<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Vivian, and all,<br>
<br>
a few comments from my side.<br>
<br>
I agree with you that an electron (as an example) is a <i>particle
</i>surrounded by a field / wave. <br>
<br>
But: This wave is not the de Broglie wave. Your write: <small><font
size="4"><small>"an electron's de Broglie wavelength is directly
related to its energy</small></font>"</small> . This is
clearly incorrect, it does not reflect the deduction of de Broglie,
and in a scattering process it has wrong results. For de Broglie
this wavelength is related to the momentum of the electron. <br>
<br>
But also this causes weird situations. If in a scattering process an
observer resides at rest in the system of the scattering device, the
result seems correct. However, if seen from an observer in motion,
the result can be incorrect by an arbitrary amount. A special case:
The observer moves with the electron, with the same speed. Then from
de Broglie it follows that the wavelength is infinite (as momentum
is zero), and no scattering occurs. But in fact the scattering still
occurs, the process does not care about the observer. And the
necessary relativistic correction covers this discrepancy in no way.<br>
<br>
Another statement given about Einstein's GR:<br>
<br>
You say: "<small><font size="4"><small>It is the same with general
relativity. Einstein's field equations for space outside
matter (gravity as we know it) fits all observations against
which it has been tested." <br>
<br>
Sorry, but Einstein's GR has started with a wrong precondition
(equivalent to a wrong result, but worse): The complete
equivalence of gravity and acceleration. Clearly incorrect. It
was discussed here: 1.) A charged object radiates at
acceleration, not at rest in a gravitational field. 2.) There
is dilation in a gravitational field, not at acceleration. <br>
And why space-time (4-dimensional)? This was in the
development of GR a direct consequence of the fact that
Einstein did not want a fixed system of reference. It had a
philosophical motivation. No experiment falsifies the
assumption of a fixed frame, but such an assumption makes
everything easier to a dramatic extend. <br>
<br>
There are other solutions for gravity not using Einstein's
field equations and Einstein's space-time but giving same
results.<br>
<br>
If you compare <i>particle models</i>: I understand it as a
deficiency, if a model uses too many physical rules as facts
which could be otherwise deduced (what my 2-subparticle model
does).<br>
As are the following facts and relations:<br>
- the inertial mass <br>
- the Bohr magneton<br>
- the Landé factor<br>
</small></font></small><small><font size="4"><small><small><font
size="4"><small>- E = h * frequency<br>
- E = mc<sup>2</sup></small></font></small> <br>
- the spin.<br>
<br>
If those facts and relations are assumed for the constituents
of the electron and just taken over, this is in my
understanding no real deduction.<br>
</small></font></small><br>
Greetings<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.11.2015 um 06:58 schrieb Vivian
Robinson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3A0B19F1-15A5-4A8E-B6BA-981F93627D4E@universephysics.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<base href="x-msg://1646/"><font size="4">Dear All,</font>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">I have been a little busy lately and it
doesn't seem like it is going to ease up for a while. I have
been browsing over the correspondence. A few features are
apparent.</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">1)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Regarding
the photon. For my part I am quite happy to accept the model
forwarded by John Williamson and Martin van der Mark. To me
their physics seems to make sense. My major point of
contention with them is that the photon can extend between the
emitter and absorber, even if that distance is billions of
light years apart. To me this is a mathematical derivation
introduced from the Minkowski space-time continuum, due to
c^2t^2 - r^2 = 0, when a photon is travelling at c. An equally
valid physical explanation is that time stands still for a
photon. As far as a photon is concerned, it is emitted,
travels for zero time in its own frame of reference, although
with a real time to an external observer not travelling at c.
It is subsequently absorbed when it contacts an absorbing
medium such an electron. Photons can be scattered, losing part
of their energy, as for example in Compton scattering. IMHO
their descriptions appear to fit observation better than any
alternative I have seen. There is still some more detail
required.</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">2)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I
note that much attention is given to trying to get properties
of the photon in particular and matter generally to fit
quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR). I can
understand this trend because they are both touted as the most
accurate experimentally tested theories yet forwarded. However
they do have some problems. A unity between the two has eluded
all theoreticians to date. General relativity has been used as
the basis of the Big Bang theory of formation of the universe.
