<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>regarding the mass of the electron and of particles in general: <br>
</p>
<p>Not only Hendrik Lorentz but also Helmut Hönl has undertaken to
determine the mass of the electron from its electric energy -
around the year 1940. His pole-dipole model also assumed an
internal oscillation at speed c. The result of his calculation was
a mass which was too small by a factor of about 300. So the
conclusion was that the mass and generally the behaviour of the
electron could only be understood by quantum mechanics.</p>
<p>But if one assumes that the internal forces of the electron are
not dominated by the electric force but by the strong force as my
model does, then a similar calculation yields a mass of the
electron which is correct with an accuracy of almost one to a
million (precisely 1 : 500'000). So this is the best result for
mass which is available today. <br>
</p>
<p>Just to mention again that this is a real solution.</p>
<p>For the type of a particle without mass as a general constituent
of an elementary particle I have given the name "Basic particle".
Maybe someone has a better name.<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 11.03.2017 um 16:53 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AF42CBCA-82D5-4672-82FC-15A358A3CC58@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">Hello Chip (and all),</div>
<div class=""> A proton and a neutron are different but both are
called a “nucleon" because they have so much in common (compose
an atomic nucleus, composed of 3 quarks, display strong force,
have spin 1/2 etc) even though they have differences (charged
versus uncharged, different mass, composed of a different
combination of 3 quarks etc). Maybe we need a term corresponding
to “nucleon" for photon-like or light-speed objects that obey
E=hf , p=h/lambda and c-f/lambda and have inertial mass E/c^2
even though they have different spin, charge, and rest mass.
Suggestions? Let’s not let semantics get in the way of physics.
The word “luxon” is already used by some (see <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.tardyon.de/mass.htm"
class="">http://www.tardyon.de/mass.htm</a>) for a light speed
particle having inertial mass but no rest mass. So “luxon” in
its current meaning cannot be applied to a circling spin-1/2
charged photon proposed to compose a resting electron since an
electron (and therefore the circling spin-1/2 charged photon
proposed to compose it) has rest mass. Alex referred to the
“mass without mass” problem. See Scientific American article by
Gordon Kane “The Mysteries of Mass” at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://particle-theory.physics.lsa.umich.edu/kane/MysteriesOfMass.pdf"
class="">http://particle-theory.physics.lsa.umich.edu/kane/MysteriesOfMass.pdf</a>
, “Mass without Mass II: The Medium is the Mass-age” by
nobelist Frank Wilczek” at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/MassII.pdf"
class="">http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/MassII.pdf</a><font
class="" face="Times"><span style="font-size: 11px;" class=""> </span></font>and
“Teaching E=mc^2: Mass without Mass” by Art Hobson at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/05.02.tpt.pdf"
class="">http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/05.02.tpt.pdf</a>
from which the following is excerpted:</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="section" style="background-color: rgb(100.000000%,
100.000000%, 100.000000%)">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p class=""><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt;
font-family: 'Frutiger'; font-weight: 800; color:
rgb(15.289000%, 14.510000%, 14.510000%)" class="">Mass
Without Mass</span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt;
font-family: 'AGaramondPro'; color: rgb(15.289000%,
14.510000%, 14.510000%)" class="">John Wheeler coined
the phrase “mass without
mass” to indicate the possibility of removing any
mention of mass from the fundamentals of physics.</span><span
style="font-size: 8.000000pt; font-family:
'AGaramondPro'; color: rgb(15.289000%, 14.510000%,
14.510000%); vertical-align: 4.000000pt" class=""> </span><span
style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family:
'AGaramondPro'; color: rgb(15.289000%, 14.510000%,
14.510000%)" class="">The
idea is to account for the fundamental particle masses
entirely in terms of fields. Early in the 20th
century,
Hendrik A. Lorentz</span><span style="font-size:
8.000000pt; font-family: 'AGaramondPro'; color:
rgb(15.289000%, 14.510000%, 14.510000%);
vertical-align: 4.000000pt" class=""> </span><span
style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family:
'AGaramondPro'; color: rgb(15.289000%, 14.510000%,
14.510000%)" class="">and others pursued the dream </span><font
class="" face="AGaramondPro" color="#272525"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">of explaining the
electron’s mass entirely in terms of
its electromagnetic field, but Lorentz’s classical
theory
was superseded by quantum physics. </span></font><font
class="" face="AGaramondPro" color="#272525"><span
style="font-style: italic; font-size: 11pt;"
class="">Today, we still
do not know what gives the electron its mass (</span><span
style="font-size: 15px;" class="">italics</span><span
style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> added-RG<i
class="">)</i></span></font><font class=""
face="AGaramondPro" color="#272525"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">, but we
have nearly achieved Lorentz’s dream in a more
dramatic context: The masses of protons and neutrons
(“nucleons”), which constitute nearly the entire
mass
of ordinary matter, appear to arise almost entirely
from the “color” fields of their constituent quarks.</span></font><span
style="font-size: 11px; font-family: Times;" class=""> </span></p>
<div class="">Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Mar 11, 2017, at 4:59 AM, Chip Akins <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
class="">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">Hi Andrew<br class="">
<br class="">
Yes. The electron's properties require the energy in the
electron behave differently than it would if it were a
confined photon. These differences, in spin, charge, and
energy density, among others, are pronounced. A photon as we
know it cannot exist in the volume of the electron.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Of course I can solve a PDE. But in order to do that I have
to understand the problem. So far I do not understand the
problem presented in the paper you sent. There is not enough
definition of terms in that paper for my level of
comprehension of the math. So I cannot understand how to
code the problem to reach a solution.<br class="">
Until we can find a way to help me understand the details of
the problem better I do not know a way to solve it.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
-----Original Message-----<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br class="">
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 4:18 AM<br class="">
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br
class="">
Subject: Re: [General] HA: HA: On photon momentum<br
class="">
<br class="">
Hi Chip, <br class="">
<br class="">
Indeed the photon is no longer a photon it is differently
configured.<br class="">
<br class="">
Also have you made any progress on the PDE problem. I think
you are entirely capable of solving this complex problem.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Andrew<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
========================================<br class="">
Message Received: Mar 10 2017, 12:53 PM<br class="">
From: "Chip Akins" <br class="">
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <br
class="">
Cc: <br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] HA: HA: On photon momentum<br
class="">
<br class="">
Hi Richard and Alex<br class="">
<br class="">
There is a problem inherent when viewing the energy in the
electron and considering it to be a captured photon with
spin of its own.<br class="">
<br class="">
The circularly confined spin of the photon would force the
electron to be a charge-less particle. The field direction
of the energy of a photon oscillates (or spins) <br
class="">
making the free photon have a net neutral charge. The photon
possesses an oscillating field.<br class="">
<br class="">
The field direction in the electron remains pointing inward.
