[General] HA: 31.12.2017

Burinskii A.Ya. bur at ibrae.ac.ru
Mon Jan 1 02:01:47 PST 2018


Dear All.



Now there is a rather big community of people working on the extended electron contrary to

the wrong conception of the point-like electron.

In spite of the resistance of  main stream, my short paper on spinning and gravitating electron was published in IJMPD.

I am sending you this paper and wish all of you Happy  New Year !

Yours,

Alexander





________________________________
От: Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com]
Отправлено: 1 января 2018 г. 6:46
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Тема: Re: [General] 31.12.2017


Dear André,

Somehow I never received your response below (now with my comments interleaved), until Pavel sent me a link along with your content thru the Nature of Light and Particles forum. I particularly liked the information on your work with Marmet's paper. Also, thank you for reading my paper and making good comments.

see below

Dear Andrew,

I accept your conclusion about figure 3 and the relations you make with GR's geodesic as being logical, although I have no opinion on this issue myself.

As for the validity of Marmet's argument for the magnetic energy, I must say that since Newton's non-relativistic kinetic energy equation can be upgraded to full relativistic electromagnetic status from Marmet's argument, from which electromagnetic relativistic equation, both standard relativistic momentum and relativistic mass equation can be retro-derived, I think that this speaks for the validity of his argument.

I also remember that when I fell on his derivation in 2005, I found his result so astonishing, and so important since it confirmed conclusions that I had previously arrived at separately from de Broglie's double particle hypothesis, that I spent a whole week re-doing the deriation with paper and pencil, taking great care to re-discover every bit of reasoning that he must have gone through and possibly intermediate equations that he simply assumed, until I became certain of the soundness of his derivation up to equation 23.

I preserved my notes and bound them with a plastic spiral. That was 12 years go. I didn't momentarily recall where I stored them, but I just rediscovered them in one of my piles of disparate notes and reprints.

I notice that I did not just copy Marmet's derivation to verify it. I actually re-derived the sequence from my own comprehension up to his equation 15 (the remainder up to equation 23 was clear) with pencil and paper from the Biot-Savart equation following Marmet's intuition.

I thought that you might have spent some time on it.

In my derivation, I arrive at Marmet's equation 6 with my equation (4), and the comment I put between my equation (4) and my equation (5) [which is Marmet's equation 7] is the following:

"Assuming isotropic magnetic field about a single point charge, we now transfer from a linear motion to a spherical geometry" which causes the sin(theta) to have no object any more and disappear from the equation, since there is not particular direction involved.

If you read again the part on " Quantization of Charges " between equations 6 and 7 with this in mind, this may help understand the transition. N in equation 6 being the number of electrons corresponding to 1 ampere. Setting N to 1 let only the invariant charge of only 1 electron in equation 7 (N turns to 1 and disapears). As for the disappearing of Sin (theta), it is due to the new condition involving a fixed (quantized) charge, with no particular direction for the charge distribution, considered continuously variable in Maxwell, which implies a vectorial direction (not the case for a point-like behaving fixed charge such as that of the electron).

I'll still have to work thru this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law#Point_charge_at_constant_velocity gives a cross product for the point source.


I am reading you paper, that I printed out for easier reading and highlighting. No worry about unwanted distribution. This is your work.

Clear absolute agreement with you statement in the abstract : " They must be redefined to be determined in a potential-free environment "

Also absolute agreement with your statement in the abstract: " change in Coulomb potential results in the change in mass of the causative charged particle "

From my understanding, this is due to the adiabatic nature of the momentum-energy-plus-mass-increment induced by the Coulomb force as a function of the inverse square of the distances between charges.

You begin you intro with the sentence: " The energy source of the 1/r Coulomb potential is generally attributed to the charge of particles as if the ‘unit’ charges themselves, "

Note that that this is true for the "Coulomb potential" related to the single charge at the center of Gauss electric field representation. But the momentum-enrgy-plus-mass-increment provided by the Coulomb force obeys the inverse square 1/r 2 law, not the simple inverse distance 1/r law. Ref, the Coulomb equation = Maxwell's first equation = Gauss equation for the electric field when a second charge is involved.

If interested, the adiabatic nature and the momentum-energy-plus-mass-increment provided by the Coulomb force, this is analyzed in this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

What I concluded about the possible real nature of what we name the "Coulomb force" can be found starting page 9 in the following paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

I have much to learn from you and your papers. I am slow with learning new languages, so I am often reluctant to do so. However, in seeing Marmet's magnetic mass and his vortices as, perhaps, my relativistic precessions of spin vectors, I can view his work in a new light. Likewise, I need to look at your model(s) for the common ground of understanding.