In explaining the observed universe, that theory is in error
by 24 times the mass/energy of the observed universe plus ≈
10^60 different universes in a multiverse. Quantum mechanics
requires a very high energy density to explain some of its
calculations. I have seen a figure of ≈ 10^110 Joule/ cubic
metre (J/m^3), while astronomers measure something like 10^-10
J/m^3. Irrespective of what they predict, both of those are
significant errors that would not be tolerated in any other
field of human endeavour. </font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">3)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Quantum
mechanics is based upon Schrödinger's and Dirac's wave
equations. It was developed because the electron's properties
were too difficult to explain in terms of a particle, whereas
a wave gives an electron a probability of being somewhere
within its waveform, which can extend over large distances (+
infinity to - infinity have been quoted). The justification
for using it has been its de Broglie wavelength. As far as I
am concerned an electron is a particle. Its rotating photon
structure gives rise to its de Broglie wavelength. Whether you
believe Richard G's derivation or my derivation (Ref 1) is
irrelevant for this discussion. There is nothing in the de
Broglie wavelength of a particle that can cause it to do
anything except undergo diffraction. The double slit
experiment doesn't prove the electron is a wave. It shows that
the electron has an electromagnetic wave associated with it.
When the electron approaches a double slit, it will pass
through one of them, while its de Broglie wave will pass
through both slits. Upon passing through both slits, the de
Broglie wave unites with the electron and its direction is
changed (depending upon a number of factors). When enough
electrons have passed through the double slit, the wave
diffraction pattern will be observed. Ref 1 also gives a
reason for the special relativity corrections of mass, length
and time, as well as predicting a diminution of radius with
velocity. It shows the nature of an electron's spin and
suggests a physical origin electric charge.</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">To measure which slit the electron passes
through requires the application of a "voltage" sensor to at
least one slit. That sensor, no matter how sensitive it is,
will interfere with the electromagnetic field. Because the de
Broglie wave is a component of the electron's electromagnetic
field, it will interfere with that field. Once that field has
been interfered with, it is no longer intact and cannot cause
the electron to respond to its de Broglie wave diffraction. In
the same manner, an electron's de Broglie wavelength is
directly related to its energy. At the same time there are
only a limited number of protons than can attract electrons to
a nucleus, 1 for H up to 92 for U. The binding energy of an
electron to a proton, Rydberg energy (RE) determines its
wavelength. It is fixed. Under the rotating photon model of
matter, an electron is an enormous gyroscope. Its whole mass
is rotating at c at a radius hundreds of time larger than the
diameter of a proton. Like any other gyroscope, it can't
change its direction unless it can exchange angular momentum
with another particle. In order to change direction, an
electron must find another electron to form a pair. This
becomes the basis of electron pairing that is responsible for
chemical reactions. Quantisation of electron orbits are not
necessary to explain why electrons' don't collapse into the
nucleus. They are far too large to fit into even a uranium
nucleus and even if they could, there are no energy levels in
a stable nucleus to absorb them. </font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">What I am trying to say in the above is that
an electron is a particle and should be treated as such. The
unique properties of the rotating photon model of the electron
can explain many of its "quantum" properties. I would like to
suggest you do not try to fit properties of either photons or
particles into quantum mechanics. Rather try to fit them to
what is observed. Observation is reality. IMHO early
theoreticians (Schrödinger, Dirac et al.) did not have any
known structure for an electron to apply particle physics to
them. They had no alternative but to turn to wave equations
for solutions. I would like to suggest that, using the
rotating photon model of an electron, you should try to match
it to observation. In my first attempt at that, Ref 1, I
believe I gave a few matches to observation, as well as
predicting a number of unknown properties. I am happy to let
my theory survive on the detection of the predictions.</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">It is the same with general relativity.
Einstein's field equations for space outside matter (gravity
as we know it) fits all observations against which it has been
tested. However it has only been tested for r > ≈ 10,000
alpha (alpha = Schwarzschild radius 2GM/c^2). Using the
principle of conservation of energy for the photon as I
believe is described by John W and Martin vdM, it is possible
to derive an alternative space-time geometry equation that
matches all the observations that support Einstein's general
theory of relativity at r >> alpha, but don't predict a
singularity at r = alpha (Ref 2). </font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">It is also possible to derive a similar
expression for space-time inside matter, which describes the
large scale gravitational attraction of the universe. When one
does that it becomes apparent that an infinite static universe
will not collapse under the gravitational attraction of its
own mass. This leaves the possibility of an infinite static
universe as an acceptable alternative to the Big Bang theory.