The spin of the energy of the photon has changed to be the
spin of the electron. This energy is no <br class="">
longer a photon, but is now an electron with charge. The
static charge field of the electron is a result of the new
mode of spin.<br class="">
<br class="">
So I am of the opinion that there is no photon confined in
the electron. Simply the energy of a photon has been
converted to an electron. This completely <br class="">
different spin mode has changed the energy from being a
photon. This energy is no longer a photon but is now an
electron due to the completely different spin <br class="">
mode and the properties caused by that new spin mode.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Therefore trying to add the spin of a photon within the
electron spin may be a futile endeavor.<br class="">
<br class="">
Hoping this helps.<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
-----Original Message-----<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier<br class="">
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:49 PM<br class="">
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <br
class="">
Subject: Re: [General] HA: HA: On photon momentum<br
class="">
<br class="">
Hello Alex,<br class="">
<br class="">
This is very exciting news about your early efforts to
develop a helically circulating photon-like-object model of
a relativistic electron, and your using the <br class="">
relativistic energy-momentum equation applied to the total
momentum P of the helically-circulating photon-like object.
It’s not surprising that this approach faced <br class="">
difficulties for you then since it still does today. But
times have changed. I think the derivation of an electron's
inertial mass from the photon-model’s circulating <br
class="">
internal momentum may be helpful in gaining more acceptance
of this approach. It will also be helpful to understand more
about the possible nature of the <br class="">
circulating photon-like object itself, i.e. is it a spin-1/2
charged photon or something else.<br class="">
<br class="">
It would be good for us to figure out how the helical
trajectory's radius depends on the electron model’s speed ,
i.e. how R depends on gamma. The answer <br class="">
depends on whether the helically-circulating photon
continues to make exactly two helical turns per photon
wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) along the <br class="">
photon-like object's helical trajectory in a relativistic
electron, just as in a resting electron model the
photon-like object makes two circular loops for each Compton
<br class="">
wavelength h/mc (in which case R is found to decrease as
1/gamma^2 for the relativistic electron model) , or whether
there can be more and more wavelengths <br class="">
lambda = h/(gamma mc) along each complete helical turn as
the electron moves faster and faster (as in Grahame’s
electron model), in which case R can even <br class="">
remain constant as the electron’s gamma increases. I assume
in my work that the wavelength of the helically circulating
photon-like object is derived from the <br class="">
relativistic energy relation that sets the circulating
photon-like object’s energy E=hf equal the the relativistic
electron’s total energy E=gamma mc^2 . This gives hf <br
class="">
= gamma mc^2 (de Broglie used this energy relation for a
relativistic electron in deriving the de Broglie wavelength
for a relativistic electron). This equation leads <br
class="">
to hc/lambda = gamma mc^2 . When this equation is solved for
lambda we get lambda = h/(gamma mc) for the wavelength of
the helically-circulating photon-like <br class="">
object forming the relativistic electron model. The
relativistic de Broglie wavelength L-deBroglie = h/(gamma
mv) is easily derived from the helically-circulating <br
class="">
photon-like-object’s wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) in the
relativistic electron model. <br class="">
<br class="">
Richard<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:14 AM,
Burinskii A.Ya. wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
Dear Richard and all,<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Yes, as you asked ... the bag model has momentum Eo/c = mc
like other photon-like objects composing
double-loop-photon-like-object electron models with <br
class="">
</blockquote>
resting energy Eo and inertial mass Eo/c^2 ...<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
However, concerning "... Eo/c^2 = 0.511 MeV?..", it seems
nobody can get mass of electron theoretically. It is my
goal, but so far no!<br class="">
<br class="">
The electron bag model ...gains relativistic velocities,
where the linear momentum of an electron is p=gamma mv and
the electron's total energy is E=gamma <br class="">
</blockquote>
mc^2... and .. follows the relativistic energy-momentum
equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 . In fact I started from
just the same model and ... the helically <br class="">
circulating photon’s total momentum P ... with...
Pythagorean momentum equation.. in 1969, but after some
attempts to contact with famous Russian physicists <br
class="">
Ogievetsky and Ginzburg, I understood, that nobody of them
will speak with me on this level. However, as I remember,
the talk at the seminar by Ya. P. Terletsky <br class="">
was accepted positively. Very soon I applied E^2 = p^2 c^2 +
m^2 c^4 to cylindrical solutions of the Dirac equations, and
it was delivered at the<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
conference on particle physics in Uzhgorod 1971 and
published in proceedinds of this conference (Kiev,1971).<br
class="">
<br class="">
The circling photon was interpreted as object with ``mass
without mass'' or Wheeler's "geon".<br class="">
<br class="">
About the Kerr solution I first heard at the seminar by D.
