[General] Emergent properties that fit the facts

Dr Grahame Blackwell grahame at starweave.com
Mon Oct 16 15:20:45 PDT 2017


Analogous statement:
"Since an origami shape has non-negligible 'thickness' (i.e. height) it cannot be formed from a sheet of paper, which has negligible thickness."
In essence this is proposing that a 3-D object cannot be created from a 2-D object - which is clearly and patently untrue.

If we really wish to introduce any form of new paradigm, we must surely at least be open to the concept of 'emergent properties' of new constructs - if such properties are explainable in terms of characteristics of the entities from which those constructs are formed.  Both mass and charge are fully explainable as consequences of configuration of a chargeless massless entity in a closed-loop form - I have offered a rationale for the latter as an artefact of the field effects of a closed-loop photon.

I would, however, add the proviso that any such emergent property must be recognisable as 'emerging from' characteristics of the formative entity (such as charge being clearly related to EM field effects).  This is in distinction to, for example, the proposal that consciousness is an emergent property of matter without ANY even half-formed rationale as to why that should be so - the best we have is various post-hoc rationalisations that try to imply that this may be the case.  THAT, to me, is unbridled pseudo-science.

Let's not start by saying, "Since A doesn't have these properties, B (formed from A) cannot have such properties".  This is clearly NOT the case in many many instances on our planet and beyond.  By doing so we are quite unreasonably limiting our own vision.

Grahame
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Gauthier 
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
  Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 6:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] Interference of Photons


  Standard definition of photon: "a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."




  Since a electron has a rest mass m, it cannot be composed of a photon, which has zero rest mass. But it can be composed of a half-photon having  a circling momentum mc=Eo/c, which would have, starting from Newton’s 2nd law F=dP/dt= wP = m A-centripetal, a rest mass m=Eo/c^2 .
        Richard.




    On Oct 16, 2017, at 7:12 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com> wrote:


    Chip an' All,

    A few 'assumptions' in your response below, Chip, that I would regard as verging on dogma rather than science.

    It's my understanding that a photon is a packet (quantum) of time-varying waveform electromagnetic energy. Period.  By that definition there's absolutely nothing stopping such a quantum 'chasing its own tail' (or more properly, self-interfering so as to hold a circular path, once so constrained); there's nothing stopping such a localised manifestation of such energy exhibiting the quality of 'charge' as an artefact of its electric and magnetic fields (note that 'charge' is simply an effect, it's not any more defined than that - and that effect MUST travel with the TEM wave, including conforming with interference effects (since interference is de facto for electrons), so it MUST (IMO) be an artefact OF that wave); if we say that a photon does not EXHIBIT charge effects, rather than 'POSSESSING charge' (whatever that may mean), I'd say no, in its rectilinear form it doesn't - but we're discussing a different topology of the same EM quantum; likewise a rectilinear EM quantum doesn't exhibit 1/2 hbar spin - but consider a rock travelling in a straight line then that same rock being whirled around in a circle on the end of a rope...

    As for "a photon does not have the capacity to be fully confined in three dimensions" - how do you know that???  This is a statement of belief, not of science.  [Eddington famously said of Chandrasekhar's findings: "I cannot believe that a star would behave in such a manner" - and so held back advances on our understanding of black holes for decades.]

    Ok, semantics - but don't let's allow semantics to limit our open-mindedness with regard to truly scientific possibilities.

    Best regards,
    Grahame
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Chip Akins
      To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
      Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 12:54 PM
      Subject: Re: [General] Interference of Photons


      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
        To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
        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




--------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
  <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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/20171016/994a43db/attachment.html>


More information about the General mailing list