[General] light and particles group

Richard Gauthier richgauthier at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 22:37:24 PST 2017


Hi Chip (and all), 
   Thanks for summarizing your approach to calculating electron spin from your model.
You quoted Wikipedia:

 Please see PHOTON in Wikipedia… “The photon also carries a quantity called spin angular momentum that does not depend on its frequency. The magnitude of its spin is sqrt(2) hbar and the component measured along its direction of motion, its helicity, must be ±ħ.”

I did vector calculations for the total angular momentum L= R x p of both my spin 1 hbar and spin 1/2 hbar transluminal energy quantum photon models. The results were as follows for L^2 , which is the square of the total angular momentum of the photon models.

For the spin 1 hbar photon model:     L^2 = 2 hbar^2  + (Et)^2  where E is the energy of the photon and t is the time (arbitrary starting time) for the mathematical helical motion of the energy quantum.

For the spin 1/2 hbar charged photon model:   L^2 = 2 (hbar/2)^2 + (Et)^2 for E and t as above.

This shows that as t -> 0  (remembering that the starting point of t is arbitrary in the models, the above total angular momentum equations for the photon models reduce to  L= sqrt(2) hbar  for the spin 1 photon model and L= sqrt(2) (hbar/2) for the spin 1/2 photon model. This is the quantum mechanical result for the total spin of a spin 1 photon (as mentioned above in the Wikipedia quote) , remembering that Sz = hbar  and hbar/2 are the z-components of spin of a photon or electron respectively that are actually measured in photon and electron experiments. I had  never previously done these calculations for the total spin of my spin 1 and spin 1/2 charged photon models (whose equations are summarized in my recent article at https://www.academia.edu/30899196/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Model_of_a_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Composing_an_Electron ) which is attached below. So the fact that the result for the total spin sqrt(2) hbar of my spin 1 model photon is consistent with the quantum mechanical result for a spin 1 photon  is a very nice result. The expression (Et)^2 in the total angular momentum L^2 result is curious. But I think this part of the result is because in the calculation of L=R x p ,  R is measured from the origin (x=0, y=0, z=0) of the coordinate system in which the helical motion is given.  Since for large values of t,  R increases with time approximately as R=ct, while p = (E/c) sqrt(2) for the transluminal energy quantum of the photon models, the vector calculation of L= R x p =~  ct x (E/c) (sqrt (2)= Et is also increasing with time (which accounts for the (Et)^2 contribution to the total value of L^2 for both the spin 1 and spin 1/2 transluminal energy quantum photon models when t is large compared to the period t = 1/f of the photon.

Chip, I also noticed in your calculation for the spin of your electron model in your email below,  you calculate the electron spin as s=r x p where p =E/c = gamma mc is the momentum of the helically moving photon. But we have seen that the transverse component of this total momentum p=E/c of the helically moving photon is only Ptrans = Eo/c = mc  and not E/c = gamma mc. So when this Ptrans=Eo/c is multiplied by r = (c h)/(4pi E)=(c h)/(4pi gamma Eo)  in your model, the result is S = r x Ptrans = h/(4 pi gamma) = hbar/(2 gamma) and not hbar/2 as you state below in your email. And you have apparently left out the contribution of the spin of the helically moving  photon itself in your calculation of the total spin of the helically moving photon model of the electron.

