[General] half-photons??

[Roychoudhuri, Chandra]

Viv, Grahame: Here is my take:
A “physical principle” is an interpretation by a group of humans, following a particular mode of logical thinking regarding the emergence of a related set of observable (measurable) phenomena. The “Causation” is the deeper invisible interaction processes between different interactants, which give rise to the observable data. Nature has only one set of rules for all interactions, which we are trying to understand, visualize and converge upon. That is scientific exploration of nature. It is somewhat like respectfully allowing the emergence of Feynman’s “all possible logical paths” [without remaining stuck in his integral !☺].

Chandra.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Viv Robinson
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 12:41 AM
To: Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] half-photons??

Grahame and All,

Grahame,

Thank you for your explanation. I am still don’t understand what you consider is the difference between a physical principle that I strongly suggest is the cause of something happening and what you call “causality”? What do you mean by "Your “physical principles” and my “causation” are not at all the same thing”? What is your causation, if not a physical or scientific principle?

I think there will always be a fundamental difference between us regarding the importance of experiment and observation. I am firmly of the opinion that observation and experimental fact are reality. The interpretations of those realities can vary between different interpreters. If one theory or explanation for them does not match experiment or observation, it is the theory or interpretation that is wrong, not the observation or experiment. The only exception to that rule is when it is shown that there were errors in the experiment or observation. Pretending, as some do, that an elegant theory that doesn’t fit observation or experiment is still a good one is not “proper science.”

I agree there have been several theories that have made predictions based upon mathematics, which predictions were subsequently verified. These include Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity and Dirac’s prediction of a positive electron. That they were subsequently verified by experiment is a credit to this mathematicians. However that does not mean the mathematics caused them. They had a physical reason to happen, a physical cause. As we now know, Dirac’s positron arises out of interactions involving high energy photons with other photons or nuclei. A physical principle causes an effect that was matched with mathematics. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is totally understood. It is a strong suggestion that Dirac was on the right track and following scientists have a reasonably strong foundation for expanding on that work.

Let us now look at SR and GR. Einstein worked out the corrections for SR based upon the constancy of the speed of light for all observers. All his predictions have since been verified. I accept that the constancy of the speed of light is the cause of the effect and that Einstein’s calculations were an accurate reflection of that reality. That does not mean that I accept that SR is a “core feature of our universe” which has no other reason. To the contrary, I have written a paper concerning the proposal the an electron is composed of a photon of the appropriate energy that makes two revolutions within its wavelength. It is similar to a structure proposed by Williamson and van der Mark when they suggested an electron was a “toroidal photon”. Others have come up with similar models.

An electron composed of a photon rotating at the speed of light, c, has some interesting properties. As fas as the constant speed of light is concerned, to move such a particle must orient its axis in its direction of travel. The rotating photon spirals its way through space. When it does that, the inability of an electromagnetic oscillation to travel other than at c means that it is automatically subject to the SR corrections of mass, length and time with velocity. Mathematically those corrections are little more than Pythagoras theorem applied to any particle composed of a rotating photon.

Regarding your comment:- "this implies to me that you see no need for any (deeper) causal explanation for observations of SR; this in turn tells me that your “physical principles supported by mathematics” refers to the principles cited as postulates of SR, rather than those that provide causation for the observed phenomena leading to those postulates.  It still seems to me, therefore, that my requirement for causation goes beyond those “physical principles” that you require in order for a theory to be fully acceptable."

This is yet another example where you have chosen to misrepresent me. I am quite content to suggest that the rotating (toroidal) photon structure of matter is both the physical principle and cause behind the SR corrections. As such it lends great credence to the theory’s use of the word “relativity” in its title. Everything is observed relative to the observer. There is no fixed point against which all observations must be referenced. I suggest that what I have called the physical principle behind SR are the rotating (toroidal) photon structure of all matter and the constancy of the speed of light to all observers. I see no reason for any other explanation. Some have suggested my theory is incorrect because of the need to apply the SR correction to the rotating or toroidal photon structure. I do not accept that hypothesis. Instead I maintain that structure IS the cause of SR corrections. It is not subject to them. I would suggest that structure is your “Why is it so?” for SR.