In this theory there is no requirement for a cosmological
constant to explain the non collapse stability of the universe
if it is static. The observed ≈ 2.7˚K background temperature
of space is just that. The tiny fluctuations are not due to
the ripples in space-time about which galaxies formed. The
higher temperature regions are close to galaxies because inter
galactic gas and dust close to galaxies are heated more than
those in the deep space between galaxies. I have predicted
several measurements that can be made to distinguish between a
universe that started from a Big Bang and one that is infinite
and static. (This part of my work has not yet been published
although I have put it together into a book form which is not
yet available electronically. John W, FYI I have
significantly revised several aspects of the manuscript I gave
you in July to overcome some if its significant deficiencies.)</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">4)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>There
still appears to be a lack of experimental support for the
theoretical ideas forward by various members in this group. I
will restate, as does John W, experiment is the only arbiter
of science. Using an eminent person's theory to support your
theory may give credibility to your theory in the eyes of some
people. It does nothing to support an observation. I
will restate my earlier comment: If your want your theory to
be accepted you need to show how it matches
known experimental data and preferably make testable
predictions. Without that these discussions go off at tangents
that lead to nowhere and simply cause confusion. IMHO that is
the outcome of the past few months discussion. I have been
unable to pick up any conclusions that suggest otherwise but
will be happy to read any summary that can show how the
discussions have led to progress in the understanding of the
nature of the photon.</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">Please note my change of email address to "<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a></a>".
Could you please change my details, or indicate how I could
make that change. Thank you! The website "<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.universephysics.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.universephysics.com">www.universephysics.com</a></a>"
is a website in progress. It has some information about my
work, which I will update when I get more time and
a better electronic format for my work. This work does make
dozens of experimentally testable predictions and I am happy
to let experiment adjudicate on it when I get it onto the
website. I append a page from my study, which I have called
"Explaining the Physical Universe" to suggest you should stop
trying to match you theory to QM and GR and match observation.
FYI my findings are close to those of Einstein's. I suggest
that anyone who disagrees with SR and GR doesn't understand
his work. I am happy to accept that GR is based upon mass
distorting space time. I use different sets of calculations to
get different metrics which match observation. My metric for
space inside matter - the structure of the universe - shows
why an infinite static universe will not collapse under its
own mass without the need for a cosmological constant.</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">Cheers,</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">Viv Robinson</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div>Ref 1 <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.la-press.com/journal-particle-physics-insights-j105"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.la-press.com/journal-particle-physics-insights-j105">http://www.la-press.com/journal-particle-physics-insights-j105</a></a>
(click on "A Proposal on the Structure and Properties of the
Electron")</div>
<div>Ref 2<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=35823"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=35823">http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=35823</a></a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<base href="x-msg://1646/">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<base href="x-msg://1646/">
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On 07/11/2015, at 10:08 PM, John Williamson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; ">
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma;
font-size: 10pt; ">Dear All,<br>
<br>
I agree with David - but I think it goes much further
than this - and cuts both ways.<br>
<br>
Although a single (good) experiment should destroy a
weak theory this is no longer the fashion in 21st
century physics.<br>
<br>
For example there was in the 70's a VERY good experiment
that destroyed the quark-parton model. It was O'Fallon
et el's Phys Rev letter (1977). Notwithstanding this QCD
has soldiered on regardless for nearly half a century.
The experiment has been repeated manay times -
confirming the original results. The conclusion: the
quark parton model is simply inconsistent with
experiment! Likewise gluons. There should exist
glueballs. We do not see em. QED, QCD is bollocks again.
In fact it is stark disagreement with a whole host of
experimental triumphs (such as the EMC effect - one of
mine). Experiment used to rule in science, but it rules
"science" no more (except for in the tiny minds of one
or two dinosaurs like me).<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<font size="4">I agree with John W that experiment is the only
arbiter of science. If you don't have experimental support
for your concepts, are they valid?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; ">
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma;
font-size: 10pt; "><br>
On the other had there are many experiments purporting
to "confirm" this theory or that when they do no such
thing. One such is the 3K background temperature - often
cited as "proof" of the big bang. It is no such thing.
ANY reasonable theory would have a term for something
that is just, after all, the measured black body
temperature of the (not completely frozen) universe, as
Viv has argued strongly.<br>
<br>
Many folk have read things into experimental results
which were not there (including me - on my own
experiments!). One needs to take care.<br>
<br>
Actually I think what one REALLY needs to do to make
proper progress is not dis this or that theory( fun
though it is)- but just get on with making up new ones
which ACTUALLY work. Then let Darwinian selection loose.
Dinosaur I may be, but lets just see what a real live
dinosaur can do let loose on the current scientific
(socio-) ecology.<br>
<br>
Happy hunting folks!<br>
<br>
Cheers, John (W).<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size:
16px; ">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF295057" style="direction: ltr; "><font
size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]
on behalf of<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a></a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday,
November 06, 2015 7:27 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Hodge
John;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>;
Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[General] What a model of photons must do<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue',
Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;
font-size: 16px; ">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><span>John H</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr">Nice summary.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr">Here are a few of my more lucid notes.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr">Within our universe, there appears to
enough uniformity that a ToE might be possible.
