[General] On photon momentum
Hodge John
jchodge at frontier.com
Fri Feb 17 07:45:50 PST 2017
Chip:
Please expand on your statement "But it certainly clears up the "pilot wave" question and helps to resolve how this phenomenon occurs."
I've used a model of this in my photon diffraction model. What isyour model of the "pilot wave"?
Hodge
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2/17/17, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
To: "'ANDREW WORSLEY'" <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>, "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Date: Friday, February 17, 2017, 8:45 AM
Hi Andrew
Regarding...
"Question how much faster than c did the electron charge
propagate?"
This is still an open question. The Italians
experiment (attached) could not measure this velocity in the
lab environment. It was so fast that it seemed instantaneous
in that configuration and environment.
Estimates of this charge propagation velocity seem to vary
between 13800 times the speed of light and 25000 times the
speed of light.
Feynman calculated the speed of charge to be practically
infinite and was quite puzzled by these results.
I have been working to discover a way to calculate and/or
measure this speed.
But it certainly clears up the "pilot wave" question and
helps to resolve how this phenomenon occurs.
Chip
-----Original Message-----
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 6:28 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi Chip,
I like your approach
Question how much faster than c did the elctron charge
propagate?
Andrew
========================================
Message Received: Feb 14 2017, 06:06 PM
From: "Chip Akins"
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
Cc:
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
Yes. Size is not really the issue. It is the transverse
displacement distance which is of significance. How far does
the transverse wave displace space? That distance (size) is
the “radius” or “sinusoidal displacement extent” of
the transverse wave. A transverse sinusoidal wave has a
specific wavelength, and since it has that specific
wavelength and the function is sinusoidal, there is a
displacement extent which must be the wavelength divided by
2 pi. That is what the sine function is, and that is how
transverse waves work. This holds for transverse waves in
any media.
However the similarities between space and physical media
cease at a point. We know this because no physical media
reacts to transverse waves the same way space does.
Of course there are different types of seismic waves,
longitudinal, and transverse. But we are fairly certain that
matter is made of transverse displacement which
circulates, and light is made of transverse displacements
which propagate linearly.
We know (or strongly suspect) that matter is made of
confined energy. E=mc^2 This energy is apparently confined
in 3D and moving at the speed of light.
Therefore it also seems reasonable to explore the
confinement of energy in 2 dimensions (which would move
forward at c). This seems to be what light is. There is
an implied requirement for this sort of confinement from
Planck’s rule E=hf. While it is possible that light is not
quantized, and it is just the reaction of light with
matter which makes light appear quantized, it is also
entirely possible that light itself is quantized in a manner
which complies with the 2 dimensional confinement of
energy. Then the difference between a spin 1 photon and a
spin ½ electron simply lies in the dimensions of
confinement.
In order to sort out why the rest mass of the electron is
the specific value it is in nature we will need to explore
all the possibilities and implications, with some
detail.
The fields of a wave extend far beyond the active confined
region. If we use the example of the electron we can
understand that electric charge is the longitudinal
differential displacement of space with an origin at the
center of the electron. Likewise with the “photon”. The
longitudinal displacement of space, surrounding the
photon, and perpendicular to its direction of travel takes
the form of a “charge wave” which travels with the
photon. The “charge” oscillates as the photon waves.
But in the electron this form of external differential
displacement (charge) is localized, permanent, and in only
one direction outward from the center of the electron.
So photons and electrons are non-local by their nature,
simply because the fields they create go off to infinity.
But these fields do not propagate from the particles at c.
The “velocity” of charge (and of gravity) are likely
very much faster than light, and they are likely both caused
by this permanent differential displacement of space,
propagating longitudinally from particles.
When the Italians performed the experiment to measure the
velocity of charge propagation, the results we quite
remarkable, and so much faster than light that the
velocity seemed almost infinite.
While the conventional wisdom has argued that
relativistically moving bodies have a different
(relativistic) shape to their fields, which they claim
explains the
direction of force pointing toward the actual instead of
retarded position of a particle, this argument no longer
holds up when direction is not the metric. When we
measure the velocity of charge it becomes apparent that this
relativistic treatment of fields is simply a work around to
try to keep SR intact. It becomes apparent
that charge actually moves much faster than light, just as
we would expect a longitudinal displacement to propagate
faster than a transverse one.
I have most of the math which illustrates that this is what
charge is, but will have to collect it from spreadsheets and
MATLAB, and compile it into a single
document to share.