Ivanenko and quickly understood that it is just the same
metrics, which can keep the photon in circular <br
class="">
</blockquote>
motion. This was first delivered in Yerevan (Armenia)
conference on gravity 1972, and than published in JETP 1974,
Microgeon with spin. This is the first official <br
class="">
paper which I quote up to now. Bag-like interpretation of
this model appeared about two years ago, and this is really
fruitful analogue, since bags are associated <br class="">
with Dirac equations and with string-like structures.<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
During this way, I found also the corresponding important
works by W. Israel (1968) and by Lopez (1984).<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
The question about the radius of the circular trajectory
of the photon-like object circling at the bag model's
outer rim as the bag model gains relativistic velocity <br
class="">
</blockquote>
is retained still open! There are still arguments in the
both versions of its change.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Concerning toroidal topology, it is changed to two-sheeted
(!!!) Kerr geometry, which is approximately toroidal near
the Kerr singular ring, but remained <br class="">
</blockquote>
essentially two sheeted, which allows to put smoothly second
loop along the ring. This second loop gets additional turn
of polarization, and its field brings the <br class="">
same charge as the first loop -- second half-period of the
photon does not compensate first one.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
I think, all that should be defined in the exact solution,
which I try to find now. In particular, some important
information can go from the exact Dirac equation on <br
class="">
</blockquote>
the Kerr-Newman background with bag-like cavity.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Another important information should follow from exact
solutions for accelerated Kerr geometry. Such solutions
were not found up to now. So, there are much <br class="">
</blockquote>
work and little time.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards,<br class="">
<br class="">
Alex<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
________________________________<br class="">
От: Richard Gauthier [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br
class="">
Отправлено: 9 марта 2017 г. 8:32<br class="">
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br
class="">
Тема: Re: [General] HA: On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hello Alex (and all),<br class="">
<br class="">
Thank you again for your reply to my questions about
electron models. I hope others will join in this
discussion.<br class="">
<br class="">
If I compare your gravity-based bag model (described in
your 2 mentioned articles) of the electron with other
electron models composed of a double-looping <br class="">
</blockquote>
circling light-like or photon-like object, I think that your
bag model is one of the best electron models so far that I
have seen. It has the main properties of a resting <br
class="">
electron, including the g=2 magnetic moment, as well as a
gravitational justification for its circulating internal
motion, and may be able to reconcile gravitational <br
class="">
theory and quantum theory.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
The bag model appears to be a model for a resting
electron, one that has zero electron speed. All
double-looping models of a resting electron are somewhat <br
class="">
</blockquote>
similar in their essential features — the double-looping
light-like or photon-like object has a light frequency given
by hf = mc^2 and a zitterbewegung circling <br class="">
frequency f-zitt given by h f-zitt = 2mc^2 , with the
associated Compton wavelength h/mc and a radius hbar/2mc for
the circling photon-like object . Is this also the <br
class="">
case for the circling light-like or photon-like object in
your bag model? Would you say that the circulating
light-like or photon-like object in the bag model has <br
class="">
momentum Eo/c = mc like other photon-like objects composing
double-loop-photon-like-object electron models with resting
energy Eo and inertial mass Eo/c^2 = <br class="">
0.511 MeV?<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
One way the various double-looping-photon-like-object
electron models differ is in what happens to the electron
model as the electron gains relativistic <br class="">
</blockquote>
velocities, where the linear momentum of an electron is
p=gamma mv and the electron's total energy is E=gamma mc^2.
Can you confirm that your relativistically <br class="">
moving bag model of the electron follows the relativistic
energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 for a
relativistic electron? I expect that it does.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
I showed for the relativistic electron model described in
my 2015 SPIE article “Electrons are spin 1/2 charged
photon’s generating the de Broglie wavelength" <br
class="">
</blockquote>
at <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.superluminalquantum.org/SPIE_article_Electrons_are_spin_one_half_charged_photons_generating_the_de_broglie_wavelength.pdf"
class="">www.superluminalquantum.org/SPIE_article_Electrons_are_spin_one_half_charged_photons_generating_the_de_broglie_wavelength.pdf</a>
that the relativistic energy-momentum <br class="">
equation for the relativistic electron model becomes P^2 =
p^2 + (mc)^2 where P is the helically circulating spin-1/2
charged photon’s total momentum P=gamma <br class="">
mc , p is the electron model’s relativistic linear momentum
p=gamma mv, which is the longitudinal component of the
helically circulating spin 1/2 charged photon’s <br
class="">
total momentum P , and mc is the transverse component of the
helically circulating photon’s total momentum P. Will this
Pythagorean momentum equation apply <br class="">
to your relativistically-moving bag model also?<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
What happens to the radius of the circular trajectory of
the photon-like object circling at the bag model's outer
rim as the bag model gains relativistic velocity? <br
class="">
</blockquote>
Does the circular trajectory of the photon-like object
become a helical trajectory? If so, does the helical
trajectory's radius R remain a constant R=hbar/2mc at all <br
class="">
electron velocities including highly relativistic velocities
as in Grahame’s electron model? Does the helical
trajectory's radius decrease as 1/gamma as in Vivian’s <br
class="">
electron model? Does the helical trajectory’s radius
decrease as R=1/gamma^2 as in my electron model as shown in
my article? Or does the photon-like object's <br class="">
trajectory do something else as in the Williamson and van
der Mark electron model in “Is the electron a photon with
toroidal topology?” at <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf"
class="">http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf</a>
?<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Do you associate a spin with the circling light-like or
photon-like object in your bag model? Is it spin 1 or spin
1/2 or some other spin?<br class="">
<br class="">
Finally, how does the electron’s charge originate in the
bag model?<br class="">
<br class="">
I’m asking these questions so that we all can get a better
qualitative and quantitative idea of how your relativistic
bag model of the electron compares with <br class="">
</blockquote>
other relativistic double-loop electron models? If you have
not considered some of these questions in detail yet, could
you still briefly answer those questions that <br class="">
you can now answer, and also say how you would predict or
expect the bag model to behave approximately at relativistic
