<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><head><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml><o:OfficeDocumentSettings><o:AllowPNG/><o:PixelsPerInch>96</o:PixelsPerInch></o:OfficeDocumentSettings></xml><![endif]--></head><body><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_ym19_1_1487356147839_10080"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10137">Andrew and Chip </span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10080"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10080"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10235">For charge, you may want to look at the Weyl fermions aka massless charge traveling at the speed of light. </span></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10236"><br></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10236"><br></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10236" dir="ltr"><a href="https://phys.org/news/2015-12-weyl-fermion-discovery-ten-breakthrough.html" class="enhancr2_b44dcbf6-32ce-2dc7-2f40-eb27e10ab9c2" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10431">Weyl fermion discovery named Top Ten Breakthrough of 2015 by Physics World</a></div><div><br></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10236" dir="ltr"><br>Best </div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10236"><br></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10236">David</div><div class="yahoo_quoted" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10425" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10424"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10423"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10422"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10421"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> ANDREW WORSLEY <member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Chip Akins <chipakins@gmail.com>; 'ANDREW WORSLEY' <member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, February 17, 2017 7:54 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [General] On photon momentum<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1487356147839_10480"><br>Hi Chip, <br><br>Thanks for your answer - could it be possible that it is as high as c^2.<br><br>Andrew<br><br><br>========================================<br>Message Received: Feb 17 2017, 01:57 PM<br>From: "Chip Akins" <br>To: "'ANDREW WORSLEY'" , "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <br><br>Cc: <br>Subject: RE: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi Andrew<br><br>By the way. My current calculations put the speed of charge at 14560 times the speed of light, but still working on it. Lots of stuff to sort through.<br><br>Chip<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=<a ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br>Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 6:28 AM<br>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi Chip,<br><br>I like your approach<br><br>Question how much faster than c did the elctron charge propagate?<br><br><br>Andrew<br><br><br>========================================<br>Message Received: Feb 14 2017, 06:06 PM<br>From: "Chip Akins" <br>To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <br>Cc: <br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John D<br><br><br><br>Yes. Size is not really the issue. It is the transverse displacement distance which is of significance. How far does the transverse wave displace space? That <br>distance (size) is the “radius” or “sinusoidal displacement extent” of the transverse wave. A transverse sinusoidal wave has a specific wavelength, and since it <br>has that specific wavelength and the function is sinusoidal, there is a displacement extent which must be the wavelength divided by 2 pi. That is what the sine <br>function is, and that is how transverse waves work. This holds for transverse waves in any media.<br><br><br><br>However the similarities between space and physical media cease at a point. We know this because no physical media reacts to transverse waves the same <br>way space does.<br><br><br><br>Of course there are different types of seismic waves, longitudinal, and transverse. But we are fairly certain that matter is made of transverse displacement <br>which <br>circulates, and light is made of transverse displacements which propagate linearly. <br><br><br><br>We know (or strongly suspect) that matter is made of confined energy. E=mc^2 This energy is apparently confined in 3D and moving at the speed of light. <br>Therefore it also seems reasonable to explore the confinement of energy in 2 dimensions (which would move forward at c). This seems to be what light is. <br>There is <br>an implied requirement for this sort of confinement from Planck’s rule E=hf. While it is possible that light is not quantized, and it is just the reaction of light with <br>matter which makes light appear quantized, it is also entirely possible that light itself is quantized in a manner which complies with the 2 dimensional <br>confinement of <br>energy. Then the difference between a spin 1 photon and a spin ½ electron simply lies in the dimensions of confinement.<br><br><br><br>In order to sort out why the rest mass of the electron is the specific value it is in nature we will need to explore all the possibilities and implications, with some <br>detail.<br><br><br><br>The fields of a wave extend far beyond the active confined region. If we use the example of the electron we can understand that electric charge is the <br>longitudinal <br>differential displacement of space with an origin at the center of the electron. Likewise with the “photon”. The longitudinal displacement of space, surrounding <br>the <br>photon, and perpendicular to its direction of travel takes the form of a “charge wave” which travels with the photon. The “charge” oscillates as the photon <br>waves. <br>But in the electron this form of external differential displacement (charge) is localized, permanent, and in only one direction outward from the center of the <br>electron.