[General] Photon Structure
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Feb 5 13:57:06 PST 2017
Hi Al,
I have to remind you that the object which I say to be a photon was not
detected by the photoelectric effect but by pair production. The
kinematic parameters of the electron- positron pair were precisely
determined by observing their path in a magnetic field. This
determination yielded the energy, the momentum, and the point of
conversion and so the exact path of this photon. And, as I wrote, the
energy of the pair reproduced the energy of the electron which
originally caused the photon, with an accuracy of few percent.
Pair production is a localized and short-time process in which no other
particles than these three are involved. It is not possible from this
mechanism that energy from several photons or energy from the
environment is collected. And even if that should happen then one should
observe pairs with an energy which exceeds the maximum energy available
from the original electron source. Which was clearly not the case.
This experiment was performed to check the angular distribution of the
Proton-Compton effect at very small angles. The fact of very small
angles ensured that the interaction of the photon with the proton caused
an extremely small alteration of the energy of the photon. The angles of
the photons after the scattering had to follow a distribution which is
theoretically given (it is the Optical Theorem). So, any unexpected
influences in the detection process of the photon would have spoiled
this distribution.
I am asking you and all, which further facts and results would be needed
to convince everyone that this "photon" was a well defined object and
not a kind of a milky wave.
Regarding de Broglie's pilot wave you are right that he was lacking a
particle model to back this idea. But I think that these days we know
appropriate models, at least my particle model is in my view able to
support this idea.
Ciao, Albrecht
Am 03.02.2017 um 19:18 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> 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 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 <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 atjchodge 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 atphys 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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170205/04daeca3/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list