velocities?<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Thanks very much Alex,<br class="">
all the best,<br class="">
Richard<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
On Mar 1, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Burinskii A.Ya. > wrote:<br
class="">
<br class="">
Hi Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Some of the questions you state now were discussed in
another my paper,<br class="">
<br class="">
arXiv:1410.2888 [pdf, ps, <br class="">
</blockquote>
other] Title: Kerr-Newman electron as spinning soliton.<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Also, origin of charge is clear for me, but was not
published, it is related with Mobius-like<br class="">
<br class="">
behavior of the photon polarization.<br class="">
<br class="">
You are right, there are still a lot of open questions.<br
class="">
<br class="">
The principal question which turned me to Kerr geometry
was: what keeps the photon at circular orbit?<br class="">
<br class="">
In my last paper arXiv:1701.01025 I show that the
widespread opinion that gravity is weak is an illusion.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Spin of particle is also gravitating, and its huge value
with respect to mass (about 22 orders in dimensionless
units} makes gravity strong enough to create <br class="">
</blockquote>
waveguide and keep photon in circular motion.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Therefore, the Kerr singular ring plays the role of a
waveguide, and here appear relations to string models.<br
class="">
<br class="">
In the same time, two-sheeted structure of Kerr geometry
gives rise to Dirac two-sheeted solutions.<br class="">
<br class="">
Therefore, I think that emergence of the Dirac equation is
also a central question for which I work now.<br class="">
<br class="">
There are evidences that gravity states strong
restrictions to Dirac solutions.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards,<br class="">
<br class="">
Alex<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
________________________________<br class="">
От: Richard Gauthier [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br
class="">
Отправлено: 2 марта 2017 г. 7:10<br class="">
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br
class="">
Тема: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hello Alex,<br class="">
Someone in a discussion group at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://academia.edu"
class="">academia.edu</a> about my new article mentioned
an article that footnoted your <br class="">
</blockquote>
2008 article “Gravitation and Cosmology” containing your
idea of a Kerr-style electron structure. You (and others)
are welcome to join this discussion at <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.academia.edu/s/b660a8076f/derivation-of-the-inertial-mass-m-e-o-c-2-of-an-electron-composed-of-a-circling-spin-charged-photon?source=link"
class="">https://www.academia.edu/s/b660a8076f/derivation-of-the-inertial-mass-m-e-o-c-2-of-an-electron-composed-of-a-circling-spin-charged-photon?source=link</a>
. The <br class="">
article referenced is “Derivation of fundamental constants
and SI units via black-hole electron and sqrt of Planck
momentum” by Malcolm J. MacLeod at <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf" class="">https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf</a>
.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Richard<br class="">
<br class="">
On Mar 1, 2017, at 4:49 PM, Richard Gauthier > wrote:<br
class="">
<br class="">
Hello Chip, John D, Alex, John W, Vivian, Grahame,
Chandra, John M, Andrew W, Andrew M, Albrecht, and all,<br
class="">
<br class="">
A circling photon-like object must have inertial mass
Eo/c^2 where Eo=0.511MeV, if it is modeling a resting
electron. Are we all in agreement on this? Still, <br
class="">
</blockquote>
some fundamental questions remain:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
1) What is the origin of the circling photon-like object’s
inertial mass?<br class="">
2) What is the nature of that circling photon-like object?<br
class="">
3) Does the circling photon-like object have spin 1 or
spin 1/2 or something else?<br class="">
4) Is it the circling photon-like object charged or
uncharged or something else?<br class="">
5) Where does the circling photon-like object’s electric
charge reside or what gives rise to the charge? — is the
charge localized or distributed or something <br class="">
</blockquote>
else?<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">6) Does the circling
photon-like object change its spin as viewed from
different reference frames (stationary versus moving
electron)?<br class="">
7) Are there spatial models for the circling photon-like
object?<br class="">
8) What is the radius of the photon-like object?<br
class="">
9) Do the various models distinguish between the
trajectory of the circling photon-like object and the
radius of the photon-like object?<br class="">
10) How does the trajectory of the photon-like object
change with particle speed? Is the trajectory a helix or
something else?<br class="">
11) How does the radius of the photon-like object moving
along its trajectory change with electron speed?<br
class="">
12) Is trajectory even meaningful for a circling
photon-like object?<br class="">
13) How does a photon-like object composing an electron
relate to electron-positron pair production and
annihilation?<br class="">
<br class="">
It would be great to get clear statements of our various
views on these and any unresolved related questions, and
hopefully make more progress towards <br class="">
</blockquote>
resolving some of these questions. You don’t need to have an
electron model to give your inputs about these questions.<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">I’ve put together an
article on the derivation of inertial mass for circling
photon-like particles: “Derivation of the inertial mass
m=Eo/c^2 for an electron <br class="">
</blockquote>
composed of a circling spin-1/2 charged photon", at <br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.superluminalquantum.org/Gauthier_Derivation_of_the_Inertial_Mass_28_Feb_2017.pdf"
class="">www.superluminalquantum.org/Gauthier_Derivation_of_the_Inertial_Mass_28_Feb_2017.pdf</a>
The pdf file is also <br class="">
attached below. The article emphasizes the inertial mass of
a resting electron, but refers to work on the relativistic
electron also.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">I would appreciate hearing
any comments or criticisms, as well suggested answers to
any of the above burning questions.<br class="">
Richard<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
On Feb 28, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Chip Akins > wrote:<br
class="">
<br class="">
Hi John D<br class="">
<br class="">
1. Regarding: “It lacks causative explanation”<br class="">
Where do we get causative explanation for Planck’s
constant?<br class="">
All I have done with this is break Planck’s constant into
two components, a displacement amplitude constant and a
spin or oscillation constant, both of which <br class="">
</blockquote>
are borne out by observation (the mass and energy of the
electron).<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
2. Regarding: “IMHO it’s best to keep it simple and try
not to invent anything new.”<br class="">
A differential displacement of space is by far the
simplest explanation for electric charge, gravity, and the
mass of the electron. I am afraid that if we don’t <br
class="">
</blockquote>
consider this we will be preventing ourselves from
understanding the most fundamental forces of nature.<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
3. Regarding: “Just divide the electron Compton wavelength