<br><br><br><br>So photons and electrons are non-local by their nature, simply because the fields they create go off to infinity.<br><br><br><br>But these fields do not propagate from the particles at c.<br><br><br><br>The “velocity” of charge (and of gravity) are likely very much faster than light, and they are likely both caused by this permanent differential displacement of <br>space, <br>propagating longitudinally from particles.<br><br><br><br>When the Italians performed the experiment to measure the velocity of charge propagation, the results we quite remarkable, and so much faster than light that <br>the <br>velocity seemed almost infinite. <br><br>While the conventional wisdom has argued that relativistically moving bodies have a different (relativistic) shape to their fields, which they claim explains the <br>direction of force pointing toward the actual instead of retarded position of a particle, this argument no longer holds up when direction is not the metric. When <br>we <br>measure the velocity of charge it becomes apparent that this relativistic treatment of fields is simply a work around to try to keep SR intact. It becomes <br>apparent <br>that charge actually moves much faster than light, just as we would expect a longitudinal displacement to propagate faster than a transverse one. <br><br><br><br>I have most of the math which illustrates that this is what charge is, but will have to collect it from spreadsheets and MATLAB, and compile it into a single <br>document to share. <br><br>Gravity is caused by the same differential displacement of space which causes charge. Waves diffract when they encounter this differential displacement for <br>the <br>same reasons that particles react to this differential displacement.<br><br>I am working on the math to prove this. So far it is quite compelling.<br><br><br><br>Chip<br><br><br><br><br><br>From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=<a ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:28 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>That sounds pretty good Chip. But I’d say take care with things like “size” and try to think of the photon as something like a seismic wave in space. <br><br><br><br>A seismic wave in the Earth might displace the ground by 1m, but 10 km away from the epicentre you can still feel the ground shake. If that seismic wave <br>propagates for 100 km from point A to B along a flat plain, it isn’t just the houses sitting on top of the AB line that shake. In this respect the seismic wave takes <br>many paths.<br><br><br><br>I have to go, talk more tomorrow. <br><br><br><br>Regards<br><br>JohnD<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+johnduffield=<a ymailto="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 13 February 2017 17:52<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Hi John D<br><br><br><br>Been thinking about the constant amplitude of photons which would cause E=hf.<br><br><br><br>If we explore the possibility that energy is the differential displacement of myriad tiny nodes of space, which creates a set of parallel dipoles…<br><br><br><br>We can then view total displacement of these tiny dipoles as the amplitude of the wave.<br><br><br><br>A photon, as we have modeled it, has a wavelength:<br><br><br><br>The photon’s frequency is:<br><br><br><br>And a radius (or sinusoidal extent) of:<br><br><br><br>If we consider the differential displacement of space as occurring in a myriad tiny nodes of space, then the number of nodes involved increases with energy. <br>As <br>the number of adjacent nodes displaced increases, the opposing force of space (the force opposing displacement) increases based on the density of displaced <br>nodes in that region of space. So the confining force limits total displacement. The sum of the displacement of all nodes active in a wave in space therefore <br>becomes invariant for photons. The displacement density varies with energy, as does the number of nodes, but the total displacement (sum of the <br>displacement of <br>all tiny nodes involved) remains constant.<br><br>In this way space imposes a size on the photon which varies with the inverse of energy. <br><br>Therefore we have E=hf. <br><br>The total displacement Ƹ of any localized energy propagating in space, meaning the distance representing the sum of displacement of all affected individual <br>nodes, <br>is therefore:<br><br><br><br>Or if only analyzing half the differential displacement of the wave:<br><br><br><br><br><br>This would then be the amplitude of the wave, and this value is invariant with energy.<br><br>This approach implies that the displacement energy itself is much more localized than the photon it causes. Theorizing that the energy of a photon exists in a <br>transverse plane perpendicular to the direction of travel. The transverse extent of this active (circulating or undulating) energy distribution (displacement <br>distribution) is: <br><br><br><br><br><br>(Space would then be a very special type of medium. One where Hooke’s Law does not work as it does for material media. It would seem then that a “Hooke’s <br>Law” for space would be sort of an inverse function.)<br><br><br><br>There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting this scenario. Albrecht and I have been discussing the concept that Planck Charge is responsible for confinement. <br>Plank charge is quantized in precisely the manner which this scenario suggests. Using the force of Planck Charge as the force which opposes displacement <br>we <br>can show that:<br><br><br><br>Interestingly this confinement would be exactly what is required for the frequency to vary in the manner E=hf, f=E/h. This solution yields a sinusoidal function <br>which coincides with Compton’s wavelength.