[General] HA: 31.12.2017

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Alexander,

Thanks for the paper. I hope to be able to work in General Relativity
before I die.

Is your "stringy flux-tube joining the quark-antiquark pair, or toroidal
string" equivalent to a worm hole?

Andrew M.

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 5:01 AM, Burinskii A.Ya. <bur at ibrae.ac.ru> wrote:

> 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:jc
> hodge 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:osm
> era 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:mule
> s333 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180101/3577d757/attachment.html>