by 4π:” (for the radius of the electron).<br class="">
<br class="">
The Compton wavelength of the electron is:<br class="">
λ=cҠ§/E= Eo Uo/K= h c/E<br class="">
This constant (which is a component of Planck’s constant)
tells us why the electron is the size it is.<br class="">
It tells us the electron at rest can only be one size.<br
class="">
<br class="">
But my friend, I am afraid that a wave diffracting itself
is not the answer for fermion confinement. The math just
does not work. However an equal and opposite <br class="">
</blockquote>
force from space which opposes displacement does work
perfectly.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Duffield<br class="">
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:02 PM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br
class="">
<br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi Chip.<br class="">
<br class="">
I don’t like the rest mass formation constant I’m afraid.
It lacks causative explanation, and the mass-energy of an
electron varies with gravitational potential, <br
class="">
</blockquote>
because the properties of space vary in a gravitational
field. Where the “constant” called c varies too. Also, I
think it’s important to think about the electron at rest <br
class="">
to avoid getting bogged down with length-contraction issues.
This I like though:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
The formation of mass requires a different topology of
propagating energy than the topology of light. We know
this because of the spin characteristics of <br class="">
</blockquote>
fermions. The mass formation constant we have proposed would
be caused by properties of space, some of which we may not
have measured, or at least <br class="">
recognized.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
I think in terms of elastic properties, wherein
permittivity is “how easy it is to bend space” and
permeability is “how well space bounces back”. I like this
too:<br class="">
<br class="">
The equation E=hf does not address wave amplitude. The way
we measure amplitude in material media is by wave
displacement. If photons are real, if light is <br
class="">
</blockquote>
comprised of tiny indivisible packets, and each packet obeys
the rule E=hf, then the amplitude of each packet must be the
same<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
I know of no waves which don’t have an amplitude.<br
class="">
<br class="">
One way for us to think about this is as follows: A node
of space is a Planck scale entity which is comprised of
the two components of space. These two <br class="">
</blockquote>
components are normalized (at their lowest energy state)
when collocated, and are displaced from one another by
incident energy. Energy affects these nodes in <br class="">
a quantized manner, involving more or fewer nodes depending
on the amount of energy. Space opposes this differential
displacement with a force which is the <br class="">
product of the number of nodes affected, so that the total
displacement (the sum of the displacements) of all affected
nodes remains constant.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
IMHO it’s best to keep it simple and try not to invent
anything new.<br class="">
<br class="">
Physics has not previously clearly identified the
amplitude aspect of photons. We have focused on the
obvious energy and frequencyaspects. We have <br class="">
</blockquote>
recognized that photons have a sort of soft quantization in
that frequency is dependent on energy. However photons must
have a hard quantization as well, since <br class="">
amplitude must remain the same for all photons for the
equation E=hf to work as it does. That fixed amplitude plays
an important role.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
You bet. It’s the quantum of quantum mechanics.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Specifically, the electron has the rest mass it displays
in nature simply because energy moving in space has one
specific amplitude, but its frequency varies <br class="">
</blockquote>
with energy. This set of circumstances, including a fixed
amplitude, makes it so that there is only one rest energy
level where all aspects of nature support a three <br
class="">
dimensional confinement of that energy to become a charged
spin ½ ħ fermion.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
I don’t think it can be anything too complicated. Space
waves, when a 511 keV wave moves through itself it adopts
a double-loop configuration it ends up in a <br class="">
</blockquote>
closed path.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
So let’s distribute Planck’s quantization of action into
displacement amplitude (Ҡ) …. <br class="">
<br class="">
Just divide the electron Compton wavelength by 4π:<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards<br class="">
JohnD<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br class="">
Sent: 28 February 2017 13:40<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br
class="">
<br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John D.<br class="">
<br class="">
Here is a little bit for you.<br class="">
<br class="">
Let me know what you think.<br class="">
<br class="">
Mass Formation Constant <br class="">
One way we could get closer to understanding the rest mass
of the electron is to define an elementary rest mass
formation constant. Then find cause for that <br class="">
</blockquote>
constant.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
If we determine the mass formation constant Ҡ =
4.58576946280331E-06 we can state the following:<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Then restated for a relativistically moving electron:<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
The formation of mass requires a different topology of
propagating energy than the topology of light. We know
this because of the spin characteristics of <br class="">
</blockquote>
fermions. The mass formation constant we have proposed would
be caused by properties of space, some of which we may not
have measured, or at least <br class="">
recognized.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">We have called this
constant Ҡ a mass formation constant, which it is, but the
story goes farther than that. We know that the energy in a
wave determines its <br class="">
</blockquote>
frequency. But what of amplitude? The equation E=hf does not
address wave amplitude. The way we measure amplitude in
material media is by wave <br class="">
displacement. If photons are real, if light is comprised of
tiny indivisible packets, and each packet obeys the rule
E=hf, then the amplitude of each packet must be <br
class="">
the same, for it is only the frequency which changes with
energy. So what is this wave amplitude? Amplitude is the
total differential displacement of all nodes of <br
class="">
space affected by the wave.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">One way for us to think
about this is as follows: A node of space is a Planck
scale entity which is comprised of the two components of
space. These two <br class="">
</blockquote>
components are normalized (at their lowest energy state)
when collocated, and are displaced from one another by
incident energy. Energy affects these nodes in <br class="">
a quantized manner, involving more or fewer nodes depending
on the amount of energy. Space opposes this differential
displacement with a force which is the <br class="">
product of the number of nodes affected, so that the total
displacement (the sum of the displacements) of all affected
nodes remains constant.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Physics has not previously
clearly identified the amplitude aspect of photons. We
have focused on the obvious energy and frequencyaspects.
