlinkFollowed
 	{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}
 #yiv7357356722 p.yiv7357356722MsoPlainText, #yiv7357356722
 li.yiv7357356722MsoPlainText, #yiv7357356722
 div.yiv7357356722MsoPlainText
 	{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}
 #yiv7357356722 span.yiv7357356722PlainTextChar
 	{}
 #yiv7357356722 .yiv7357356722MsoChpDefault
 	{}
  _filtered #yiv7357356722 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
 #yiv7357356722 div.yiv7357356722WordSection1
 	{}
 #yiv7357356722 

 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>
 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> 

 _______________________________________________

 If you no longer wish
 to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
 Particles General Discussion List at
 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> 

 -----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>