<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Hello John,<br>
<br>
Sorry I have not been following these threads recently. Answers to you posts in blue below. Sorry, have only read this post (and I guess you have not yet seen many of mine!) so this may be at cross-purposes to other stuff. No matter.<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF377996"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Hodge John [jchodge@frontier.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 06, 2015 6:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] What a model of photons must do<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; font-size:16px">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6855"></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6906" class="">Richard,Albrecht</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6903" class="">I suggest a “unity” requirement to help identify light’s character. Our universe is one entity. Therefore, all in it must be related. Science is questing after a Theory of Everything (ToE) that must unite the
big of cosmology, the small of light and particle physics, and the classical of our size domain. The corollary is that the weird quantum assumptions should beg for another explanation following the observations in the cosmological and classics domains.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6904" class="">I like to think from observations to model other observations.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Agreed!<br>
<br>
</font></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6910" class="">Cosmology suggests that matter (discrete, extended, with edges) warps “space” (continuous or infinitely divisible, gravitational ether, plenum, quantum vacuum, fills between matter particles) and “space” directs
particles. Therefore, the de Broglie–Bohm theory of 2 components of our universe seems much more likely to yield a ToE than the weird duality notion. It helps that the de Broglie–Bohm theory can derive the Schrödinger equation because real waves direct the
particles.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Agreed here.</font><br>
<br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6912" class="">The source of the wave field that directs the particles is still a problem for the de Broglie–Bohm theory if we insist the speed of the waves is
<i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6914">c</i> or less. Thomas van Flandern has championed the idea the speed of gravitational waves is much (billions of times) faster than
<i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6916">c</i>. If only matter is limited to
<i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6918">c</i>, the instruments measurements would be the same. But that doesn’t make the “space”, gravitational ether, plenum, or quantum vacuum any less real.<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
Yes, the question here though is between models such as gravitons, which are exchanged, and those such as general relativity where the interaction is pre-existing and imprinted on the local spatial and temporal scale.</font><br>
<br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6920" class="">Afshar suggested his low intensity diffraction experiments were measuring single photons. I have some difficulty with this because laser light is stimulated emission light in pulses.
<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">He has done experiments with single photons (so have many others) I have done them with single electrons (so have many others).<br>
</font><br>
However, the “walking drop” experiments show diffraction effects with only a single drop. (Linking the walking drop with de Broglie–Bohm theory seems to be becoming popular.) The unity postulate suggests the forces governing the drop may be similar to the forces
governing light. Therefore, considering a single photon in the experiment at a time and the photon being directed when it is between the mask and screen is required. How does the de Broglie–Bohm theory develop the wave coming through the slit? Well, it doesn’t
- oops.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">I think if we want to go into this we should include people like Basil Hiley - who really know about this stuff.<br>
</font></div>
<font color="0000FF"></font>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922" class=""><br>
The walking drop produces a wave as it drops then bounces off the surface. But an object staying in the medium does not produce a wave that can interfere with other waves unless in bounces in a direction perpendicular to the medium’s surface. What direction
is perpendicular to the medium (space) the photon is in? The unity principle suggests only 3 directions.
<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">This is too simple a view. Your analogy is confusing you. The three "dimensions" of the electric field (not three- not four) are all "perpendicular" to the further three "dimensions" of the magnetic field. <font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"></font></font></font></font></font>
There are six linearly independent d"dimensions" here. </font><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF">These, in turn, are all
<font color="0000FF">linearly independent (perpendicular then) <font color="0000FF">
to th<font color="0000FF">e three spat<font color="0000FF">ial directions giving nine.</font></font></font></font></font></font> If you choose to superimpose them, and hence become confused, that is your problem.</font><br>
<br>
How are the multiple, interfering waves generated from the photon? Is the photon agitated - what is the source of the energy for this? Gravity, the mass of the drop, and the external vibration of the medium produce energy externally for the walking drop. The
analogy is breaking down. <br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Indeed, the analogy has broken down. They nearly always do if they are simpler than that which they try to describe.</font><br>
<br>
A boat traveling along the surface of water produces waves to the side, a relatively flat surface behind and no waves in front as the boat expends all its forward energy. This is not a good analogy for a diffraction pattern exerting force on photons. An object
can produce sonic waves as it moves through fluids by cavitation. But this expends tremendous energy. Indeed, this may be the reason the photons have limited speed. Over all this (producing an interference wave) is another oops. This is the cause of creating
the Huygens- Fresnel wavelet idea. This principle is another violation of the unity principle and a cause of weirdness.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">This assumes that space is a massive medium and that the vibration exits merely in space - I think the truth is a bit more complicated than that.</font><br>
<br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6924" class="">Examine the walking drop experiment again (see Johnn Bush “The new wave of pilot-wave theory” in Physics Today Aug 2015. There are also several U-Tube videos). The bouncing drop casues a wave outward from the
drop. The barriers of the slit reflect the wave (this is difficult to see because of the strobing) and another part goes through the slit. This creates a standing wave that directs the drop. Quantum mechanics require not just the
<span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6926" style="font-family:Symbol"><span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6928" style="">y</span></span> but also a
<span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6930" style="font-family:Symbol"><span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6932" style="">y</span></span>*. The conjugate could be a wave directed toward the photon.