While talking about relativity I will raise a couple of issues concerning GR. Again the choice of relativity in the title implies everything is relative to the position of the observer. Einstein used the physical principles of the constancy of the speed of light to all observers and that mass distorts space-time, giving rise to gravity. They are physical principles. That his mathematics eludes most (mathematical) physicists does not make his work wrong. What does make GR wrong is the insistence of some mathematicians on extending the equations he developed beyond the region of their applicability. His field equations work well for weak gravitational fields. They break down as mass increases. I won’t go into that detail here. It can be worked out from Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Volume 1, Proposition 45 and the observation of the then unexplained precession of Mercury’s orbit. When that is understood and the mathematics expanded it brings the only conclusion possible. Mass does indeed distort space-time. Space-time distortion ds is composed of a space distortion dr and time distortion dt. It should go without saying that dr = z (gravitational redshift of photons) and dt = 1/z. It is not difficult to either derive or prove.

I add that to Einstein’s SR because most people who criticize his work do so because they don’t understand either the physical principle behind them and/or the mathematics associated with them. IMHO they are soundly based. What is not soundly based is the extensions of GR into high mass regions and the prediction of events like black holes which “Have no physical principle, being instead an extension of Einstein’ field equations” - author unknown but is the general belief of all GR and black hole specialists. That is something I suggest has no causality. As far as their detection is concerned, astronomers have detected massive objects. It is theoreticians who claim they are black holes.

I admit that, word for word, you did not mis quote me. I apologize. You were correct, you misrepresented me. In the example of SR above I again strongly suggest you again misrepresented me by assuming I was unaware of any physical reason for SR corrections to apply. If you have a better physical reason for the SR corrections I would be happy to browse it. IMHO, I think you are being a little pedantic over the choice of words such as “crumpled” or “split” or “required” for a single gamma. This discussion began with my physical and mathematical representation of photons. I suggest that if you look at my figure 5 representation of a photon that such a spiraling structure could, when it impacted on a large nucleus be “wrinkled" before it split.

All,

The object of again presenting that paper to this group was because people keep referring to photons and offering no description, physical or mathematical, as to what is a photon. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you all seem to also mention photons without ever referencing what is meant. A sort of accept it as a "fundamental principle of the universe”, one of those "That’s just how it is” things. I was hoping to get some discussion on whether this is a representation of a photon or it is not because of ….  If you or anyone has comments about those representations of a photon I would appreciate some feedback. That would be far better than an acceptance of "That’s just how it is” In the absence of comment or other presentation is seems that the photon is accepted as a photon of unknown structure.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

PS        Grahame, I respectfully suggest at the structure and properties of a photon through its wave function Psi are more important than misrepresenting what one person may or may not have said and getting carried away by the interpretations of single words.

VR

On 24 October 2017 at 3:25:38 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell (grahame at starweave.com<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>) wrote:
Hi Vivian,

I’m pleased to be able to assure you that I quite definitely haven’t misquoted you in respect of the point that you refer to – since I haven’t actually quoted you at all, nor claimed to.  Rather I was responding to my understanding of your view on the matter as you’d expressed it; reading your text below, I see no reason to change my understanding, though of course I’m sorry if you feel that I’ve misrepresented your view.  [N.B. any intended quotes appear in “double quotes” and are direct cut-&-pastes – as is always my way.  (Not all such double-quotes are intended as quotes from you, however.)]

Your second point: “experiment and/or observation are the final arbiters” is the one that I felt (and still feel) is very much open to question: as I have observed in relation to Relativity Theory, it’s perfectly possible to formulate a coherent theory that fits both experiment and observation – and yet is very much a matter of conjecture, until and unless one is able to provide a coherent causal explanation for those observations.  SR proposes the equivalence of all inertial reference frames (no ‘preferred’ frame) and there is ample experimental and observational evidence to support this theory – but (unless I have missed something) absolutely NO explanation as to causation.  It’s proposed, as I understand it, that this is simply a core feature of our universe – a ‘Prime Cause’, if you like.  The evidence offered for this proposal is/are those observations – which seems to me rather like a circular argument: observations lead to Fundamental Principle which leads to observations.  I can’t help noting that, although more scientific-sounding, this is actually no more scientific than the proposal that the origin of life on Earth is ‘God’ (a proposal that’s widely derided by the same ‘scientific minds’ that are so sold on SR).