In page 2, you mention: " The ground state is only a local minimum (a mechanical resonance between the electron and the Coulomb potential well); "

This is where Marmet's discovery about the magnetic field could bring the most light in your exploration, because I found that this ground state resonance state can only be a mechanical resonance state involving an interplay between the adiabatic momentum energy provided by the Coulomb force axially oriented towards the nucleus and a magnetic interplay between the magnetic field of the electron and those of the nucleus that becomes predominantly repulsive when the electron comes closer than the mean ground orbital distance.

The mechanics of this equilibrium state is described in both papers previously referred.

This information is important to what I am presently concerned with.

On page 2: " The standard response is that the Coulomb potential provides this field energy "

Absolutely. It adiabatically provides this energy if two charges are involved as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating them.

On page 2, I cannot identify what you mean by "WHAT" mentioned twice.

The WHAT is the undefined/unrecognized source of energy. Perhaps your papers will provide that WHAT in new terms for me.

On page 2: " The increase in effective mass coincides with the increase in EM-field energy "

Yes. Also coincides with increase in proximity between charges, and is due to this increase in proximity between charges on account of the Coulomb force.

On page 3: " However, as they approach one another in this picture, the sum of each lepton’s effective mass and total energy can then become greater than the energy available in the system . At r = 0, the potential energy of the pair is |V| = -infinity and to balance that, the EM-field and/ or the effective mass energies must be infinite. "

Well, we know that in physical reality this is physically impossible. Consequently this can only mean that our calculation method is incorrect. So my view is that the only level of angst that this should raise in most physicists should relate to whether or not they will be the first to find the correct mathematical representation.

In page 3: " However, since the Coulomb potential between oppositely charged bodies is attractive, the potential as defined above goes more negative as the charges come together. "

From the analysis carried out in the adiabatic paper above, the Coulomb force between 2 charges does not cause them to attract each other. They " seem " to attract each other only because the momentum energy induced in both of them by the Coulomb force is vectorially oriented towards the other particle. The Coulomb force does not cause attraction or repulsion, it only induces energy oriented towards opposite sign charges, and oriented away from like sign charges.

I need to look at your development of momentum energy. I often look at force as dp/dt, where dp can be in direction only.

In page 3 " The EM energy, being bound as perturbations primarily to the leptons’ field lines, is included in the leptons’ kinetic energy terms and is not explicitly expressed unless/until it leaves as a photon. "

Yes. this is because the concept of momentum / Lagrangian / Hamiltonian as currently defined does not incorporate correctly the adiabatic momentum-energy-plus-mass-increment induced by the Coulomb force.

This is analyzed starting on page 15 in the second paper referred above.

I will have to study your model. I see a lot of common ground.

In page 3: " the ‘meaning’ and actual source of the electromagnetic and potential energy itself and its relation to mass had not been definitively addressed "

It can now be addressed, thanks to Marmet's contribution to understanding the function of the magnetic field of localized EM particles.

I hope so.

On page 3: " Feynman identified the velocity-dependent component of relativistic effective mass as being electromagnetic. "

Same conclusion that Kaufmann, Abraham and Poincare drew more than 100 years ago from analysis of the Kaufmann experiments.

And Marmet, whose derivation you are studying, more precisely identified it as being a measurable magnetic mass increase, while the electric charge of the electron, related to half its invariant rest mass, remains constant.

I skip the part where calculations involve only the momentum energy conbined with potential energy, because this is related to the standard definitions of conservative momentum / Lagrangian / Hamiltonian that is not in sync with the adabatic nature of the energy induced in charges, (from my analysis, of course), so I cannot comment on them. I assume they are correct from the standard conservative concepts. It is not clear to me how I could relate your use of the term "potential" to my understanding (potential from the electric field and potential energy of the energy conservation principle. The first makes mathematical sense to me, the second is badly defined with respect to adiabatic energy induction by the Coulomb force.

