[General] Photon Structure

Sun Feb 5 02:33:57 PST 2017

Hi John,

Nice paper - where are you hoping to publish it.

Andrew

========================================
Message Received: Feb 03 2017, 08:30 PM
From: "John Macken" 
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" , phys at a-giese.de
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure

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"  >
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org  
Betreff: Re: [General] Photon Structure

Hi 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    wrote:

Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org  
Cc: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"  
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"

An: "'ANDREW WORSLEY'"
, "'Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion'"

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  

"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de  

"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe

_____ 

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  

[ GW.Eq.-RevF.PDF (423.6 Kb) ]