This immediately eliminates multiverses or the
space in between universes. Are they all
related? Until shown otherwise, yes. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr">I like the idea of photonic cavitation
that limits the velocity to c. While not
implemented yet on ships, fluid supercavitation
permits higher velocities in water than a hard
surface bow. Spacetime cavitation may be the
solution to faster than light travel. Using phat
photons or a phat photon laser, spacetime
supercavitation may be possible although I would
expect that locally, one would have to exceed
the Schwinger limit or at least use some sort of
broadband parametric amplification. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><span>></span>A single experiment
that is unexplained falsifies a proposed photon
model.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr">That statement needs some
qualification. Popper falsification is limited
in application as the method only applies to
unbounded domains in physics, an attempt
essentially to reasonably reduce a Monte Carlo
analysis of infinite proportions. The general
approach for falsification is to look to the
least likely to be confirmed. While useful at
times, beyond physics there are
difficulties...for example, in biological
science, evolution cannot be Popper Falsified. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr">The general assumption is that one can
measure what they are experimentally looking for
with precision and accuracy. The assumption is
they known what they are looking for and at the
same time, there are no emergent properties or
hidden variables affecting the analysis. So the
Uncertainty Principle defines in part the limits
imposed by the tools we have. Since physics is
still on the hunt for a ToE, a single experiment
may not be enough especially when one only
understands 5% of the universe.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr">Best</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr">David</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886"
dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13703"
style="border-left-width: 2px;
border-left-style: solid; border-left-color:
rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top:
5px; padding-left: 5px; ">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13702"
style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica
Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande',
sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13701"
style="font-family: HelveticaNeue,
'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida
Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
<div dir="ltr"
id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13885">
<hr id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_15234"
size="1"><font
id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13884"
size="2" face="Arial"><b><span
style="font-weight: bold; ">From:</span></b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Hodge
John <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">To:</span></b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Sent:</span></b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday,
November 6, 2015 10:30 AM<br>
<b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_16503"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_16502" style="font-weight: bold; ">Subject:</span></b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[General]
What a model of photons must do<br>
</font></div>
<div class="y_msg_container"
id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13700"><br>
<div id="yiv9200667423">
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13744">
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13743"
style="background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); font-family:
HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue',
Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande',
sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6906"
class="yiv9200667423">Richard,Albrecht</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6906"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6903"
class="yiv9200667423">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="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6903"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6904"
class="yiv9200667423">I like to
think from observations to model
other observations.</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6904"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6910"
class="yiv9200667423">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.</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6910"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6912"
class="yiv9200667423">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<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6914">c</i><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>or
less. Thomas van Flandern has
championed the idea the speed of
gravitational waves is much
(billions of times) faster than<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6916">c</i>.
If only matter is limited to<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_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.</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6920"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6920"
class="yiv9200667423">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. 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.</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922"
class="yiv9200667423">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. 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. </div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922"
class="yiv9200667423">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.</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6924"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6924"
class="yiv9200667423">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="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6926"
style="font-family: Symbol; ">y</span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>but
also a<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6930"
style="font-family: Symbol; ">y</span>*.
The conjugate could be a wave
directed toward the photon. Here
we have analogy - reflected wave
in the unity argument and<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6934"
style="font-family: Symbol; ">y</span>*
in quantum mechanics like the<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6938"
style="font-family: Symbol; ">y</span>*
of the Transaction Interpretation.
Other models have to assume the
intensity is<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6942"
style="font-family: Symbol; ">y</span>*<span
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6946"
style="font-family: Symbol; ">y</span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>-
more weirdness.</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6950"
class="yiv9200667423">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="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6952"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6952"
class="yiv9200667423">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="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6954">E=mc</i>^2
relation has<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6956">m</i><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>as
inertial energy.</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6958"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6958"
class="yiv9200667423">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="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_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<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i
class="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6962">c</i>.</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6964"
class="yiv9200667423"><br>
</div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6964"
class="yiv9200667423">What makes
the energy levels of photons not
only different but also discrete
(a characteristic of matter not a
continuous medium)? 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="yiv9200667423"
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6966"> </span></div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6968"
class="yiv9200667423"> </div>
<div
id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6970"
class="yiv9200667423">Now think of
single model that meets all these
issues. A single experiment that
is unexplained falsifies a
proposed photon model.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a></a><br>
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a></a><br>
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>