Gravity is caused by the same differential displacement of
space which causes charge. Waves diffract when they
encounter this differential displacement for the
same reasons that particles react to this differential
displacement.
I am working on the math to prove this. So far it is quite
compelling.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:28 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
That sounds pretty good Chip. But I’d say take care with
things like “size” and try to think of the photon as
something like a seismic wave in space.
A seismic wave in the Earth might displace the ground by 1m,
but 10 km away from the epicentre you can still feel the
ground shake. If that seismic wave
propagates for 100 km from point A to B along a flat plain,
it isn’t just the houses sitting on top of the AB line
that shake. In this respect the seismic wave takes
many paths.
I have to go, talk more tomorrow.
Regards
JohnD
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 13 February 2017 17:52
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
Been thinking about the constant amplitude of photons which
would cause E=hf.
If we explore the possibility that energy is the
differential displacement of myriad tiny nodes of space,
which creates a set of parallel dipoles…
We can then view total displacement of these tiny dipoles as
the amplitude of the wave.
A photon, as we have modeled it, has a wavelength:
The photon’s frequency is:
And a radius (or sinusoidal extent) of:
If we consider the differential displacement of space as
occurring in a myriad tiny nodes of space, then the number
of nodes involved increases with energy. As
the number of adjacent nodes displaced increases, the
opposing force of space (the force opposing displacement)
increases based on the density of displaced
nodes in that region of space. So the confining force limits
total displacement. The sum of the displacement of all nodes
active in a wave in space therefore
becomes invariant for photons. The displacement density
varies with energy, as does the number of nodes, but the
total displacement (sum of the displacement of
all tiny nodes involved) remains constant.
In this way space imposes a size on the photon which varies
with the inverse of energy.
Therefore we have E=hf.
The total displacement Ƹ of any localized energy
propagating in space, meaning the distance representing the
sum of displacement of all affected individual nodes,
is therefore:
Or if only analyzing half the differential displacement of
the wave:
This would then be the amplitude of the wave, and this value
is invariant with energy.
This approach implies that the displacement energy itself is
much more localized than the photon it causes. Theorizing
that the energy of a photon exists in a
transverse plane perpendicular to the direction of travel.
The transverse extent of this active (circulating or
undulating) energy distribution (displacement
distribution) is:
(Space would then be a very special type of medium. One
where Hooke’s Law does not work as it does for material
media. It would seem then that a “Hooke’s
Law” for space would be sort of an inverse function.)
There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting this scenario.
Albrecht and I have been discussing the concept that Planck
Charge is responsible for confinement.
Plank charge is quantized in precisely the manner which this
scenario suggests. Using the force of Planck Charge as the
force which opposes displacement we
can show that:
Interestingly this confinement would be exactly what is
required for the frequency to vary in the manner E=hf,
f=E/h. This solution yields a sinusoidal function
which coincides with Compton’s wavelength.
Wonder if this can be how it works?
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:49 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
John:
That sounds interesting. I have to go shortly, but for now:
There does seem to be some kind of limit to what you can do
when you make space wave. I found this interesting when I
first saw it some years ago:
http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html
It’s the quantization of electromagnetic change, not
charge. Space waves, but only so much.
Regards
John D
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: 31 January 2017 21:27
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip, John D, Chandra – Interaction of Waves
I take the position that all waves propagating in a finite
medium interact. The easiest to prove example of this is
with sound waves propagating in a gas. When
sound waves propagate in a gas, the compression part of a
sound wave causes an increase in temperature and the
expansion part of the sound wave produces a
decrease in temperature. Since the speed of sound is
temperature dependent, this means that a sound wave produces
a modulation of the speed of sound in the
propagating medium. Another frequency sound wave propagation
in the same volume of gas and the same direction will
encounter this modulation in the speed of
sound and produce a second order effect which is new sound
waves at the sum and difference frequency. I recall that
there is experimental proof of the interaction
of sound waves, but I have not attempted to find a
reference.
Water waves have also been mentioned as examples of the
non-interaction of waves. If the depth of the water is
infinite and the speed of sound in water is vastly
larger than the speed of the water wave, then there appears
to be no interaction between water waves. However, imagine
an experiment where the water in in a
shallow flat bottom pond. If the amplitude of the wave is on
the order of half the depth of the pond, then nonlinearities
become noticeable and there would be
detectable interaction between waves. In the limit, there is
a definable maximum amplitude of the water wave. This occurs
when the wave minimum equals the
depth of the pond. Similarly, when the sound wave produces a
vacuum at its minimum, this is the limiting condition.
