<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Al<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The definitions of “hypothetical” are various. The least strict of which is simply, “assumed by hypothesis”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The more general (and strict) definition is “conjectural; not well supported by available evidence”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>So if you intended the more general definition in the context below then I strongly object and disagree.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The T-Rex is also “hypothetical” in the sense that we have never actually seen one. But the evidence of its existence is convincing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>After all, when we get right down to the specifics, almost all of what we think we know is “hypothetical” in some sense.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>But for me that does not mean the photon does not exist. Too much evidence suggests it does, and that it has a specific set of properties.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The meteor crater in Arizona was “hypothetically” caused by a meteor. We did not see the meteor strike, but we have the evidence, the largest of which is the hole it left.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I understand your comments and I think I understand the motivation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Cause and effect are strong indicators, even of things we can never see.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>af.kracklauer@web.de<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 02, 2017 5:59 PM<br><b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br><b>Cc:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Photon Structure<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Challenge for those seeking to fathom the structure of "photons": How will a candidate theory of the photon structure ever be verified? This is a problem insofar as the best that can be done is to consider the result of measurement, which will then be an intrinsic part of the result. It is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to observe what went on behind the measurement----thus it can never be known! Therefore, photons are hypothetical entities built on the result of interacting by means of E&M (something) using "photo electrons", which are countably discrete giving the impression that, whatever made them flow was also discrete---an unjustified jump in logic! <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space' name=quote><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> Donnerstag, 02. Februar 2017 um 20:33 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "John Macken" <<a href="mailto:john@macken.com">john@macken.com</a>><br><b>An:</b> "'ANDREW WORSLEY'" <<a href="mailto:member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk">member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk</a>>, "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Photon Structure<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div name=quoted-content><div><div><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333399'>Andrew, Richard, Chip and John D.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333399'> </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333399'>The discussion has turned to whether photons possess discrete packages of energy or are quantized waves with no concentration of energy in a small volume. My position is: <b>Photons are quantized waves propagating in the quantum mechanical vacuum energy of spacetime</b>. </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#20188C'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#20188C'>This is too big a subject to be covered in one post, so I will lay out the background information in this post, then build on this in other posts. To explain my position I will first quote from my paper titled <i>Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether</i>. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:16.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'>“Photons are usually described as possessing “wave-particle duality”. However, this phrase is just a name given to something that we do not understand. The essence of a wave is that it is an oscillating disturbance with a definable wavelength and distributed over a substantial volume. A wave transfers liner momentum and some waves are capable of transferring angular momentum. Any wave disturbs the medium through which it is propagating such that energy is being converted between different forms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'>The essence of a particle is that it is a single unit that differs from its surroundings. A fundamental particle is usually assumed to be energy concentrated at a point with no internal structure. A point particle or even a Planck length vibrating string is incapable of possessing <i>ħ</i> of angular momentum as a conceptually understandable physical rotation. The implied infinite energy density of a point particle also defies a physical explanation. Saying a photon has “wave-particle duality” is like saying that it has “top-bottom duality”. These are contradictory properties which cannot be equal partners. A photon must either be a particle that somehow exhibits wave properties or a wave that is somehow quantized so that it exhibits particle properties.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'><span style='color:#20188C'>Skipping forward in this paper, the question of quantization is addressed. This is an important concept because a wave can appear to have particle-like properties if the wave is quantized. The following is a section titled “Strong Quantization” from the paper<i> Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether</i>.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.5pt;color:#C00000;background:white'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'>“It is often said that photons possess quantized energy of <i>E</i> = <i>ħω</i>. However, we will examine the limits of this quantization. Suppose that we make an analogy to the equivalence principle having a “strong” and a “weak” definition. Similarly, the proposal is made that there is a “strong” and “weak” definition of quantization. A strong definition of quantization would imply that only integer multiples of the fundamental unit are allowed. For example, if energy met the strong definition of quantization, then energy would only came in discrete units such as integer multiples of 1 eV. Photons would only come in discrete frequencies which would be integer multiples of the universal fundamental frequency associated with the universal unit of quantized energy. Obviously energy and frequency are not quantized according to the “strong” definition. Instead, a photon’s energy is only weakly quantized. All of a photon’s energy is transferred when it is absorbed, but a photon can possess any energy up to Planck energy. The same photon has different energy when viewed from different frames of reference.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'>Compare this to angular momentum which meets the definition of strong quantization. Angular momentum only comes in discrete units. All angular momentum in the universe only comes in integer multiples of ½ ħ. This is obvious with fermions and bosons, but a more revealing example can be made using a carbon monoxide molecule (CO) isolated in a vacuum. An isolated CO molecule can only possess integer multiples of <i>ħ</i> angular momentum. This translates into the CO molecule only being able to rotate at discrete frequencies which are integer multiples of its fundamental rotational frequency of 115 GHz. This meets the definition of strong quantization. For another example, take a photon that is part of the cosmic microwave background. Over the age of the universe this photon has lost most of its energy. However, the photon has kept 100% of its angular momentum. Angular momentum has strong quantization; energy has weak quantization.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'>It is proposed that all quantization in the universe is ultimately traceable to angular momentum being strongly quantized. When a photon is absorbed by an atom, it transfers 100% of its angular momentum to the atom. All the photon’s energy is also transferred to the atom, but that is just a byproduct of transferring its <i>ħ</i> unit of quantized angular momentum. The amount of energy transferred from the photon to the atom depends on the frame of reference of the atom. However, the angular momentum transferred is independent of the frame of reference.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'><span style='color:#20188C'>In future posts I will develop this idea and show that the particle-like properties of a photon can be explained by a wave that possesses quantized angular momentum. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'><span style='color:#20188C'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'><span style='color:#20188C'>John M. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">Click here to unsubscribe </a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>