[General] half-photons??

[John Williamson]

Dear Grahame,

That is quite an extraordinary outburst about what seems to be a fairly innocuous email by Viv. I thought you understood special relativity, but there seems to be some lack of understanding in your email which, to help redress the balance, I suppose I had better point out. I will go green, your original is in dark blue.

Viv,

I have seen many times your assertion that theories should be supported by (a) experiment and (b) mathematics.  Whilst I don't disagree, I'd respectfully suggest that there's a third factor without which those first two can still lead to false conclusions.  That third factor is causation.

Agreed. This is a powerful principle.

I am strongly of the view that we live in a causal universe; if we don't then we may as well all pack up our theories and retire, since any theory becomes worthless in a non-causal universe.  One classic example of where causation has been left out of every proposal is Relativity Theory: we're asked to accept that the wholly relative universe is just how it is, however counter-intuitive, without any explanation or proposal as to causation.

Sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the word “relative” in the context of “special relativity” and substituted a more prosaic meaning. SR is, and has always been, causal. This is the basis of Einstien’s lack of belief in “spooky action at a distance”. Relativity does not mix up cause and effect. It affects merely the rate at which one leads to the other. One cannot switch to frame where emitter becomes absorber and the absorber emitter. One cannot even change the time ORDER without exceeding the limit of the speed of light. This is one, very good, reason for that limit. Even if one did change the time order, causality, in that the emitting object CAUSED the absorbing object to heat/move/scatter or whatever would be preserved. This is the basis of the idea that the positron is in some snce, a negative energy particle moving backwards in time. It is some aspects of quantum mechanics, not relativity, that are argued in some circles to be non-causal. In my view these arguments are also usually incorrect. Causality should always be preserved.

For myself, I'm fully content that it's possible to derive ALL findings of SR and GR from a non-relative framework - i.e. to explain causation for all of those findings.

Of course it is: this is just what is usually done!

 This derivation actually includes the inevitable consequence that readings from instruments made from physical matter will produce results that wholly accord with the notion that the universe IS intrinsically relative.  In other words I can formulate a theory of a wholly relative universe, produce a mathematically self-consistent theory, and demonstrate the validity of that theory through experiment - EVEN IF my initial premise is completely fallacious.  This is precisely what's been done, pretty much continuously, for the past 100+ years.

It seems to me that it is your view of the supposed nature of the initial premise is what is fallacious. Simply fixed!

If, however, I consider causation: "WHY do I get results that appear to fly in the face of common sense?" - then it's absolutely possible to produce a self-consistent, mathematically robust theory that provides a full explanation as to causation AND AT THE SAME TIME leads to experimental results exactly as found.  For me a theory that includes firm mathematics, full consistent experimental validation AND causation beats hands-down a theory that includes both of your preferred factors but neglects to consider causation.


You are just, quite simply, completely wrong in your assertion here. You are, and have been by the sounds of it, fooling yourself. Relativity never claimed to be non causal, as far as I know. Do you have any proper references to any of this?

I do feel, also, that sometimes you choose what does and doesn't 'count' to suit your own theories.  Notably below you take issue with (deride?) the theories of others - yet you're quite prepared to propose that a photon would 'crumple' on colliding with matter!

Just a minute, Photons are absorbed by matter. Is it just the word “crumple” you do not like? Is that all?

Sorry, but for me that doesn't wash - at least not without a lot more rationale than you've provided.  A photon isn't a Ford or a Lamborghini, why on earth is it 'not unrealistic' to expect that it would behave in like manner??  I suggest, Vivian, that if another in the group had proposed this notion and it didn't fit with your chosen view, then it's more than likely that you'd have had little truck with it and been quite vocal in your dismissal of it.

He was talking about me here, at least in part. I did not use the word “crumple”, though I quite like it. What I did was to propose a set of coupled differential equations. These, when rest matter in the form of root-matter were introduced, forced a rotation of the direction of resultant momentum flow, the Poynting vector, to curve. Enough matter, and they bite their own tail. In fact a long photon does kind of “crumple” into itself, having to add all of its wavetrain into the incipient matter created (an electron positron pair, for example), the resultant configuration rotates, is charged, has rest mass, has spin half and is a stable minimum energy configuration. Also the whole process is completely causal, as it should be. All described by a theory with eight coupled differentail equations, extending the Maxwell equations. Some maths then.

You also say that a photon "requires an interaction with matter" to form an electron.  Where did this come from?  Is it a pure Vivian-ism?  It certainly doesn't accord with well-established experimental evidence (or accepted theory) to date.

This is also just completely wrong. Below is the quantum electrodynamics page from Wikipedia. Note the presence of the matter (electron, and 4-momentum transfer (root s) lines in the diagram. If QED isn’t “accepted theory”, I do not know what is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

 As I stated previously, Landau & Lifshitz established that the essential precursor to e+/e- pair production is generation of two then-colliding photons (not matter, notice); the Breit-Wheeler Process demands no matter to be involved; the 1997 SLAC pair-production demonstration generated e+/e- pairs from collision of photons - no matter there (apart from containing vessels - and I've not heard anyone suggest that those containing vessels took any significant part in the process, the evidence as presented indicates that it was all down to those colliding photons).