Another clear example with a great deal of proof is the
interaction of two beams of laser light interacting in a
nonlinear medium. There is the optical Kerr effect
which changes the index of refraction of the propagation
medium. All transparent mediums including glass and even air
exhibit the optical Kerr effect. Here is a
quote from Wikipedia.
"The optical Kerr effect, or AC Kerr effect is the case in
which the electric field is due to the light itself. This
causes a variation in index of refraction which is
proportional to the local irradiance of the
light. [3] This refractive
index variation is responsible for the nonlinear
optical effects of self-
focusing, self-phase modulation and modulational
instability, and is the basis for Kerr-lens
modelocking. This effect only becomes significant with very
intense
beams such as those from lasers."
There is a long list of nonlinear effects using laser beams
in nonlinear crystals including sum frequency generation,
difference frequency generation and second
harmonic generation. These examples of nonlinear effects in
a transparent optical material illustrate an important
point. The optical medium has a finite ability to
transmit light. The optical material is made of atoms which
are bonded together by finite electrostatic forces. When the
intensity of one or more laser beams
reaches a level that the electrostatic bonding force is
noticeably approached, then we detect a nonlinear optical
effect. However, even at undetectable levels the
nonlinearity is still present because of the finite
properties of the transparent medium set a boundary
condition. For example, even sunlight passing through a
glass
window produces a slight change in the index of refraction
of the window.
These examples set the stage for the big question: Does the
vacuum of spacetime have a limiting boundary condition which
produces nonlinear effects on light as
this limit is approached? We know that Planck force (c4/G =
1.2 x 1044 N) is a maximum possible force. I once referenced
a paper which showed that all of
general relativity could be derived by assuming this
boundary condition. The speed of light is another boundary
condition. In fact, Planck length, Planck frequency,
Planck energy etc. are also boundary conditions when
properly applied. Therefore, I am setting the stage to make
the claim that light waves interact when the
intensity reaches the level that the boundary conditions
(nonlinear conditions) of spacetime become detectable.
Chandra has written extensively on the non-interaction of
waves. This is a very useful concept to understand optical
effects at ordinary intensities. I have not said
anything challenging this before because he is correct for
all experiments which can currently be conducted with
available technology. However, I maintain that he
is not correct at the extreme limits of high intensity light
which produce nonlinear effects in the vacuum. This
statement is analogous to saying that Newton's
gravitational equation is very useful for calculating
ordinary gravitational interactions. However, there is a
nonlinearity as the limiting properties of spacetime are
approached. General relativity is required when the
nonlinear effects become important.
To prove these points, it is necessary to have a model of an
electrically charged particle, electric field and a photon.
I have developed a model of these, but I want
to tell a story about an experience I had during this
process. I asked the question: What is the smallest volume
that I can physically confine a photon? A circularly
polarized photon can be confined in a cylindrical waveguide
that is slightly more than ½ wavelength in diameter with
flat reflecting end separated by ½ wavelength.
I define this as “maximum confinement”. There are
several more steps but I concluded that a single photon
would produce a Planck length polarized distortion of
spacetime that modulates the transverse distance across the
waveguide diameter by plus and minus Planck length
(designated Lp) at the frequency of the photon.
Multiple coherent photons, designated as “n” photons,
would increase this modulation by the square root of n (by).
Then I was struck by a serious doubt because if
this model of a photon was correct, it was predicting that
there was a maximum number of photons which could be put
into this maximum confinement waveguide.
The limiting condition was when the modulating distance
equaled ½ wavelength which is the diameter of the
waveguide. This would be 100% modulation of the
properties of spacetime at the frequency of the photon. A
different frequency would achieve this limit at a different
intensity, but in all cased the model was
predicting a limit. This seemed impossible, but I quickly
calculated the condition that would produce this limit. To
my surprise, it exactly equaled the energy density
of photons that would produce a black hole with the diameter
of the waveguide. What I thought would be a proof that I was
wrong turned out to be a proof
supporting the model. An experiment with the intensity
required to achieve a detectable modulation of distance is
beyond our current technology, but it is not
necessary to do an experiment. A simple calculation proves
that the predicted limiting condition forma a black hole. If
it was possible to arbitrarily increase the
power of a focused laser beam, then there would be a limit
where the modulation of spacetime at the focus reached the
predicted 100% modulation condition. No
more light would be transmitted through this volume because
a black hole would form. No further transmission would be
possible.