I also skip the part about virtual e-p pairs, a concept that belongs to QFT, but is too difficult to explain how it matches with Coulomb interaction from the trispatial perspective.

in your Discussion section (page 11) you mention: " The difference between positronium and the hydrogen atom (H, discussed in our next paper) is that the relativistic mass gain of a proton-bound electron generally comes from the large mass of a proton. "

When the concept of the magnetic mass as Marmet defined it is integrated in the mutual electric vs magnetic mutual induction cycle of all elementary EM particles, the difference between positronium and the hydrogen atom relates to the oscillating frequencies of this magnetic component of each particle. Equal magnetic oscillation frequencies for electron and positron, which allows anti-parallel ultimate contact to convert to photons states, and unequal magnetic oscillation frequencies for electron and inner components of the proton that prevent them from colliding and causes them to stabilize in least action electromagnetic equilibrium states at mean ground state orbital distances.

Described in both referred papers in the case of the hydrogen atom.

I expect to see more common ground there.

Your conclusion 1, page 1 " The effective mass is the rest mass multiplied by the relativistic correction factor, gamma. It is the mass expected for an atomic electron at the given radius from a proton "

absolutely.

I cannot comment on the questions you raise on page 12 due to my inability to explain easily the discrepancy between the conservative momentum concept and the adiabatic nature of the energy induced by the Coulomb force, other than comment that they are the right questions that need to be raised.

More specifically, the question " where does the energy for doing work via Coulomb interactions come from? "

From my analysis, this question is addressed in both referred papers, but involves refocusing what energy conservation is about, which is specifically analyzed in the paper about adiabatic processes at the elementary particles level.

I will have to see how it fits with your model and adiabatic processes. My answer was that it comes from the mass energy for bodies no longer at rest in a field-free region..

That being said, I do not understand why this Journal rejected your paper. It is an absolutely fine leading edge research paper, putting on the table issues that clearly need to be addressed and suggesting avenues of research. I am convinced that many Open Access journals would accept to publish it as is, without even any introductory letter warning of its possible out of the box nature.

Thank you for the confirmation of our paper's content. I need to find time to put it and its following 2 papers onto the net. Since then, I actually wrote an introductory paper which I now need to format for publication.

Best regards,

Andrew
____________________

Looking forward to your further comments on the Marmet derivation.

Best Regards

André
---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 14:21:34 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

Dear André,

At first, Marmet's figure 3 and consequences bothered me; but then I realized that this might be a version of 3-D viewing of a black hole, wormhole, or vortex, when they are extended into 4-D. The idea of the external (rather than internal) field energy constituting to the charge mass bothered me initially. Now I can accept it. It actually fits the concept of zero forces on a particle following a geodesic.

On closer examination, I believe Marmet's argument for the magnetic energy is flawed. Nevertheless, his conclusion may be correct. His equation 7 is incorrect as you noted in your 2006 IFNA-ANS Journal paper. His transition from eq 6 is problematic. However, his equations 10 and 11 may be correct [he dropped the d(Ne-) term] even tho he may not have done the integration over theta correctly to include the non-orthogonal components of the B-field to get eq 7. Could you take a closer look at that section to see what you think? If he is correct about the relativity-added magnetic mass being the total kinetic energy, this is a remarkable and important observation.

The reason that I was interested in the magnetic energy as a/the source of relativistic mass increase is seen in a paper (attached along with cover letter) that I had submitted to AJP. The editor rejected it with a 1 page letter within 9 minutes of my receiving the electronic confirmation of its receipt. I think that you might appreciate its implications. Since I have not yet submitted it elsewhere, please do not distribute it.

Best regards,

Andrew

_ _ _

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:39 PM, André Michaud < srp2 at srpinc.org<mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org> > wrote:



A good thing that I clarified then.

As soon as I hit his equation 23, my mind started racing. I barely skimmed over the second half at first. When I went back to read it, months afterwards, I quickly saw that he had not pushed the idea further, and ended up never going further than his Figure 3., which is already way disconnected from my own understanding.

Looking forward to your eventual conclusions regarding the magnetic mass increment vs the electron carrying energy.

Best Regards
---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/


On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 13:08:05 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
Thx for the clarification. I was going to remain skeptical about his second part, but I was also going to read it as if it applied to your model.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:56 AM, André Michaud < srp2 at srpinc.org<mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org> > wrote:





Dear Andrew,

I fully agree that all avenues have to be explored. There is no circumventing the logic of cause and effect. Every conclusion must be clearly grounded on previously established verified premises.