<br><br><br><br>Wonder if this can be how it works?<br><br><br><br>Chip<br><br><br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+chipakins=<a ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:49 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>John:<br><br><br><br>That sounds interesting. I have to go shortly, but for now:<br><br><br><br>There does seem to be some kind of limit to what you can do when you make space wave. I found this interesting when I first saw it some years ago:<br><br><br><br><a href="http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html" target="_blank">http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html </a><br><br><br><br>It’s the quantization of electromagnetic change, not charge. Space waves, but only so much. <br><br><br><br>Regards<br><br>John D<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+johnduffield=<a ymailto="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Macken<br>Sent: 31 January 2017 21:27<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Chip, John D, Chandra – Interaction of Waves<br><br><br><br>I take the position that all waves propagating in a finite medium interact. The easiest to prove example of this is with sound waves propagating in a gas. When <br>sound waves propagate in a gas, the compression part of a sound wave causes an increase in temperature and the expansion part of the sound wave <br>produces a <br>decrease in temperature. Since the speed of sound is temperature dependent, this means that a sound wave produces a modulation of the speed of sound in <br>the <br>propagating medium. Another frequency sound wave propagation in the same volume of gas and the same direction will encounter this modulation in the <br>speed of <br>sound and produce a second order effect which is new sound waves at the sum and difference frequency. I recall that there is experimental proof of the <br>interaction <br>of sound waves, but I have not attempted to find a reference.<br><br><br><br>Water waves have also been mentioned as examples of the non-interaction of waves. If the depth of the water is infinite and the speed of sound in water is <br>vastly <br>larger than the speed of the water wave, then there appears to be no interaction between water waves. However, imagine an experiment where the water in in <br>a <br>shallow flat bottom pond. If the amplitude of the wave is on the order of half the depth of the pond, then nonlinearities become noticeable and there would be <br>detectable interaction between waves. In the limit, there is a definable maximum amplitude of the water wave. This occurs when the wave minimum equals the <br>depth of the pond. Similarly, when the sound wave produces a vacuum at its minimum, this is the limiting condition. <br><br><br><br>Another clear example with a great deal of proof is the interaction of two beams of laser light interacting in a nonlinear medium. There is the optical Kerr effect <br>which changes the index of refraction of the propagation medium. All transparent mediums including glass and even air exhibit the optical Kerr effect. Here is a <br>quote from Wikipedia.<br><br><br><br>"The optical Kerr effect, or AC Kerr effect is the case in which the electric field is due to the light itself. This causes a variation in index of refraction which is <br>proportional to the local irradiance of the light. [3] This refractive <br>index variation is responsible for the nonlinear optical effects of self-<br>focusing, self-phase modulation and modulational <br>instability, and is the basis for Kerr-lens modelocking. This effect only becomes significant with very intense <br>beams such as those from lasers."<br><br><br><br>There is a long list of nonlinear effects using laser beams in nonlinear crystals including sum frequency generation, difference frequency generation and <br>second <br>harmonic generation. These examples of nonlinear effects in a transparent optical material illustrate an important point. The optical medium has a finite ability <br>to <br>transmit light. The optical material is made of atoms which are bonded together by finite electrostatic forces. When the intensity of one or more laser beams <br>reaches a level that the electrostatic bonding force is noticeably approached, then we detect a nonlinear optical effect. However, even at undetectable levels <br>the <br>nonlinearity is still present because of the finite properties of the transparent medium set a boundary condition. For example, even sunlight passing through a <br>glass <br>window produces a slight change in the index of refraction of the window. <br><br><br><br>These examples set the stage for the big question: Does the vacuum of spacetime have a limiting boundary condition which produces nonlinear effects on light <br>as <br>this limit is approached? We know that Planck force (c4/G = 1.2 x 1044 N) is a maximum possible force. I once referenced a paper which showed that all of <br>general relativity could be derived by assuming this boundary condition. The speed of light is another boundary condition. In fact, Planck length, Planck <br>frequency, <br>Planck energy etc. are also boundary conditions when properly applied. Therefore, I am setting the stage to make the claim that light waves interact when the <br>intensity reaches the level that the boundary conditions (nonlinear conditions) of spacetime become detectable. <br><br>Chandra has written extensively on the non-interaction of waves. This is a very useful concept to understand optical effects at ordinary intensities. I have not <br>said <br>anything challenging this before because he is correct for all experiments which can currently be conducted with