Hence my understanding of your point that “explanations should be based upon physical principles supported by mathematics”; since you appear to accept SR 'as is', this implies to me that you see no need for any (deeper) causal explanation for observations of SR; this in turn tells me that your “physical principles supported by mathematics” refers to the principles cited as postulates of SR, rather than those that provide causation for the observed phenomena leading to those postulates.  It still seems to me, therefore, that my requirement for causation goes beyond those “physical principles” that you require in order for a theory to be fully acceptable.  Your “physical principles” and my “causation” are not at all the same thing.

This is, and always has been in my understanding, a guiding principle of physics: when something is found to be so, the next question is “Why is it so?”.  Uniquely (it seems to me) in respect of SR, this question has been skipped over by mainstream physics with the answer “It just is.  Get over it and move on”.  Since all experimental measurements fit with the accepted view – measured data fits theory and math – science has done exactly that.  My serious concern is that the ‘moving on’ has been, and is being, severely constrained by this disinclination to identify causation beyond “That’s just how it is”.

In particular, no attempt appears to have been made in the mainstream to consider the possibility that observational data is in fact itself an observer effect – that a state of motion will affect both human observation and instrumentation so as to give the appearance of frame symmetry.  Indeed, it is often explicitly stated that any alternative interpretation of SR observations, in order to be considered, must: (a) point to some phenomenon or observation that contradicts SR postulates; and (b) provide a new interpretation that includes all observations to date and additionally explains this new observation not covered by SR.  If a coherent causal explanation for SR already existed then this would be utterly reasonable; in the absence of same, to hold rigidly to an unexplained principle rather than being open to a possible causal alternative that puts the findings of SR in a totally different light whilst both explaining all experimental data AND showing WHY all such experiments will give results consistent with the idea of frame symmetry (though itself not subscribing to frame symmetry) does not seem to me to be at all in line with the spirit of scientific inquiry.

Continuing on to your point about my point about your point about pair production: in your response below you use the words “often” and “can”.  I don’t disagree with either of those points, however they don’t actually address the point I made, which was in response to your assertion that: “I agree that "a linear photon could not by itself form an electron”. It requires an interaction with matter.”  It’s unquestionably the case, as you have noted, that e+/e- pair production “can” involve a nucleus, also that pair production “often” involves a heavy nucleus, particularly in the context of nuclear power generation.  However this is not quite the same as “requires an interaction with matter”.  It’s in response to your “requires” that I cited two clear instances where an interaction (of a linear photon) with matter was not required to produce e+/e- pairs: Landau & Lifshitz’s finding (Sov. Phys 1934, vol. 6, P.244ff) that pair production in collider experiments is characterised by prior production of high-energy photons that then collide to form particle-antiparticle pairs; The Breit-Wheeler Process, actualised as a multi-photon event at SLAC in 1997.  In neither of these does matter interact with a photon to produce those pairs.

This is not a hair-splitting detail, it’s fundamental: it’s misleading to say that a process “requires” something that may be involved in some instances but in others it will not be.  I restate my point that a linear photon could not by itself form an electron – in some cases it will require another photon, in others it will require an interaction with matter.  In both of these cases the issues of conservation of energy and momentum are both dealt with more than adequately.  [And yes, I fully agree with: “That they can also be produced in gamma-gamma colliders does not mean their production from single gamma to a nucleus cannot occur” – but it does mean that the latter is not “required”.]

I’d agree that my taking issue with “crumple” is largely a matter of semantics (I have no such problem with “split”).  For me (and for the dictionary) the word ‘crumple’ has a clear meaning – ‘scrunched up’, ‘wrinkled’ – and this to me is totally contrary to the concept of a rectilinear energy-flow smoothly transforming into a cyclic localised pattern (which, one way or another, the energy content of an electron or positron must be).  I apologise if this is seen as over-rigid adherence to the constraints of language detail!

