[General] On photon momentum
ANDREW WORSLEY
member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk
Mon Mar 6 03:20:22 PST 2017
Hi Chip,
How's the PDE doing Is it possible do you think
Andrew
========================================
Message Received: Feb 28 2017, 08:39 PM
From: "Chip Akins"
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
Cc:
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D
1. Regarding: “It lacks causative explanation”
Where do we get causative explanation for Planck’s constant?
All I have done with this is break Planck’s constant into two components, a displacement amplitude constant and a spin or oscillation constant, both of which are
borne out by observation (the mass and energy of the electron).
2. Regarding: “IMHO it’s best to keep it simple and try not to invent anything new.”
A differential displacement of space is by far the simplest explanation for electric charge, gravity, and the mass of the electron. I am afraid that if we don’t
consider this we will be preventing ourselves from understanding the most fundamental forces of nature.
3. Regarding: “Just divide the electron Compton wavelength by 4π:” (for the radius of the electron).
The Compton wavelength of the electron is:
λ=cҠ§/E= Eo Uo/K= h c/E
This constant (which is a component of Planck’s constant) tells us why the electron is the size it is.
It tells us the electron at rest can only be one size.
But my friend, I am afraid that a wave diffracting itself is not the answer for fermion confinement. The math just does not work. However an equal and opposite
force from space which opposes displacement does work perfectly.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:02 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi Chip.
I don’t like the rest mass formation constant I’m afraid. It lacks causative explanation, and the mass-energy of an electron varies with gravitational potential,
because the properties of space vary in a gravitational field. Where the “constant” called c varies too. Also, I think it’s important to think about the electron at rest
to avoid getting bogged down with length-contraction issues. This I like though:
The formation of mass requires a different topology of propagating energy than the topology of light. We know this because of the spin characteristics of
fermions. The mass formation constant we have proposed would be caused by properties of space, some of which we may not have measured, or at least
recognized.
I think in terms of elastic properties, wherein permittivity is “how easy it is to bend space” and permeability is “how well space bounces back”. I like this too:
The equation E=hf does not address wave amplitude. The way we measure amplitude in material media is by wave displacement. If photons are real, if light is
comprised of tiny indivisible packets, and each packet obeys the rule E=hf, then the amplitude of each packet must be the same
I know of no waves which don’t have an amplitude.
One way for us to think about this is as follows: A node of space is a Planck scale entity which is comprised of the two components of space. These two
components are normalized (at their lowest energy state) when collocated, and are displaced from one another by incident energy. Energy affects these nodes in
a quantized manner, involving more or fewer nodes depending on the amount of energy. Space opposes this differential displacement with a force which is the
product of the number of nodes affected, so that the total displacement (the sum of the displacements) of all affected nodes remains constant.
IMHO it’s best to keep it simple and try not to invent anything new.
Physics has not previously clearly identified the amplitude aspect of photons. We have focused on the obvious energy and frequency aspects. We have
recognized that photons have a sort of soft quantization in that frequency is dependent on energy. However photons must have a hard quantization as well, since
amplitude must remain the same for all photons for the equation E=hf to work as it does. That fixed amplitude plays an important role.
You bet. It’s the quantum of quantum mechanics.
Specifically, the electron has the rest mass it displays in nature simply because energy moving in space has one specific amplitude, but its frequency varies with
energy. This set of circumstances, including a fixed amplitude, makes it so that there is only one rest energy level where all aspects of nature support a three
dimensional confinement of that energy to become a charged spin ½ ħ fermion.
I don’t think it can be anything too complicated. Space waves, when a 511 keV wave moves through itself it adopts a double-loop configuration it ends up in a
closed path.
So let’s distribute Planck’s quantization of action into displacement amplitude (Ҡ) ….
Just divide the electron Compton wavelength by 4π:
Regards
JohnD
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 28 February 2017 13:40
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Hi John D.
Here is a little bit for you.
Let me know what you think.
Mass Formation Constant
One way we could get closer to understanding the rest mass of the electron is to define an elementary rest mass formation constant. Then find cause for that
constant.
If we determine the mass formation constant Ҡ = 4.58576946280331E-06 we can state the following:
Then restated for a relativistically moving electron:
The formation of mass requires a different topology of propagating energy than the topology of light. We know this because of the spin characteristics of
fermions. The mass formation constant we have proposed would be caused by properties of space, some of which we may not have measured, or at least
recognized.
We have called this constant Ҡ a mass formation constant, which it is, but the story goes farther than that. We know that the energy in a wave determines its
frequency. But what of amplitude? The equation E=hf does not address wave amplitude. The way we measure amplitude in material media is by wave
displacement. If photons are real, if light is comprised of tiny indivisible packets, and each packet obeys the rule E=hf, then the amplitude of each packet must be
the same, for it is only the frequency which changes with energy. So what is this wave amplitude? Amplitude is the total differential displacement of all nodes of
space affected by the wave.