available technology. However, I maintain that <br>he <br>is not correct at the extreme limits of high intensity light which produce nonlinear effects in the vacuum. This statement is analogous to saying that Newton's <br>gravitational equation is very useful for calculating ordinary gravitational interactions. However, there is a nonlinearity as the limiting properties of spacetime <br>are <br>approached. General relativity is required when the nonlinear effects become important. <br><br><br><br>To prove these points, it is necessary to have a model of an electrically charged particle, electric field and a photon. I have developed a model of these, but I <br>want <br>to tell a story about an experience I had during this process. I asked the question: What is the smallest volume that I can physically confine a photon? A <br>circularly <br>polarized photon can be confined in a cylindrical waveguide that is slightly more than ½ wavelength in diameter with flat reflecting end separated by ½ <br>wavelength. <br>I define this as “maximum confinement”. There are several more steps but I concluded that a single photon would produce a Planck length polarized distortion <br>of <br>spacetime that modulates the transverse distance across the waveguide diameter by plus and minus Planck length (designated Lp) at the frequency of the <br>photon. <br>Multiple coherent photons, designated as “n” photons, would increase this modulation by the square root of n (by). Then I was struck by a serious doubt <br>because if <br>this model of a photon was correct, it was predicting that there was a maximum number of photons which could be put into this maximum confinement <br>waveguide. <br>The limiting condition was when the modulating distance equaled ½ wavelength which is the diameter of the waveguide. This would be 100% modulation of the <br>properties of spacetime at the frequency of the photon. A different frequency would achieve this limit at a different intensity, but in all cased the model was <br>predicting a limit. This seemed impossible, but I quickly calculated the condition that would produce this limit. To my surprise, it exactly equaled the energy <br>density <br>of photons that would produce a black hole with the diameter of the waveguide. What I thought would be a proof that I was wrong turned out to be a proof <br>supporting the model. An experiment with the intensity required to achieve a detectable modulation of distance is beyond our current technology, but it is not <br>necessary to do an experiment. A simple calculation proves that the predicted limiting condition forma a black hole. If it was possible to arbitrarily increase the <br>power of a focused laser beam, then there would be a limit where the modulation of spacetime at the focus reached the predicted 100% modulation condition. <br>No <br>more light would be transmitted through this volume because a black hole would form. No further transmission would be possible. <br><br><br><br>The same model that achieved this success predicts that at a very high intensity approaching the formation of a black hole, the nonlinear properties of <br>spacetime <br>become obvious and there would be detectable “interaction of waves”.<br><br><br><br>All of this is documented in technical papers and my book. For further reading I suggest first reading the paper I posted on January 21 titled “Gravitational <br>waves <br>indicate vacuum energy exists”. This paper has recently been submitted to a technical journal. It sets the stage defining the properties of spacetime. The paper <br>titled “Spacetime based foundation of quantum mechanics and general relativity” gives the quantifiable model of particles and photons. It also describes in <br>more <br>detail the photon thought experiment just described. Pages 13 to 16 of this paper describe the quantifiable model of electrical charge, photons and the <br>maximum <br>confinement thought experiment. This paper is available at: <br><br><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264311427_Spacetime_Based_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics_and_General_Relativity" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264311427_Spacetime_Based_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics_and_General_Relativity</a><br><br><br><br>John Macken <br><br><br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+john=<a ymailto="mailto:macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:35 AM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Hi John D<br><br><br><br>Thank you. Now I understand what you are saying, and the mechanics behind it. In your example, as the large ocean waves crest, the density is greater in the <br>water, and less in the valleys, net zero, but still it causes temporary changes in direction of the small intersecting waves because any change in density causes <br>the <br>small wave to change directions (standard refraction).<br><br><br><br>I can model (simulate) this effect. I will do that to see what the conditions would have to be to get a closed circular wave.<br><br><br><br>Chip<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+chipakins=<a ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:21 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Chip:<br><br><br><br>Yes, you’re missing the simplicity of it. I didn’t actually say light refracts light. I said it causes a path change. This does occur in water. Think of an oceanic <br>swell <br>wave. I gazed at them a few years back when I was on a cruise. An oceanic swell wave is maybe 200m wide with a wavelength of maybe 100m, and maybe <br>3m <br>high. Now imagine an ordinary little 1m wave intersecting it. The little wave goes up and over the big wave. Whilst it does so it changes path. Its path started <br>straight and ended up straight, but whilst the little wave was going over the big wave, its path was curved. If this didn’t happen, and if waves just went straight <br>through one another, you wouldn’t get “monster” waves. You can imagine a similar scenario with seismic waves and sound wave. If the ground is displaced to <br>the <br>North by 1 metre, this alters the path of a sound wave through the ground. <br><br><br><br>Regards<br><br>JohnD <br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+johnduffield=<a ymailto="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 31 January 2017 13:15<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Hi John D<br><br><br><br>You are saying that light refracts light. Is there any experimental evidence?