<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">In QM the conjugate is just the same wave coming backwards. In a box one has, for example y in the +ve y direction y* in the negative y direction. The sum is just a standing wave. This is well-explained in any undergrad textbook and I have
taught it (to Stephen for example) in undergraduate courses.</font><br>
<br>
Here we have analogy - reflected wave in the unity argument and <span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6934" style="font-family:Symbol">
<span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6936" style="">y</span></span>* in quantum mechanics like the
<span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6938" style="font-family:Symbol"><span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6940" style="">y</span></span>* of the Transaction Interpretation. Other models have to assume the intensity is
<span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6942" style="font-family:Symbol"><span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6944" style="">y</span></span>*<span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6946" style="font-family:Symbol"><span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6948" style="">y</span></span>
- more weirdness.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Nope - this is not weird. the y and y* are just a kind of square-root field- needing to be squared to give energy (or probability). This is a normal property of anything waving. It is no more weird than needing to take the r.m.s. value
of your a.c. supply voltage and current to multiply them to get power.</font><br>
<br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6950" class="">Quantum mechanics also has a “no crossing” rule (assumption). Figure 5c in Bush’s paper shows red lines on the left side and blue lines on the right side entering the region near the slit. These lines cross
and so that the red lines are mostly on the right and blue lines are mostly on the left beyond the slit. If photons are particles, their stream can cross.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6952" class="">The Airy patterns formed by each star through a telescopes aperture seem to not interfere. Peng, Barootkop, Roychoudhuri explored this in their Non-Interference of light (NIL) papers. If light within a beam
of light from a single star can interfere, why doesn’t light (photons) interfere when the beams are coincident (yeah I know, but hold on a minute). Now consider the light from one star. It is coherent because it does from diffraction patterns when passed through
a slit. Further, the light consists of several colors (energy of photon) and each color is diffracted. But the pattern has colors separated on the secondary peaks of the diffraction pattern. Each color is coherent but the multiple colors are in the beams and
apparently not acting coherently as NIL suggests. Light from an incandescent source (black body radiation of a star) is not coherent initially but become coherent as it travels long distances or passes through a slit. The NIL experiments suggest coherent light
can be made to be incoherent with a Fresnel lens. What makes light (photons) coherent? It cannot be the energy level of a photon because laser light is also coherent. Because each energy level photons create a slightly different diffraction pattern (different
frequency), each color must produce a different frequency wave. The NIL energies is experienced in the classical world by common radios and TVs. Different frequency waves in a medium do not interfere or resonate. This implies a photon has structure and may
not be the smallest thing in the universe (speculation: just because electromagnetic pulse travel at the speed of light doesn’t means the particles conveying the energy is photons - it could be these smaller particles). What characteristic of a photon determines
its energy? The <i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6954">E=mc</i>^2 relation has
<i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6956">m</i> as inertial energy.<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
See Martins SPIE paper.</font><br>
<br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6958" class="">The Equivalence Principle is still a postulate not a derived relation. What is the structure of the photon that (warps space) produces gravitation and inertia? When a particle reaction has energy released and
the mass (<i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6960">m</i>) decreases, radiation in the form of photons is released. That is, photons comprise particles. If photons comprise particles, then of course particles also diffract. Then the structure of the
particles and the structure of the photons must have some means to limit their velocity to less than
<i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6962">c</i>.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">The limitation comes about because velocity is simply not a vector. It is a division of one part of a vector with another part of the same vector. This is not widely understood, but Martin and I have written a paper about it which will
come out at the next SPIE or the conference I hold next summer, if not before.<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6964" class="">What makes the energy levels of photons not only different but also discrete (a characteristic of matter not a continuous medium)?<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
Read my paper.</font><br>
<br>
Perhaps it is the number of sub-photon matter that makes the photon have discrete level. The continuous field can have discrete influences because the waves in the field have low energy troughs that the field pushes the particles into.<span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6966" style="">
</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6968" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6970" class="">Now think of single model that meets all these issues. A single experiment that is unexplained falsifies a proposed photon model.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
Read my paper. Please see if you can find me an experiment it does not explain.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Regards, John.</font><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>