  I hope this is useful.
       Richard





> On Jan 24, 2017, at 5:37 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dr Grahame Blackwell and all
>  
> While I am still working on details for accuracy, I wanted to share some of the aspects of an electron model for your comments and thoughts.
>  
> My perspective has been that the radius of the electron contracts with velocity at the rate of 1/gamma.
> I do not feel it is correct to state that the electron is comprised of a confined photon, but rather that the electron is a propagating confined energy structure which contains energy that can become a photon when released.
> However I feel the propagating confined energy in the electron possesses the momentum component p=E/c.
>  
> This means that the mean energy transport radius of the electron at rest is r = (c h)/(4pi E). Which yields a spin angular momentum of ½ hbar (L = r p).
>  
> So that when accelerated the situation is as follows:
>  
> E = E0 gamma, p = (E0 gamma)/c, r = r = (c h)/(4pi E0 gamma), L = r p. Where E0 is the rest energy of the electron.
>  
> This situation always yields a spin angular momentum of ½ hbar at any velocity < c. 
>  
> The momentum of the mass of the electron is p = m v, and the internal mass of the electron is increased with velocity m = m0 gamma, so that the relativistic momentum of mass is p = m0 gamma v.
>  
> If we could accelerate this electron to the velocity c, the momentum component L/r would exactly equal the forward momentum component p=mv. 
> This seems to be the same situation we find in photons. Where the total momentum is sqrt(2) (E/c) and the (transverse) spin angular momentum component for a photon is assumed (by me) to be L = r (E/c). 
>  
> Please see PHOTON in Wikipedia… “The photon also carries a quantity called spin angular momentum that does not depend on its frequency. The magnitude of its spin is sqrt(2) hbar and the component measured along its direction of motion, its helicity, must be ±ħ.”
>  
> So there is a hint here that the internal wavefront velocity of a photon is sqrt(2) c? While the forward velocity remains c.
>  
> Chip
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 1:10 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group
>  
> Chip: I like your thinking approach. 
>           Measurable “momentum” arises through energy exchange between scattering entities; specifically, when one of the entity possess the “inertial property”, we call particles. And, Newton correctly postulated that they tend to stay “inertial”, “until acted upon by a force” (an entity that can “donate” energy to create kinetic motion).
> Chandra.
>  <> 
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:28 AM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group
>  
> Hi Dr. Grahame Blackwell
>  
> What I was considering is trying to understand the mechanism for momentum in the propagation of energy in space. Whether that energy is in the form of light or confined in particles of matter. For if we can show exactly how it is that momentum is a fundamental feature of energy, as it moves in space, we then have specifically identified and understood the source for inertial mass. 
>  
> This may help us refine our models.  I think that it will help us understand Planck’s quantization of action and its causes as well.  This research has already helped me understand how light can have both spin and orbital angular momentum, and it may well lead to a better grasp of other basic principles.
>  
> Other reasons for looking into this in detail, are to better understand the correct set of wave equations, and spin.  To understand the causes for what we observe. 
>  
> I agree that a transfer of energy must implicitly also transfer momentum.  Momentum is a measureable result of energy.  
> But to me E=hf means that more energetic waves or particles are smaller. If that is correct then there is a cause. Probably the simplest explanation is that space has an inherent opposition to displacement, which creates this force Fc I have been discussing.  That is nice, simply because this force is also perfectly suited to cause confinement, not only of waves in space, but also of elementary fermions. 
>  
> So if we can explore this possibility further, and create wave equations for waves which would be caused by the displacement and this opposing force, complete with momentum and all the other measurables, then we may have foundations upon which we can model everything.
>  
> I do not think that wave interference is sufficient to cause confinement. I have studied waves in great detail and still find that more than self-interference is required for confinement of waves into soliton (circularly or spherically confined) solutions. So for me, it seems that this equal and opposite reaction of space to the displacement caused by energy is the only logical path to explore.
>  
> It is my hope (and intuition) that this path will lead to understanding the mass formation thresholds for electrons so that we might know why the electron’s rest mass is the specific value we measure.
>  
>  
> Chip
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:40 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group
>  
> Hi Chip,
>  
> I got a working copy, thanks.
>  
> I see that of course you're going into far more intricate details mathematically than I was looking at.  In this case, it seems to me, the question becomes: "How is it that a photon travels through space?".  As I've said, once that's tied down the fact that it carries momentum follows as a natural consequence.
> (To some extent it depends on how one defines momentum.)
>  
> Thanks again,
> Grahame
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group
>>  
>> Once more.
>>  
>> Chip
>>  
>>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20170124/6be9532d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Transluminal Energy Quantum Model of Spin One Half Charged Photon.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 397757 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170124/6be9532d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170124/6be9532d/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the General mailing list