<br><br><br><br>I have not found any evidence that waves of any sort behave in this manner, including water waves.<br><br><br><br>Do you have any supporting information?<br><br><br><br>The refraction of water waves in the ocean, as I understand it, is generally due to the depth of the water changing near the shore, or due to an object, not due <br>to <br>other waves.<br><br><br><br>When we use a ripple tank, we see interference, but not a change in direction of the waves when they interact.<br><br><br><br>Am I missing something here?<br><br><br><br>Chip<br><br><br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+chipakins=<a ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 1:43 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Chip:<br><br><br><br>When an ocean wave moves over another ocean wave, the curvature of the “up and over” path depends on the amplitude and wavelength of the other wave. If <br>however all ocean waves were 1m high, the curvature of the path waves would depend only on the wavelength. Given what I said about h, when an <br>electromagnetic wave moves through itself, the curvature of its path depends on the wavelength. So for the Dirac spinor, there’s only one wavelength where <br>that <br>curved path is a closed path: <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Regards<br><br>John D<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+johnduffield=<a ymailto="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 30 January 2017 14:31<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Hi John D<br><br><br><br>The amplitude of the wave not being the size of the wave makes sense in this context.<br><br><br><br>But if the electron’s mass is somehow dependent on the amplitude always being the same, then how does that relate to…<br><br>If you’re going to “wrap up” a wave into a spin ½ spinor to make a stable standing-wave standing-field particle, only one wavelength will do. <br><br><br><br>Wavelength is size. <br><br><br><br>So how do we equate amplitude and wavelength to make this electron with the size and mass it has in nature?<br><br>How do we show that only one wavelength will work?<br><br><br><br>Chip<br><br><br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+chipakins=<a ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:16 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Chip:<br><br><br><br>My thoughts? The amplitude of a wave isn’t the size of the wave.<br><br><br><br>Think of a seismic wave with an amplitude of 1 metre. It moves from West to East. As it does, your house shakes 1 metre to the North, then 1 metre to the <br>South. <br>At the same time a house 10km North shakes 10cm to the North, then 10cm to the South. A house 100 km North shakes 1cm to the North then 1cm to the <br>South. <br>Et cetera. <br><br><br><br>Regards<br><br>JohnD<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+johnduffield=<a ymailto="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 29 January 2017 22:58<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Hi John D<br><br><br><br>Yes Planck’s constant applies to all wavelengths. However experimental evidence and experience tell us that the transverse physical size of a wave gets <br>smaller <br>as the longitudinal wavelength gets smaller with energy. <br><br><br><br>An opening which will allow a high frequency wave to pass through, will also completely block a significantly lower wavelength from passing.<br><br><br><br>So it seems that all wavelengths do not have the same physical transverse extents.<br><br>(My thoughts are that the wave extents are the wavelength / 2 pi. This seems to match the evidence and works well in the RF spectrum for system design <br>considerations. Openings in Faraday shielding, unshielded trace lengths etc. need to be kept within a prescribed limit (fraction of a wavelength) based on the <br>expected interfering frequency and the attenuation required.)<br><br><br><br>Your thoughts?<br><br><br><br>Chip<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+chipakins=<a ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:37 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Chip:<br><br><br><br>Planck’s constant h is common to all photons regardless of wavelength. Look at those pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum. Irrespective of wavelength, <br>the <br>depicted amplitude is always the same. <br><br>If you’re going to “wrap up” a wave into a spin ½ spinor to make a stable standing-wave standing-field particle, only one wavelength will do. <br><br><br><br>As for which characteristic of space, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s something like an elastic limit. <br><br><br><br>Regards<br><br>JohnD<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+johnduffield=<a ymailto="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 29 January 2017 14:36<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Hi John D<br><br><br><br>I am not understanding your idea. Can you explain how you feel that h contributes to the specific rest mass of the electron and not some other mass value? To <br>which characteristic of space are you referring?