[General] On photon momentum

[ANDREW WORSLEY]

Hi Chip,

Of course your right, but the real frequency is dependant on Planck time 10^-42 sec.

What you are seeing is Nature being rather elegant because Planck's constant is measured in secs it works for 1 sec. ie 1Hz - it does matter what unit of time you 
use the answer is the same - hard to believe but true.


Andrew

P.S. Don't spend too much time tryiing to work it out or it wiil blow your brain


========================================
Message Received: Jan 29 2017, 01:45 PM
From: "Chip Akins" 
To: "'Hodge John'" , "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" 
Cc: 
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 
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