The same model that achieved this success predicts that at a
very high intensity approaching the formation of a black
hole, the nonlinear properties of spacetime
become obvious and there would be detectable “interaction
of waves”.
All of this is documented in technical papers and my book.
For further reading I suggest first reading the paper I
posted on January 21 titled “Gravitational waves
indicate vacuum energy exists”. This paper has recently
been submitted to a technical journal. It sets the stage
defining the properties of spacetime. The paper
titled “Spacetime based foundation of quantum mechanics
and general relativity” gives the quantifiable model of
particles and photons. It also describes in more
detail the photon thought experiment just described. Pages
13 to 16 of this paper describe the quantifiable model of
electrical charge, photons and the maximum
confinement thought experiment. This paper is available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264311427_Spacetime_Based_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics_and_General_Relativity
John Macken
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:35 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
Thank you. Now I understand what you are saying, and the
mechanics behind it. In your example, as the large ocean
waves crest, the density is greater in the
water, and less in the valleys, net zero, but still it
causes temporary changes in direction of the small
intersecting waves because any change in density causes the
small wave to change directions (standard refraction).
I can model (simulate) this effect. I will do that to see
what the conditions would have to be to get a closed
circular wave.
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:21 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
Yes, you’re missing the simplicity of it. I didn’t
actually say light refracts light. I said it causes a path
change. This does occur in water. Think of an oceanic swell
wave. I gazed at them a few years back when I was on a
cruise. An oceanic swell wave is maybe 200m wide with a
wavelength of maybe 100m, and maybe 3m
high. Now imagine an ordinary little 1m wave intersecting
it. The little wave goes up and over the big wave. Whilst it
does so it changes path. Its path started
straight and ended up straight, but whilst the little wave
was going over the big wave, its path was curved. If this
didn’t happen, and if waves just went straight
through one another, you wouldn’t get “monster” waves.
You can imagine a similar scenario with seismic waves and
sound wave. If the ground is displaced to the
North by 1 metre, this alters the path of a sound wave
through the ground.
Regards
JohnD
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 31 January 2017 13:15
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
You are saying that light refracts light. Is there any
experimental evidence?
I have not found any evidence that waves of any sort behave
in this manner, including water waves.
Do you have any supporting information?
The refraction of water waves in the ocean, as I understand
it, is generally due to the depth of the water changing near
the shore, or due to an object, not due to
other waves.
When we use a ripple tank, we see interference, but not a
change in direction of the waves when they interact.
Am I missing something here?
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 1:43 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
When an ocean wave moves over another ocean wave, the
curvature of the “up and over” path depends on the
amplitude and wavelength of the other wave. If
however all ocean waves were 1m high, the curvature of the
path waves would depend only on the wavelength. Given what I
said about h, when an
electromagnetic wave moves through itself, the curvature of
its path depends on the wavelength. So for the Dirac spinor,
there’s only one wavelength where that
curved path is a closed path:
Regards
John D
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 30 January 2017 14:31
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
The amplitude of the wave not being the size of the wave
makes sense in this context.
But if the electron’s mass is somehow dependent on the
amplitude always being the same, then how does that relate
to…
If you’re going to “wrap up” a wave into a spin ½
spinor to make a stable standing-wave standing-field
particle, only one wavelength will do.
Wavelength is size.
So how do we equate amplitude and wavelength to make this
electron with the size and mass it has in nature?
How do we show that only one wavelength will work?
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:16 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
My thoughts? The amplitude of a wave isn’t the size of the
wave.
Think of a seismic wave with an amplitude of 1 metre. It
moves from West to East. As it does, your house shakes 1
metre to the North, then 1 metre to the South.
At the same time a house 10km North shakes 10cm to the
North, then 10cm to the South. A house 100 km North shakes
1cm to the North then 1cm to the South.
Et cetera.
Regards
JohnD
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 29 January 2017 22:58
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
Yes Planck’s constant applies to all wavelengths. However
experimental evidence and experience tell us that the
transverse physical size of a wave gets smaller
as the longitudinal wavelength gets smaller with energy.
An opening which will allow a high frequency wave to pass
through, will also completely block a significantly lower
wavelength from passing.
So it seems that all wavelengths do not have the same
physical transverse extents.