<br><br><br><br>Chip<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+chipakins=<a ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:25 AM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>; 'Hodge <br>John' < <a ymailto="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Chip:<br><br><br><br>I think the electron has the mass that it has because h is what it is, because space has a particular characteristic: <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Some people liken it to a crystal. <br><br><br><br>Regards<br><br>JohnD<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+johnduffield=<a ymailto="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 29 January 2017 13:45<br>To: 'Hodge John' < <a ymailto="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a>>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <br><a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>Hi John Hodge<br><br><br><br>Thank you. I think you have made a good point here. For diffraction to work the way it does it seems the “photon” must have momentum.<br><br><br><br>Hi Chandra. <br><br><br><br>It seems to me that the simplest explanation of all we observe is to suspect that momentum is inherent in the motion of energy in space, and the cause for <br>inertia. <br>This approach allows us to derive E=mc^2 from the circulating energy in a particle. This would keep the particle stationary until it is acted on by an outside <br>force. It <br>would then also explain the property of inertia. It helps us to understand why light wants to travel a straight line unless deflected (diffracted).<br><br><br><br>Like John D I feel space waves as energy propagates. However unlike a water wave, which is a simple displacement of particles of mass, a wave in space is a <br>differential displacement of a transverse wave, with one part moving one way and the other part moving in the opposite direction. This differential displacement <br>is <br>what can give us part of the Chandra CTF type behavior of space. It yields things like electric charge naturally. It also causes things like the type of <br>confinement in <br>elementary fermions which Albrecht talks about.<br><br><br><br>But in all this discussion I think we, and physics in general, have missed something important. Space cannot be a linear medium. Our equations generally <br>describe space in “linear” relationships, like E=hf. But this ignores the resonant conditions which cause the specific masses of stable particles. It seems that <br>resonances must be included in our physics before we really understand why the electron at rest is the specific mass and energy level which it possesses. I <br>also <br>think that once we identify and quantify the non-linear resonances of space, and their causes, we will be able to see better how all the pieces fit.<br><br><br><br>Hi Andrew<br><br><br><br>I have been able to detect EM radiation which is slower than 1Hz, so I am having a bit of trouble accepting the integer approach to the solution of quantization <br>of <br>waves. But I understand your example and appreciate its simplicity, and the smallest value of n could be whatever nature has chosen.<br><br><br><br>Chip<br><br><br><br>From: General [ mailto:general-<br>bounces+chipakins=<a ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Hodge John<br>Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:10 PM<br>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <a ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br><br><br>I do. And it explains diffraction.<br><br>Hodge<br><br><br><br>On Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:12 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell < <a ymailto="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><br><br>Dear All,<br><br>[Notably Chandra & Chip],<br><br><br><br>I'm having a bit of a problem over this question of: 'How does a photon carry momentum'? (or similar words.)<br><br>It seems to me that in order to even beginning to address this question, one needs a clear definition of 'momentum' that's applicable to the momentum carried <br>by a <br>photon.<br><br>I may be looking in the wrong places (if so please advise), but the only definitions of momentum that I can find either refer to 'mass' or refer to some other <br>phenomenon which in turn refers to momentum - i.e. circular references.<br><br>If I'm going to figure, or be persuaded, how a photon carries momentum I first need to know what momentum IS in respect of a photon (yes, I know it's E/c, <br>that's a <br>measure it's not a definition).<br><br>Of course I'm aware of the paper "Light is heavy", but I don't feel it's appropriate just to extract from that some sort of mass-equivalence of a photon. If we do, <br>we <br>get the result that 'm'=E/c^2, so 'm'c = E/c - gives the right result, but appears to be some sort of convoluted self-confirmation (i.e. a circular argument dressed <br>up in <br>fancy clothes). It certainly doesn't DEFINE a photon's momentum, just evaluates it.<br><br><br><br>Does anyone have a convincing definition of momentum that's applicable to a photon? One that can be used as a firm basis for theorising?<br><br>(I'd be glad if colleagues didn't use this as an excuse to yet again present their own personal theory/model - I'm looking for a definition that would be agreed by <br>all, <br>or at least most, physicists.)<br><br><br><br>Thanks in anticipation,<br><br>Grahame<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <br><a ymailto="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a><br><br><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a><br><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a ymailto="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br><a href="<a 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> </div></div></body></html>