[General] Photon Structure

[ANDREW WORSLEY]

Dear All,

Thoughts on the spin 2 electron readilly accepted

Any further thoughts on this conjecture


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfDjtabAuGw

========================================
Message Received: Feb 05 2017, 12:11 PM
From: "Hodge John" 
To: "ANDREW WORSLEY" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure

The STOE suggests the photon is a magnet becasue it is polarized in a magnetic field. When moving it generates a plenum(GR "space", gravitational ether). The 
movement through a slit produces a Young's diffraction pattern. Photons come with different energies each with a field frequence. then the frequencies resonate 
to produce entanglement and coherence for the diffration experiments.
Hodge 
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 2/5/17, ANDREW WORSLEY  wrote:

Subject: Re: [General] Photon Structure
To: phys at a-giese.de, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" 
Date: Sunday, February 5, 2017, 5:18 AM

Hi Albrecht/All

Agreed until you get to the paired charges-much simpler
oscillating electric field will do, that generates a
perpendicular magnetic field.

The question that is not generally understood is how is that
mganetic field generated.


========================================
Message Received: Feb 03 2017, 04:48 PM
From: "Albrecht Giese" 
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: 
Subject: 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
> 
> 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
> 
> Click here to unsubscribe
> 



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com

Click here to unsubscribe