We have <br class="">
</blockquote>
recognized that photons have a sort of soft quantization in
that frequency is dependent on energy. However photons must
have a hard quantization as well, since <br class="">
amplitude must remain the same for all photons for the
equation E=hf to work as it does.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">That fixed amplitude plays
an important role. Specifically, the electron has the rest
mass it displays in nature simply because energy moving in
space has one <br class="">
</blockquote>
specific amplitude, but its frequency varies with energy.
This set of circumstances, including a fixed amplitude,
makes it so that there is only one rest energy level <br
class="">
where all aspects of nature support a three dimensional
confinement of that energy to become a charged spin ½ ħ
fermion.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">So let’s distribute
Planck’s quantization of action into displacement
amplitude (Ҡ) and an oscillation or spin component §.<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
So that now we have an equation for the photon:<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
So we can solve for frequency:<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Now our energy term is more complete because it contains
both amplitude (A) and frequency (f) terms as well as the
action quantization (§).<br class="">
<br class="">
And then we have a description of the electron as:<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Duffield<br class="">
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 2:30 PM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br
class="">
<br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip:<br class="">
<br class="">
How far does the transverse wave displace space? 3.86 x 10
-13 m . That’s why the double-loop electron has the mass
that it has. Distance r is λ/4π, so the <br class="">
</blockquote>
diameter is λ/2π.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
The sine function is what it is and transverse waves work
the way that they do, and so does gamma gamma pair
production. Your spin ½ electron and your <br class="">
</blockquote>
positron at rest have a wavelength of 2.426 x 10 -12 m. As
for how physical media reacts to transverse waves, don’t
forget that the photon has spin. There’s a <br class="">
rotation of sorts, we have experimental proof of the spin of
the photon. But the photon itself isn’t <br class="">
actually spinning. It has no magnetic dipole moment. As to
how best to draw it, I’m not sure. But I quite like this:<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
I too am fairly certain that light is made of transverse
displacements which propagate linearly, and that matter is
made of transverse displacement which <br class="">
</blockquote>
circulates. But I’m not certain whether there’s two
transverse displacements involved, or whether the
fundamental photon is the circularly polarized photon, and <br
class="">
two of these make up the plane-polarized photon. I do
however feel confident that displacement is behind the
confinement. In the double-loop configuration, light <br
class="">
displaces its own path into a closed path. It’s that simple.
See what Clifford said in his space theory of matter:<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
(1) That small portions of space are in fact of a nature
analogous to little hills on a surface which is on the
average flat; namely, that the ordinary laws of <br
class="">
</blockquote>
geometry are not valid in them.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
(2) That this property of being curved or distorted is
continually being passed on from one portion of space to
another after the manner of a wave.<br class="">
<br class="">
(3) That this variation of the curvature of space is what
really happens in that phenomenon which we call the motion
of matter, whether ponderable or etherial.<br class="">
<br class="">
(4) That in the physical world nothing else takes place
but this variation, subject (possibly) to the law of
continuity.<br class="">
<br class="">
Nothing else takes place. I’m also confident that light is
quantized in a manner that complies with energy, and that
the spin ½ electron is where this self-same <br class="">
</blockquote>
energy moves round and round. As for “confined”, I think
back to that seismic wave. It isn’t particularly confined.
Nor is the electron’s field. It has no outer edge. I <br
class="">
see it as a chiral 3D screw displacement of space not
totally unlike the “twist” of the gravitomagnetic field. I’d
say the crucial point is that when you consider your <br
class="">
sinusoidal field variation in terms of potential, you can
wrap it up into a spin ½ double loop. The minima and maxima
line up to yield an all-round standing field:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
↓<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Only now do you have the thing called charge. Hence there
is no “charge wave” travelling with the photon. Charge is
not fundamental. The photon is more <br class="">
</blockquote>
fundamental than the field it is said to mediate. Note that
you can make a left-hand Mobius and a right-handed Mobius.
If you mentally inflate the Mobius to a <br class="">
torus, then inflate it further to a spindle-sphere torus,
you can maybe get a sense of the chiral “screw” displacement
that is a negative or positive electromagnetic <br class="">
field, and why electrons and positrons move the way that
they do: because that all-round standing-wave standing field
is dynamical, and they don’t call ‘em <br class="">
spinors for nothing.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Do we all know about Hans Ohanian’s paper what is spin?
Spin is real. And did I tell you what what <br class="">
</blockquote>
Feynman said:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
“Suppose we take the example of a point charge sitting
near the center of a bar magnet, as shown in Fig. 27–6.
