[General] On photon momentum

Fri Feb 17 10:36:24 PST 2017

Andrew and Chip    
For charge, you may want to look at the Weyl fermions aka massless charge traveling at the speed of light. 

Weyl fermion discovery named Top Ten Breakthrough of 2015 by Physics World

Best 
David      From: ANDREW WORSLEY <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>
 To: Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>; 'ANDREW WORSLEY' <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 7:54 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum

Hi Chip, 

Thanks for your answer - could it be possible that it is as high as c^2.

Andrew

========================================
Message Received: Feb 17 2017, 01:57 PM
From: "Chip Akins" 
To: "'ANDREW WORSLEY'" , "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" 

Cc: 
Subject: RE: [General] On photon momentum

Hi Andrew

By the way. My current calculations put the speed of charge at 14560 times the speed of light, but still working on it. Lots of stuff to sort through.

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 
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

Click here to unsubscribe

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170217/0b478f73/attachment-0001.htm>