Note regarding Marmet`s paper, that the second half, starting after equation 26 is his own personal theory about the electron. The part that my reasoning is grounded on is the first part, which is a seamless derivation leading to equation 23, which is the critical equation to finally identify the exact magnetic magnetic field related to the invariant rest mass of the electron as being separate from the mass increment provided by its carrying energy.

Best Regards André
---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/


On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 08:26:25 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
DearAndré,

Thank you for the links below (maybe). I now have to take the time to go thru these papers in some detail. Marmet's derivation (in ref 1 of your 1st paper) of the magnetic energy associated with motion is what I needed. However, I need to examine his assumptions very closely since he, like most of us, has an unconventional view on things. Nevertheless, one of the more conventional of them has already altered my view of the classical electron radius; but, perhaps it has also provided fuel for my concept of the electron as a (toroidal?) wormhole initially connected to a positron.

Since Marmet referenced and criticized John's and Mark's 1997 paper, I would be interested in their comments on his paper. Your basing some of your work on his is already positive.

Best regards,

Andrew M.
_ _ _

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:28 AM, André Michaud < srp2 at srpinc.org<mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org> > wrote:





Dear Andrew,

No problem for the photon. Energy can be represented in a number of ways.

My 2 papers on are available online.

The first was published by the Engineering journal of Kazan State U in 2007. The same journal that published Marmet's paper. Their journal was still paper only, but a copy of my paper is made available on the GSJournal site.

This paper analyzes Marmet's derivation from the Biot-Savart equation, from which separate electric and magnetic fields equations can be defined for the electron rest mass and separately for its carrying energy, one half of which turns out to correspond to Marmet's magnetic mass increment that adds to the rest mass:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2257

The second paper was published in 2013 by a different Engineering journal. This one upgrades Newton`s non relativistic kinetic energy equation to full relativistic electromagnetic form from the understanding provided by Marmet's derivation established in the first paper.

The standard momentum and relativistic equations can be derived from the resulting fully Maxwell compliant relativistic electromagnetic equation:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3197

Best Regards

André
---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/


On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:19:44 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

DearAndré,

Our views on the photon appear to be irreconcilable, so I won't continue on that line. However, in regard to an area in which we seem to agree, you stated:


"In 2005, I ran across a derivation by Paul Marmet revealing the simultaneous increase of an electron magnetic field and of its relativistic mass, from which derivation, it can be established that this excess momentum energy is related to this magnetic mass increase in such a way that it can then be established that the "carrying energy" of the rest mass of the electron also is transversally oscillating in the same manner that I previously mentioned in accordance with Maxwell's theory (I have 2 papers on this issue if interested)."

For over 5 years, I have been sure that the relativistic increase in mass was a result of the increase in bound EM fields with increasing velocity. I have never found the time to prove it; so, if you could provide copies of the 2 papers, I would be greatly appreciative. I no longer have access to a university library and its journals; so, if you can't post the papers on the forum, could you please send them to my gmail?

Thank you,

Andrew M.
_ _ _ _

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:22 PM, André Michaud < srp2 at srpinc.org<mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org> > wrote:





Dear Andrew,

My comments below in red. ---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 08:58:23 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
DearAndré,

comments below

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:15 PM, André Michaud < srp2 at srpinc.org<mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org> > wrote:





Dear Andrew,

First, note that I became aware of your answer to me only through Hodge's answer to you. I was not forwarded a copy of your answer directly to my email address.
Thanks for mentioning this. I've noted that my "reply all" function does not include the sender. Now I see that sometimes not all of the recipients are included. I'll try to keep track of that.






Your comment " The assumption that both electrons and photons are point sources is legitimate in this context. The fact that the beginning of a real photon alters the bound electron orbit before the later portions of the photon interact with the electron is completely ignored "

Brings the following question to me:

Isn't the fact that a photon of the right frequency always succeeds in ejecting a bound electron from its orbital the very physical proof that the whole complement of the photon's energy and momentum is communicated in a single instantaneous event?
The key is understanding what you mean by instantaneous. If a photon may be 1e3 - 1e8 cycles long, with wavelength of e.g.1 micron, and travels at v = c, then the interaction could be ~3e-12 to 3e-7s long.













Ok. I see what you mean, You mean that if the whole complement of energy of the photon longitudinally spreads over a length of 1 micron (which would be in this example the actual wavelength corresponding to this particular photon) before it completely arrives at the meeting point point of the actual collision with the electron if travels at c.

Here is how I see the instaneity of the process of the photon meeting the electron.

Lets look at the photon first.