Everything is at rest, so the energy is not <br class="">
</blockquote>
changing with time. Also, and are quite static. But the
Poynting vector says that there is a flow of energy, because
there is an that is not zero. If you look at the <br
class="">
energy flow, you find that it just circulates around and
around. There isn’t any change in the energy anywhere -
everything which flows into one volume flows out <br
class="">
again. It is like incompressible water flowing around. So
there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static
condition. How absurd it gets!”<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Yes, how absurd it gets. Here we are in 2017, and people
think the electron is a point-particle, and that spin is
magic. FFS, I am living in the dark ages, an <br class="">
</blockquote>
idiocracy. As for the speed of charge and gravity being very
much faster than light, I’m not sure they are. Charge is
nothing special, nor is gravity. Yes, <br class="">
longitudinal waves tend to travel faster than transverse
waves. But not that much faster.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Yes, it is compelling isn’t it?<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards<br class="">
JohnD<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br class="">
Sent: 14 February 2017 18:06<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br
class="">
<br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John D<br class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
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 class="">
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 class="">
function is, and that is how transverse waves work. This
holds for transverse waves in any media.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
way space does.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
which circulates, and light is made of transverse
displacements which propagate linearly.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
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. There <br
class="">
is 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
class="">
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 confinement <br
class="">
of energy. Then the difference between a spin 1 photon and a
spin ½ electron simply lies in the dimensions of
confinement.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
detail.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
longitudinal differential displacement of space with an
origin at the center of the electron. Likewise with the
“photon”. The longitudinal displacement of space, <br
class="">
surrounding the 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 <br
class="">
photon waves. But in the electron this form of external
differential displacement (charge) is localized, permanent,
and in only one direction outward from the <br class="">
center of the electron.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
So photons and electrons are non-local by their nature,
simply because the fields they create go off to infinity.<br
class="">
<br class="">
But these fields do not propagate from the particles at c.<br
class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
space, propagating longitudinally from particles.<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
the velocity seemed almost infinite.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">While the conventional
wisdom has argued that relativistically moving bodies have
a different (relativistic) shape to their fields, which
they claim explains the <br class="">
</blockquote>
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 we <br
class="">
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 apparent <br class="">
that charge actually moves much faster than light, just as
we would expect a longitudinal displacement to propagate
faster than a transverse one.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
document to share.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Gravity is caused by the
same differential displacement of space which causes
charge. Waves diffract when they encounter this
differential displacement for <br class="">
</blockquote>
the same reasons that particles react to this differential
displacement.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">I am working on the math to
prove this. So far it is quite compelling.<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Duffield<br class="">
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:28 PM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br
class="">
<br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
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 class="">
many paths.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
I have to go, talk more tomorrow.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards<br class="">
JohnD<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br class="">
Sent: 13 February 2017 17:52<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br
class="">
<br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John D<br class="">
<br class="">
Been thinking about the constant amplitude of photons
which would cause E=hf.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
We can then view total displacement of these tiny dipoles
as the amplitude of the wave.<br class="">
<br class="">
A photon, as we have modeled it, has a wavelength:<br
class="">
<br class="">
The photon’s frequency is:<br class="">
<br class="">
And a radius (or sinusoidal extent) of:<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
As the number of adjacent nodes displaced increases, the
opposing force of space (the force opposing displacement)
increases based on the density of <br class="">
displaced 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 <br class="">
therefore becomes invariant for photons. The displacement
density varies with energy, as does the number of nodes, but
the total displacement (sum of the <br class="">
displacement of all tiny nodes involved) remains constant.<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">In this way space imposes a
size on the photon which varies with the inverse of
energy.<br class="">
Therefore we have E=hf.<br class="">
The total displacement Ƹ of any localized energy
propagating in space, meaning the distance representing
the sum of displacement of all affected individual <br
class="">
</blockquote>
nodes, is therefore:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Or if only analyzing half the differential displacement of
the wave:<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
This would then be the amplitude of the wave, and this
value is invariant with energy.<br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
transverse plane perpendicular to the direction of travel.