(My thoughts are that the wave extents are the wavelength /
2 pi. This seems to match the evidence and works well in the
RF spectrum for system design
considerations. Openings in Faraday shielding, unshielded
trace lengths etc. need to be kept within a prescribed limit
(fraction of a wavelength) based on the
expected interfering frequency and the attenuation
required.)
Your thoughts?
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:37 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
Planck’s constant h is common to all photons regardless of
wavelength. Look at those pictures of the electromagnetic
spectrum. Irrespective of wavelength, the
depicted amplitude is always the same.
If you’re going to “wrap up” a wave into a spin ½
spinor to make a stable standing-wave standing-field
particle, only one wavelength will do.
As for which characteristic of space, I’m not sure.
Perhaps it’s something like an elastic limit.
Regards
JohnD
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 29 January 2017 14:36
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
I am not understanding your idea. Can you explain how you
feel that h contributes to the specific rest mass of the
electron and not some other mass value? To
which characteristic of space are you referring?
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:25 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
'Hodge
John' < jchodge at frontier.com>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
I think the electron has the mass that it has because h is
what it is, because space has a particular characteristic:
Some people liken it to a crystal.
Regards
JohnD
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 29 January 2017 13:45
To: 'Hodge John' < jchodge at frontier.com>;
'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John Hodge
Thank you. I think you have made a good point here. For
diffraction to work the way it does it seems the
“photon” must have momentum.
Hi Chandra.
It seems to me that the simplest explanation of all we
observe is to suspect that momentum is inherent in the
motion of energy in space, and the cause for inertia.
This approach allows us to derive E=mc^2 from the
circulating energy in a particle. This would keep the
particle stationary until it is acted on by an outside
force. It
would then also explain the property of inertia. It helps us
to understand why light wants to travel a straight line
unless deflected (diffracted).
Like John D I feel space waves as energy propagates. However
unlike a water wave, which is a simple displacement of
particles of mass, a wave in space is a
differential displacement of a transverse wave, with one
part moving one way and the other part moving in the
opposite direction. This differential displacement is
what can give us part of the Chandra CTF type behavior of
space. It yields things like electric charge naturally. It
also causes things like the type of confinement in
elementary fermions which Albrecht talks about.
But in all this discussion I think we, and physics in
general, have missed something important. Space cannot be a
linear medium. Our equations generally
describe space in “linear” relationships, like E=hf. But
this ignores the resonant conditions which cause the
specific masses of stable particles. It seems that
resonances must be included in our physics before we really
understand why the electron at rest is the specific mass and
energy level which it possesses. I also
think that once we identify and quantify the non-linear
resonances of space, and their causes, we will be able to
see better how all the pieces fit.
Hi Andrew
I have been able to detect EM radiation which is slower than
1Hz, so I am having a bit of trouble accepting the integer
approach to the solution of quantization of
waves. But I understand your example and appreciate its
simplicity, and the smallest value of n could be whatever
nature has chosen.
Chip
From: General [ mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:10 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
< general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
I do. And it explains diffraction.
Hodge
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:12 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell
< grahame at starweave.com>
wrote:
Dear All,
[Notably Chandra & Chip],
I'm having a bit of a problem over this question of: 'How
does a photon carry momentum'? (or similar words.)
It seems to me that in order to even beginning to address
this question, one needs a clear definition of 'momentum'
that's applicable to the momentum carried by a
photon.
I may be looking in the wrong places (if so please advise),
but the only definitions of momentum that I can find either
refer to 'mass' or refer to some other
phenomenon which in turn refers to momentum - i.e. circular
references.
If I'm going to figure, or be persuaded, how a photon
carries momentum I first need to know what momentum IS in
respect of a photon (yes, I know it's E/c, that's a
measure it's not a definition).
Of course I'm aware of the paper "Light is heavy", but I
don't feel it's appropriate just to extract from that some
sort of mass-equivalence of a photon. If we do, we
get the result that 'm'=E/c^2, so 'm'c = E/c - gives the
right result, but appears to be some sort of convoluted
self-confirmation (i.e. a circular argument dressed up in
fancy clothes). It certainly doesn't DEFINE a photon's
momentum, just evaluates it.
Does anyone have a convincing definition of momentum that's
applicable to a photon? One that can be used as a firm basis
for theorising?
(I'd be glad if colleagues didn't use this as an excuse to
yet again present their own personal theory/model - I'm
looking for a definition that would be agreed by all,
or at least most, physicists.)
Thanks in anticipation,
Grahame
_______________________________________________
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 chipakins at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?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>
More information about the General
mailing list