The "wavelength" is a mathematical concept that helps us measure the "amount" of energy of which the photon is made of: E=hc/lambda.

The "frequency" of this "amount" of energy of the photon is related to this wavelength in this manner: f = c/lamda, that is, the frequency is the number of times this "amount" of energy transversally cycles between its electric state and its magnetic state, according to the Poynting vector.

From my understanding, this is to be related to the cross-product of both electric and magnetic fields vectors (both perpendicular to each other) resulting in the outwards velocity vector c of any point on the wavefront of Maxwell's spherically expanding theoretical EM wave, moving in a direction perpendicular to both fields.

So even in standard Maxwell's wave treatement, we have a "point-like location" moving at c related to the cyclic transverse EM oscillation of the energy involved.

So what is in the proces of "moving" at c in Maxwell's wave theory seems to be a point-like behaving "amount" of energy that doesn't seem to have any longitudinal component, that could spread lengthwise in time, but whose quantity or "amount" we calculate with the help of what I see as the mathematical "frequency" and "wavelength" concepts.

This is why I conclude that all of the "amount" of energy of the quantum arrives in one shot. This what I mean by instantaneity in this case.





I think it is important to be very aware that contrary to sound in a medium whose oscillation is due to "longitudinal" oscillation of the medium, the electromagnetic oscillation of the photon's energy is by structure "transverse" to the direction of motion and not "longitudinal" as your comment seems to assume, which does not preclude the possibility that all of its energy longitudinally behaves as a point-like event even in time, unless I do not understand your comment correctly.
In the photon frame, its transit across the universe is instantaneous. Nevertheless, we do not experience it that way. Likewise, we must consider the ionization process to be a transition of finite duration and great complexity within that period. Each cycle of a photon must accelerate the bound electron (creating a different EM field) until sufficient energy and momentum is exchanged for another resonant mode to be established. That new mode could Compton scatter the incident photon, totally absorb it, or simply delay it (creating a refractive index).


Clearly you are right, if the localized "amount" of energy that the photon turns out to be arrived over a finite period of time, the ionization process would indeed be very complex to describe. But if this amount arrives in one local lump (whose frequency and wavelength are only our mathematical measuring means) then the ionization process would greatly simplify.

From this perspective, I use to conclude that complete absorption of the incoming photon would correspond to direct line head-on "collision", and Compton scattering as possibly a "glancing collision" resulting only in partial transfer of the energy of the "localized lump" of the energy of which the photon is made.
Most of the time, we simply 'black-box' the operation and call it instantaneous. We are trying to go beyond engineering here, so we must better examine and understand the nature of both light and the electron.

I absolutely agree.

After having explained why I see the incoming photon as arriving in one lump, so to speak, whose "amount" we measure with its frequency and wavelength, here is how the electron may turn out to be structured at the receiving end, considering that it also is electromagnetic in nature.

We know that its rest mass is invariant, but that it also requires momenum energy to move about. This momentum energy is in excess of its rest mass energy by structure.

In 2005, I ran across a derivation by Paul Marmet revealing the simmultaneous increase of an electron magnetic field and of its relativistic mass, from which derivation, it can be established that this excess momentum energy is related to this magnetic mass increase in such a way that it can then be established that the "carrying energy" of the rest mass of the electron also is transversally oscillating in the same manner that I previously mentioned in accordance with Maxwell's theory (I have 2 papers on this issue if interested).

If it turns out to really be so in physical reality, this would mean that when the "localized incoming lump" of the photon's energy meets the electron, it could simply merge in a single shot with the "momentum lump" of energy that is already in excess of the rest mass energy of the electron, both lumps now becoming one that would simply be more energetic in consequence, and cause the electron to escape.

Anyhow, the idea I wanted to communicate is that it seems to me that the wavelength and frequency only measure the amount of energy of the photon quantum, and that it is the actual amount of energy which would be localized point-like and move as a single point-like lump that may not involve any lengthwise component Best Regards

André



Best regards,

Andrew M.






Best Regards

André
---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/


On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Hodge John wrote:

Were the experiments done with very low intensity light (single photon)?
Did the pattern change for the same setup single photon v. high intensity?
The double-slit experiment shows no difference.