I 100% applaud your consistent call for attention to detail, be it mathematical or experimental; the main purpose of my response was to add to that a requirement for clear identification of causation – or at least a serious attempt to identify causation.  I have long felt, and still feel more than ever, that SR has somehow ‘slipped through the net’ in respect of this key element of scientific rigour; if that oversight is to be rectified (as it must, for physics to move forward), then it’s very likely to be from within this group: this no-go element of the Cosmic Elephant (to use Chandra’s term) must be squarely addressed.

I’m truly sorry if my previous response has given offence in any way; it may be that I am over-zealous in my attempts to draw attention to details (crucial details!) that have been hiding in a cupboard for to long.  I honestly believe that scientific progress is seriously, and sadly, limited by assumptions that sometimes we don’t even realise we’re assuming – and I’m glad to be part of a group that’s not afraid to call out such assumptions and give them light and air, and well-reasoned responses.

Sincerely,
Grahame

=========
----- Original Message -----
From: Viv Robinson<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
To: Dr Grahame Blackwell<mailto:grahame at starweave.com> ; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [General] half-photons??

Grahame,

Thank you for your response. I respectfully suggest that you have misquoted me. My statements were and still are that "explanations should be based upon physical principles supported by mathematics” and “experiment and/or observation are the final arbiters" of a theory.

I am a little perplexed at what you see as a fundamental difference between your “causation” and my “physical principle”. IMHO they are the same thing. Some physical principle is needed to cause an event to happen. Mathematics can be used to calculate the magnitude of the physical principle that causes the event. If you believe physical principles are fundamentally different from causation, I will consider your viewpoint.

Regarding the production of particle/anti-particle pairs. I realize that Wikipedia may not be the world’s best authority on the matter. However from their website “Pair-Production” I quote "Pair production often refers specifically to a photon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon> creating an electron-positron pair near a nucleus.” From the website "Positron Electron Pair Production - Nuclear Power", I quote "The presence of an electric field of a heavy atom such as lead or uranium is essential in order to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy”. Similar sentiments expressed in other websites indicate a nucleus is needed for the conservation of momentum during electron positron pair production. Based upon those and similar website comments, as well as my recollections of what I was taught during my University nuclear physics course, I am prepared to accept that a nucleus can be involved in electron positron pair production.

You may call those references subjective if you wish. I prefer to think of them as referenced experimental observations. I will acknowledge that my use of the words “crumbled" or “bent” were perhaps too short to express the observation that a high energy photon enters the high electric field density associated with a large nucleus, transfers its momentum to the nucleus, alters its properties, including splitting in two, and produces an electron positron pair.

That they can also be produced in gamma-gamma colliders does not mean their production from single gamma to a nucleus cannot occur.

One of the reason for my comments was the number of communications where contributors make statements without the support of a physical principle or mathematics. The discussions go back and forth about the validity of what appear to be ideas forwarded without a physical principle or mathematics to support them. If that is what this discussion group wants, iso be it. It also seems to me that when some, such as John W or Martin vd M, offer corrective comments, many of which are well founded in observation and often standard model physics, less than favorable comments are made based upon what appears to be subjective criticism. I was hoping that some could see the benefit of comments based upon physical principles and supported by mathematics. At least Chip has indicated he will soon forward his ideas on half photons and their implications based upon his calculations. I hope others would do the same.

In the meantime as the word photon is used extensively in this “nature of light and particles” discussion group, I have forwarded my physical description of photons along with mathematical representations. I am quite happy to receive communications concerning other contributor’s interpretation of a photon. But please, give a physical description and some supporting mathematics to enable objective discussion to occur. Some standard model physicists hide behind the uncertainty principle and say we cannot determine the structure of photons (some also include electrons). They call them point particles to which they attach labels. I hope this is not acceptable to this discussion group.

Sincerely,

Vivian Robinson


On 17 October 2017 at 5:51:13 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
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171026/a3f2002c/attachment.html>