[General] Interference of Photons

[Chip Akins]

Hi Grahame

 

Yes. Perhaps semantics is getting in the way regarding a photon within an electron.

It seems that the correct half of what makes a photon would possess a single polarity of electric charge.  That is a portion of my objection to using the term photon for this form of energy.  A photon does not possess a single polarity of charge.  But a photon does not have the capacity to be fully confined in three dimensions and exhibit ½ hbar spin either.

So to me, so much has to be different from the properties of a photon, that calling this propagating energy within the electron a photon is not really an accurate or clear description.  But if one want to imagine that a photon can have charge, and a photon can be fully confined (not travel in a straight line at c), and can possess ½ hbar spin, then they could still call this thing a photon.  Just doesn’t seem correct to me.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 6:37 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Interference of Photons

 

Hi Chip & all,

 

Having written of an electron as being a cyclic-photon construct, I have to agree with Chip that there are compelling reasons why a linear photon could not by itself form an electron.  My concept of a 'cyclic photon' is that of an electromagnetic waveform like a linear photon, but constrained by its own electromagnetic field interactions to travel in a cyclic path rather than linearly.  In my parlance this doesn't make it 'not a photon' - it depends on whether one's definition of a photon is necessarily something that travels in a straight line or whether one regards it simply as a packet of electromagnetic energy in the form of a self-propagating time-varying electromagnetic field effect: the latter is my understanding of the term.

 

So whilst I don't totally agree with Chip's view that there isn't a photon circulating in (or rather AS) an electron, this is due to our differing views on what constitutes a photon - it appears that we're agreed on what constitutes an electron.  I'm also fully in agreement with Chip (and all experimental evidence that I know of) that two half-photons (of requisite energy) can form an electron.

 

Best regards,

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: Monday, October 16, 2017 12:20 PM

Subject: Re: [General] Interference of Photons

 

Hi John M and Vivian

 

First, Vivian. I am and exception apparently, for I do not believe there is a photon circulating inside an electron. To me the evidence indicates that a whole photon cannot become an electron. The whole photon does not possess the properties it takes to be confined to become and electron.  Two half photons could become an electron.

 

John M.  One thing I wanted to mention is related to your comment…

“My model obtains the exact force between two particles at any separation if they had Planck charge rather than charge e.”

This is because the model of space as a two component tension medium suggested, obtains the exact force between two particles at any separation, and this is precisely the force of the elementary charge.

 

So I will take a look at the gravitational force between two electrons using this model and get back to you.

 

Chip

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171016/09356d13/attachment.html>