Hodge




On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 1:01 AM, Andrew Meulenberg < mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> > wrote:


Dear André,

I am not sure that the energy/momentum dilemma is not resolved when examined in the context of relativity (as must be the case for light); however, I am not sure that momentum and energy are equally distributed within a photon and therefore can be analyzed in necessary detail. QM does it in a before and after manner and thus integrates over the process. The assumption that both electrons and photons are point sources is legitimate in this context. The fact that the beginning of a real photon alters the bound electron orbit before the later portions of the photon interact with the electron is completely ignored (and rightfully so for most cases).

In short, I can't answer your question.

Best regards,

Andrew M.
_ _ _

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 6:02 PM, André Michaud < srp2 at srpinc.org<mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org> > wrote:



Dear Andrew,

Isn't the translational momentum of the incoming photon moving at c transfered to the target at the same time its kinetic energy is communicated to the target in the photoelectric effect, right at the moment when the photon velocity becomes zero in absentiam ?

Best Regards ---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/


On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 16:02:21 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
Dear Andre,

Einstein was correct; but, he may not have been complete. Frequency addresses energy, but not momentum (a vector).

As presented by one of my professors, "The conservation of kinetic energy (a quadratic) and momentum (a linear relationship) of two particles do not have a common solution unless the velocities are zero."

We are presently trying to understand (and resolve) the ambiguity of transmission and reflection in these terms.

Andrew M.
_ _ _

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 9:59 AM, André Michaud < srp2 at srpinc.org<mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org> > wrote:




Hi Andrew, Chip and all.

Andrew, Your observation during your experiment that intensity doesn't seem to be critical but that frequency appears to be directly connects with EInstein's photoelectic effect, which confirmed that frequency was the critical factor in knocking electrons out of their orbitals and that intensity did not matter.

Best Regards ---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 07:37:24 -0600, "Chip Akins" wrote:

Hi Andrew

In an experiment like the one you describe, why do you assume that the light itself is curving (reflecting or refracting) in its trajectory? Using the “interference” concept at the target produces exactly the intensity results of the experiment with the trajectory of the light not curving at all. When simulating this experiment this turns out to be the simplest explanation which yields the observed patterns. Attempting to simulate this using reflection and refraction requires adding a lot of unnecessary math and rules in order to obtain the patterns observed in experiment.

Chip

From: General [mailto: general-bounces+ chipakins = gmail.com at lists. natureoflightandparticles.org<http://natureoflightandparticles.org> ] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2017 11:32 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < general at lists. natureoflightandparticles.org<http://natureoflightandparticles.org> > ; Andrew Meulenberg < mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> >; robert hudgins < hudginswr at msn.com<mailto:hudginswr at msn.com> >; Ralph Penland < rpenland at gmail.com<mailto:rpenland at gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [General] Bosonic and Fermionic nature of light









Dear Wolf,

comments below

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Wolfgang Baer < wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com> > wrote:

Always been interested in your experimental setup for showing beam-beam interactions

do you have a description of exactly what you do show interactions in a vacuum -

I have had to make the assumption that air is so much lower density than any detectors that any interaction of light with air can be neglected. Lack of funds and time prevent me from actually performing the experiments in vacuum. Air does effect the refractive index in the light path; however, the effect is so small that it would not be noticed in our experiments. It is known that high intensity light can alter the refractive index (general relativity?); but, the effect is very many orders of magnitude below our sensitivity.

how can you tell identical frequency waves in closely spaced parallel beams apart if they d interact?

You have asked an important question. It is similar to one that I have recently raised myself.

After interacting with our beam splitter (a parallel surface neutral-density filter), a single laser beam becomes two parallel beams with a fixed phase relationship. The relative phase of the 2 waves depends on the path length of the beam thru the filter. As the beams spread with their natural individual divergence angle, the two beams will begin to overlap. Eventually the overlap will become almost complete and the two beams with identical individual 'footprints' willhave a nearly identical joint far-field footprint (however the light pattern will be quite different). If they are out-of-phase, then, even as they overlap, there will be a 'null-zone' between them. If in-phase, the central zone of the common far-field pattern will be bright and have at least one pair of null-zones enclosing it.

If the two out-of-phase beams just out of the splitter have the same intensity, then, in the far field, there will still be two same-intensity beams. Are these the same two beams? That is the question. Blocking one of the beams leaves the other intact but eliminates the null zone that had separated the two. Thus, it appears that the two uninterrupted beams each reflect from the null zone and do not interact further. When the null zone is removed by blocking one beam, light 'bleeds' across the central line and spreads into the shadow of the blocking mask.