I think you must have read something garbled somewhere and accepted this as fact. You can also find all of this theory in Landau and Lifshitz’ own books. My copy is at work at the moment but I think it is the volume of their series on “theoretical physics” entitled “quantum electrodynamics”. I suggest you read it. In it, photons couple solely,in QED, to charge. Photons require charge to be emitted, absorbed or to be annihilated in that charge is created in process. No matter there to begin with in photon pair production, indeed, but this is of no matter. The emitters of the initial photons are, and must be there in QED, book-ending the whole thing and providing a rest frame in which the “mass” exists continuously. If you could put the whole thing on a scale, and there were no other losses, you could weigh it throughout with no weight (or mass) gain or loss. In the theory. Now I do not think QED is the whole story, far from it, but you cannot claim that this is a Vivian-ism in any way shape or form.

Viv, you talk about "subjective opinion" and regularly offer the pre-eminence of experiment and math.  Both math and experiment support the notion of two colliding photons generating an e+/e- pair (absolutely supporting the view that half of each photon has gone into formation of of each particle) - whereas your notion of a photon 'crumpling' on hitting matter to produce such a pair has absolutely no such provenance to my knowledge, mathematical or experimental.  Would you consider me unjustified in suggesting that your 'crumpled/bent' photon forming such a particle-antiparticle pair is 100% subjective opinion?

Perhaps not quite one hundred percent.Theory, indeed, makes new stuff up, but it stands or falls by what is observed in experiment.

I'm not really convinced, Viv, that you apply the same level of critical appraisal to your own views as you do - often quite harshly - to the views of others.

I think one has to distinguish between arguments against this or that view, which is what Viv has done as far as I can see, and direct attacks ad hominem.

I hope you find these observations helpful  - they're intended to redress the balance in what I see as a somewhat less than even-handed perspective.

Fair enough. Knowing Viv I do not think he will be offended. I think you should apologise anyway though.

Best regards,

Grahame

Regards, JGW.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 6:50 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: André Michaud
Subject: Re: [General] half-photons??

Hello Grahame, Viv, Chip and others,

   I’m going to somewhat come to Viv’s defense here in the case of his picturesque “crumpled photon” model of e-p pair production, which is similar to the e-p production process from a photon, described by André. First though, I accept the experimental finding that two photons can produce an e-p pair. But in the case of an single incoming photon interacting with a nearby atomic nucleus to transform the photon into an e-p pair, technically this is a “collision” or interaction between a photon and a nucleus since there is a significant exchange of momentum between them during this process . Assume one-dimensional motion for the interaction for simplicity, with the incoming photon moving in the positive direction to the right. The incoming photon loses some momentum during e-p production and the atomic nucleus absorbs this momentum and recoils slightly. The energy exchange between the photon and the nucleus is insignificant in percentage terms due to kinematic rules and the large difference in the energies of the incoming photon and the nucleus. But if we consider the incoming photon to be composed of two helically circulating spin-1/2 charged half-photons, each of these half-photons with energy E receives some negative momentum from  the nucleus, and each half-photon is ultimately transformed into an electron (or a positron) with mass m.  The “before” energy momentum equation for each half-photon is E = p1 c where p1 is the linear momentum of the each incoming half-photon and E is its energy. The “after” relation for each produced electron or positron is E=sqrt (p2 ^2  c^2 + m^2 c^4) from the relativistic energy momentum equation for an electron, where p2 (which is less than p1) is the linear momentum of the electron or positron formed in the interaction and E is the electron’s (or positron’s) total energy. Some (perhaps most) of the energy E of each incoming half-photon has been converted into the mass m of the produced electron or positron. The momentum exchange of the half-photon -> electron (or positron) transformation is delta p = p2 - p1  which is negative, and the momentum exchange of the atomic nucleus is -delta p =  p1-p2 which is positive, causing the nucleus to recoil slightly to the right.  The produced electron and positron are each “crumpled” half-photons that now move in double-looping internal orbits, forming the electron and the positron. The produced electron and positron have some external linear momentum as well. So the incoming photon is “crumpled” in the process of e-p production. The incoming photon’s component helically-mutually-circulating spin-1/2 charged half-photons separate and curl up to become an electron and a positron, each with mass m, which the spin 1/2 charged half-photons didn’t have while composing the incoming photon.

  My superluminal model of a spin-1/2 charged half-photon is described (but incorrectly called a spin-1/2 charged photon) in “Transluminal Energy Quantum Model of a Spin-1/2 Charged Photon Composing an Electron” at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers (paper #6).

      Richard

On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:

Viv,

I have seen many times your assertion that theories should be supported by (a) experiment and (b) mathematics.  Whilst I don't disagree, I'd respectfully suggest that there's a third factor without which those first two can still lead to false conclusions.  That third factor is causation.

I am strongly of the view that we live in a causal universe; if we don't then we may as well all pack up our theories and retire, since any theory becomes worthless in a non-causal universe.  One classic example of where causation has been left out of every proposal is Relativity Theory: we're asked to accept that the wholly relative universe is just how it is, however counter-intuitive, without any explanation or proposal as to causation.

