[General] On photon momentum

Fri Feb 17 08:22:04 PST 2017

Hi John H

Yes.  I have been thinking about your simulation and experiment and would like to get deeper into the details to see how this might coincide with the differential displacement concept of "charge".  They seem to be quite compatible.

Would it be possible for me to get a copy of the simulation code you developed?  I have a significant background in simulation (in many different coding languages) and would like to recreate your simulation along with a simulation of the differential displacement concept of "charge" added to the code to test compatibility and to help refine the concepts.  

I have started creating a simulation for charge, and will also share those results with you for your review as we proceed.

Chip
chipakins at gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum

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>

_______________________________________________
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>