If the two beams just out of the splitter have the same intensity, but are in-phase, then, in the far field, there will now be three beams (a bright central beam ad two weak side beams). Obviously, none of these three is one of the original two. The two original beams interact to provide three nearly independent beams. Blocking either of the small outer beams will leave the other two beams nearly unaffected. It only eliminates one of the null-zones. The other null-zone remains between the two remaining beams and keeps them separated. The fact that the two remaining beams, of quite different intensity, maintain their relative size and intensity tells an interesting tail. The two beams are not identical, yet together, they create a null-zone as a reflective barrier that prevents more than a small bit, if any, of the more intense beam from crossing into the weaker beam region. In its turn, the weak beam will shift intensity further away from the center line.

The null-zone is established as a region where the two beams have no net flow. The fact that the two beams are not equal intensity undermines my hypothesis that only identical-frequency and intensity beams, exactly in or out of phase, act like identical particles. Surprisingly, the intensity does not appear to be critical. The phase and frequency appear to be the critical features. This intensity problem and its implications must be investigated further.

Andrew M.

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer

Research Director

Nascent Systems Inc.

tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432

E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com



On 12/17/2017 6:48 AM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:












Dear folks,
For the last several years, we (Hudgins, Meulenberg, and Penland) have been studying the interference effects of identical-frequency waves. Using a thin optical flat as a laser-beam splitter, it is possible to easily provide closely-spaced parallel beams of coherent light that appear to interact indefinitely (in vacuum, and even down to the individual-photon level?).
Over the last year, in parallel with the forum discussions of the photonic electron, the implications of this interaction have been evolving. The first step was the recognition that the two beams were equivalent to streams of identical particles. Furthermore, depending on their phase, the two beams acted as both bosons and fermions. In their constructive interactions (as a Bose condensate?) and destructive interactions (obeying the Pauli exclusion principle?), they attracted each other when in phase and appeared to repel one another when 180 degrees out of phase. This observation (a phase dependence, perhaps related to charge, as suggested by Penland) is beginning to expand into explanations and hypotheses for many of the laws (and tools) of physics.
Since many of this group believe that leptons are self-bound photons, the proposed dual nature of photons, which is dependent on a major characteristic of the wave nature of light (phase), could be fundamental to the understanding of much of physics. Despite being bosons, by definition, photons are seen to have both bosonic and fermionic natures in their interactions and, perhaps, within their very nature. Another concept includes that of symmetry and parity. Within a photon and its interactions, we can find both symmetric and anti-symmetric conditions as well as those of even and odd parity.
Thus, within the nature of a photon, we can find the physical bases for much of the mathematics that is the basis of theoretical physics. I believe that the macroscopic observations, which have led to much of physics theory, can be explained in the study of light and its interactions (including those with itself). The reasons that this observation is not obvious lie within our inability to 'see' the interaction. First, light is not composed of point particles. With the exception of a few manufactured cases, photons are many wavelengths long (up to 1E8 cycles?). Only if photons can interact (collectively, in time and/or space) over a large percentage of these wavelengths will any effects be noticeable without the aid of matter as a detector to sum over many interactions. And, even then, it is mathematically impossible to distinguish the effects of transmission (non-interaction?) or reflection (interaction?) in the coincidence of identical photons. Nevertheless, the fact that the mathematics for identical particles is different from that of identifiable particles gives us the precedent for looking at this aspect of light.
The observation of particle (e.g., electron) interaction is possible because the photons composing the particles have all of their high-energy nodes collected in small enough regions for their energy density to be sufficiently high to distort the space in which they reside. The 'permanence' of these structures depends on resonance, which provides and depends on a fixed internal phase relationship. Thus, the particular interaction of light with itself is reflected in the nature of matter.




Neither the statement that "light interferes with light," nor the statement that "light does not interfere with light," is completely correct. It is the combination of these two statements, along with their exceptions and understanding, that provides the basis for understanding the physical universe.



Andrew M.


______________________________ _________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com> <a href= "http://lists.natureoflig htandparticles.org/options.cgi<http://htandparticles.org/options.cgi> /general-natureoflightandparti cles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com<http://cles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>
<a href=" http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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 osmera at fme.vutbr.cz<mailto:osmera at fme.vutbr.cz>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/osmera%40fme.vutbr.cz?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 mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Published S0218271817430222.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 733786 bytes
Desc: Published S0218271817430222.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180101/956fe77d/attachment.pdf>


More information about the General mailing list