For myself, I'm fully content that it's possible to derive ALL findings of SR and GR from a non-relative framework - i.e. to explain causation for all of those findings.  This derivation actually includes the inevitable consequence that readings from instruments made from physical matter will produce results that wholly accord with the notion that the universe IS intrinsically relative.  In other words I can formulate a theory of a wholly relative universe, produce a mathematically self-consistent theory, and demonstrate the validity of that theory through experiment - EVEN IF my initial premise is completely fallacious.  This is precisely what's been done, pretty much continuously, for the past 100+ years.

If, however, I consider causation: "WHY do I get results that appear to fly in the face of common sense?" - then it's absolutely possible to produce a self-consistent, mathematically robust theory that provides a full explanation as to causation AND AT THE SAME TIME leads to experimental results exactly as found.  For me a theory that includes firm mathematics, full consistent experimental validation AND causation beats hands-down a theory that includes both of your preferred factors but neglects to consider causation.

I do feel, also, that sometimes you choose what does and doesn't 'count' to suit your own theories.  Notably below you take issue with (deride?) the theories of others - yet you're quite prepared to propose that a photon would 'crumple' on colliding with matter!  Sorry, but for me that doesn't wash - at least not without a lot more rationale than you've provided.  A photon isn't a Ford or a Lamborghini, why on earth is it 'not unrealistic' to expect that it would behave in like manner??  I suggest, Vivian, that if another in the group had proposed this notion and it didn't fit with your chosen view, then it's more than likely that you'd have had little truck with it and been quite vocal in your dismissal of it.

You also say that a photon "requires an interaction with matter" to form an electron.  Where did this come from?  Is it a pure Vivian-ism?  It certainly doesn't accord with well-established experimental evidence (or accepted theory) to date.  As I stated previously, Landau & Lifshitz established that the essential precursor to e+/e- pair production is generation of two then-colliding photons (not matter, notice); the Breit-Wheeler Process demands no matter to be involved; the 1997 SLAC pair-production demonstration generated e+/e- pairs from collision of photons - no matter there (apart from containing vessels - and I've not heard anyone suggest that those containing vessels took any significant part in the process, the evidence as presented indicates that it was all down to those colliding photons).

Viv, you talk about "subjective opinion" and regularly offer the pre-eminence of experiment and math.  Both math and experiment support the notion of two colliding photons generating an e+/e- pair (absolutely supporting the view that half of each photon has gone into formation of of each particle) - whereas your notion of a photon 'crumpling' on hitting matter to produce such a pair has absolutely no such provenance to my knowledge, mathematical or experimental.  Would you consider me unjustified in suggesting that your 'crumpled/bent' photon forming such a particle-antiparticle pair is 100% subjective opinion?

I'm not really convinced, Viv, that you apply the same level of critical appraisal to your own views as you do - often quite harshly - to the views of others.

I hope you find these observations helpful  - they're intended to redress the balance in what I see as a somewhat less than even-handed perspective.

Best regards,
Grahame


----- Original Message -----
From: Viv Robinson<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
To: Chip Akins<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> ; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Interference of Photons

Hi Chip, Grahame and All,

I have tried to suggest that explanations should be based upon physical principles supported by mathematics. To that end my last correspondence gave a physical description of different types of photons in terms of their electric and magnetic fields. Their mathematical form of the wave function Psi was also presented. Both depended upon the physical properties of free space, the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. To the best of my knowledge no other representation of a photon has been presented to this group. Many keep mentioning photons without describing what they mean. The side benefit of that is participants can attribute any property they do or do not desire to a photon.

Chip, what is meant by "half a photon"? How can “half a photon” exist without the other half? Regarding your comment "The whole photon does not possess the properties it takes to be confined to become and electron” John W (and Martin v d M may) suggest that it is possible, John W has also used some mathematics sin support of that proposal.. When a full circularly polarized photon makes two revolutions per wavelength the electric polarities and magnetic fields reinforce each other. This does not occur with any other combination of rotations per wavelength. That model explains many known electron properties and makes many predictions that can be tested experimentally. IMHO that gives a way that full photons can give rise to particles in general and electrons in particular.

Grahame, I agree that a "a linear photon could not by itself form an electron”. It requires an interaction with matter. Without going into great detail, it is not unrealistic to expect that, at such interaction or collision the photon could “crumple” or bend and split. Half the photon would be confined to a negative charge, an electron, and the other half to a positive charge, a positron. Without a definition of a half photon, I am not sure how that idea differs from particle/anti-particle formation from a single energetic photon “splitting” into two confined “half photons”. As mentioned above, a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave making two revolutions within its wavelength will reinforce its electric and magnetic properties in a way that no other combination of rotations per wavelength can.

It would help your case if you were to give a description of half a photon and how " two half-photons (of requisite energy) can form an electron”. Without those sorts of explanations, everything is subjective opinion.

Cheers

Vivian R


On 16 October 2017 at 5:55:28 AM, Chip Akins (chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>) wrote:
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<mailto: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
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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<mailto: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<mailto: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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171017/ac236ea1/attachment.html>