One way for us to think about this is as follows: A node of space is a Planck scale entity which is comprised of the two components of space. These two
components are normalized (at their lowest energy state) when collocated, and are displaced from one another by incident energy. Energy affects these nodes in
a quantized manner, involving more or fewer nodes depending on the amount of energy. Space opposes this differential displacement with a force which is the
product of the number of nodes affected, so that the total displacement (the sum of the displacements) of all affected nodes remains constant.
Physics has not previously clearly identified the amplitude aspect of photons. We have focused on the obvious energy and frequency aspects. We have
recognized that photons have a sort of soft quantization in that frequency is dependent on energy. However photons must have a hard quantization as well, since
amplitude must remain the same for all photons for the equation E=hf to work as it does.
That fixed amplitude plays an important role. Specifically, the electron has the rest mass it displays in nature simply because energy moving in space has one
specific amplitude, but its frequency varies with energy. This set of circumstances, including a fixed amplitude, makes it so that there is only one rest energy level
where all aspects of nature support a three dimensional confinement of that energy to become a charged spin ½ ħ fermion.
So let’s distribute Planck’s quantization of action into displacement amplitude (Ҡ) and an oscillation or spin component §.
So that now we have an equation for the photon:
So we can solve for frequency:
Now our energy term is more complete because it contains both amplitude (A) and frequency (f) terms as well as the action quantization (§).
And then we have a description of the electron as:
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 2:30 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum
Chip:
How far does the transverse wave displace space? 3.86 x 10 -13 m . That’s why the double-loop electron has the mass that it has. Distance r is λ/4π, so the
diameter is λ/2π.
The sine function is what it is and transverse waves work the way that they do, and so does gamma gamma pair production. Your spin ½ electron and your
positron at rest have a wavelength of 2.426 x 10 -12 m. As for how physical media reacts to transverse waves, don’t forget that the photon has spin. There’s a
rotation of sorts, we have experimental proof of the spin of the photon. But the photon itself
isn’t actually spinning. It has no magnetic dipole moment. As to how best to draw it, I’m not sure. But I quite like this:
I too am fairly certain that light is made of transverse displacements which propagate linearly, and that matter is made of transverse displacement which
circulates. But I’m not certain whether there’s two transverse displacements involved, or whether the fundamental photon is the circularly polarized photon, and
two of these make up the plane-polarized photon. I do however feel confident that displacement is behind the confinement. In the double-loop configuration, light
displaces its own path into a closed path. It’s that simple. See what Clifford said in his space theory of matter :
(1) That small portions of space are in fact of a nature analogous to little hills on a surface which is on the average flat; namely, that the ordinary laws of
geometry are not valid in them.
(2) That this property of being curved or distorted is continually being passed on from one portion of space to another after the manner of a wave.
(3) That this variation of the curvature of space is what really happens in that phenomenon which we call the motion of matter, whether ponderable or etherial.
(4) That in the physical world nothing else takes place but this variation, subject (possibly) to the law of continuity.
Nothing else takes place. I’m also confident that light is quantized in a manner that complies with energy, and that the spin ½ electron is where this self-same
energy moves round and round. As for “confined”, I think back to that seismic wave. It isn’t particularly confined. Nor is the electron’s field. It has no outer edge. I
see it as a chiral 3D screw displacement of space not totally unlike the “twist” of the gravitomagnetic field. I’d say the crucial point is that when you consider your
sinusoidal field variation in terms of potential, you can wrap it up into a spin ½ double loop. The minima and maxima line up to yield an all-round standing field:
↓
Only now do you have the thing called charge. Hence there is no “charge wave” travelling with the photon. Charge is not fundamental. The photon is more
fundamental than the field it is said to mediate. Note that you can make a left-hand Mobius and a right-handed Mobius. If you mentally inflate the Mobius to a
torus, then inflate it further to a spindle-sphere torus, you can maybe get a sense of the chiral “screw” displacement that is a negative or positive electromagnetic
field, and why electrons and positrons move the way that they do: because that all-round standing-wave standing field is dynamical, and they don’t call ‘em
spinors for nothing.
Do we all know about Hans Ohanian’s paper what is spin? Spin is real. And did I tell you what
what Feynman said:
“Suppose we take the example of a point charge sitting near the center of a bar magnet, as shown in Fig. 27–6. Everything is at rest, so the energy is not
changing with time. Also, E and B are quite static. But the Poynting vector says that there is a flow of energy, because there is an E × B that is not zero. If you look
at the energy flow, you find that it just circulates around and around. There isn’t any change in the energy anywhere - everything which flows into one volume
flows out again. It is like incompressible water flowing around. So there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static condition. How absurd it gets!”
Yes, how absurd it gets. Here we are in 2017, and people think the electron is a point-particle, and that spin is magic. FFS, I am living in the dark ages, an
idiocracy. As for the speed of charge and gravity being very much faster than light, I’m not sure they are. Charge is nothing special, nor is gravity. Yes,
longitudinal waves tend to travel faster than transverse waves. But not that much faster.
Yes, it is compelling isn’t it?
Regards
JohnD
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 14 February 2017 18:06
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >
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
More information about the General
mailing list