The transverse extent of this active (circulating or
undulating) energy distribution (displacement <br class="">
distribution) is:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
(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 class="">
</blockquote>
Law” for space would be sort of an inverse function.)<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
Plank charge is quantized in precisely the manner which this
scenario suggests. Using the force of Planck Charge as the
force which opposes displacement we <br class="">
can show that:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
which coincides with Compton’s wavelength.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Wonder if this can be how it works?<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Duffield<br class="">
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:49 PM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br
class="">
<br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
John:<br class="">
<br class="">
That sounds interesting. I have to go shortly, but for
now:<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html" class="">http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html</a><br
class="">
<br class="">
It’s the quantization of electromagnetic change, not
charge. Space waves, but only so much.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards<br class="">
John D<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Macken<br class="">
Sent: 31 January 2017 21:27<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip, John D, Chandra – Interaction of Waves<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
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 produces <br class="">
a 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 class="">
the propagating medium. Another frequency sound wave
propagation in the same volume of gas and the same direction
will encounter this modulation in the <br class="">
speed of 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 class="">
interaction of sound waves, but I have not attempted to find
a reference.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
vastly 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 <br class="">
in in a 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 <br
class="">
be detectable interaction between waves. In the limit, there
is a definable maximum amplitude of the water wave. This
occurs when the wave minimum equals <br class="">
the depth of the pond. Similarly, when the sound wave
produces a vacuum at its minimum, this is the limiting
condition.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
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 class="">
quote from Wikipedia.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
"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
class="">
</blockquote>
proportional to the local irradiance of the light.[3] This
refractive <br class="">
index variation is responsible for the nonlinear optical
effects of self-focusing, self-phase modulation and
modulational <br class="">
instability, and is the basis for Kerr-lens modelocking. <br
class="">
This effect only becomes significant with very intense beams
such as those from lasers."<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
There is a long list of nonlinear effects using laser
beams in nonlinear crystals including sum frequency
generation, difference frequency generation and <br
class="">
</blockquote>
second harmonic generation. These examples of nonlinear
effects in a transparent optical material illustrate an
important point. The optical medium has a finite <br
class="">
ability to 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 <br
class="">
beams reaches a level that the electrostatic bonding force
is noticeably approached, then we detect a nonlinear optical
effect. However, even at undetectable <br class="">
levels the nonlinearity is still present because of the
finite properties of the transparent medium set a boundary
condition. For example, even sunlight passing <br class="">
through a glass window produces a slight change in the index
of refraction of the window.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
as 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 class="">
general relativity could be derived by assuming this
boundary condition. The speed of light is another boundary
condition. In fact, Planck length, Planck <br class="">
frequency, Planck energy etc. are also boundary conditions
when properly applied. Therefore, I am setting the stage to
make the claim that light waves interact <br class="">
when the intensity reaches the level that the boundary
conditions (nonlinear conditions) of spacetime become
detectable.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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 class="">
</blockquote>
said anything challenging this before because he is correct
for all experiments which can currently be conducted with
available technology. However, I maintain <br class="">
that he 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 <br
class="">
Newton's gravitational equation is very useful for
calculating ordinary gravitational interactions. However,
there is a nonlinearity as the limiting properties of <br
class="">
spacetime are approached. General relativity is required
when the nonlinear effects become important.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
want 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 class="">
circularly 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
class="">
wavelength. I define this as “maximum confinement”. There
are several more steps but I concluded that a single photon
would produce a Planck length polarized <br class="">
distortion of spacetime that modulates the transverse
distance across the waveguide diameter by plus and minus
Planck length (designated Lp) at the frequency <br class="">
of the photon. Multiple coherent photons, designated as “n”
photons, would increase this modulation by the square root
of n (by). Then I was <br class="">
struck by a serious doubt because if this model of a photon
was correct, it was predicting that there was a maximum
number of photons which could be put into <br class="">
this maximum confinement waveguide. The limiting condition
was when the modulating distance equaled ½ wavelength which
is the diameter of the waveguide. <br class="">
This would be 100% modulation of the properties of spacetime
at the frequency of the photon. A different frequency would
achieve this limit at a different <br class="">
intensity, but in all cased the model was predicting a
limit. This seemed impossible, but I quickly calculated the
condition that would produce this limit. To my <br class="">
surprise, it exactly equaled the energy density of photons
that would produce a black hole with the diameter of the
waveguide. What I thought would be a proof <br class="">
that I was wrong turned out to be a proof supporting the
model. An experiment with the intensity required to achieve
a detectable modulation of distance is <br class="">
beyond our current technology, but it is not necessary to do
an experiment. A simple calculation proves that the
predicted limiting condition forma a black hole. If <br
class="">
it was possible to arbitrarily increase the power of a
focused laser beam, then there would be a limit where the
modulation of spacetime at the focus reached the <br
class="">
predicted 100% modulation condition. No more light would be
transmitted through this volume because a black hole would
form. No further transmission would <br class="">
be possible.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
spacetime become obvious and there would be detectable
“interaction of waves”.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
waves indicate vacuum energy exists”. This paper has
recently been submitted to a technical journal. It sets the
stage defining the properties of spacetime. The <br
class="">
paper titled “Spacetime based foundation of quantum
mechanics and general relativity” gives the quantifiable
model of particles and photons. It also describes in <br
class="">
more 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 class="">
maximum confinement thought experiment. This paper is
available at:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264311427_Spacetime_Based_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics_and_General_Relativity"
class="">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264311427_Spacetime_Based_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics_and_General_Relativity</a><br
class="">
<br class="">
John Macken<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br class="">
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:35 AM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John D<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
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
class="">
the small wave to change directions (standard refraction).<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Duffield<br class="">
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:21 PM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip:<br class="">
<br class="">
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
swell <br class="">
</blockquote>
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 3m <br class="">
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 class="">
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 class="">
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 the <br class="">
North by 1 metre, this alters the path of a sound wave
through the ground.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Regards<br class="">
JohnD<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br class="">
Sent: 31 January 2017 13:15<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John D<br class="">
<br class="">
You are saying that light refracts light. Is there any
experimental evidence?<br class="">
<br class="">
I have not found any evidence that waves of any sort
behave in this manner, including water waves.<br class="">
<br class="">
Do you have any supporting information?<br class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
to other waves.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
When we use a ripple tank, we see interference, but not a
change in direction of the waves when they interact.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Am I missing something here?<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Duffield<br class="">
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 1:43 PM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip:<br class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
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 class="">
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 that <br class="">
curved path is a closed path:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards<br class="">
John D<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br class="">
Sent: 30 January 2017 14:31<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John D<br class="">
<br class="">
The amplitude of the wave not being the size of the wave
makes sense in this context.<br class="">
<br class="">
But if the electron’s mass is somehow dependent on the
amplitude always being the same, then how does that relate
to…<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Wavelength is size.<br class="">
<br class="">
So how do we equate amplitude and wavelength to make this
electron with the size and mass it has in nature?<br
class="">
How do we show that only one wavelength will work?<br
class="">
<br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Duffield<br class="">
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:16 PM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip:<br class="">
<br class="">
My thoughts? The amplitude of a wave isn’t the size of the
wave.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
South. 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 class="">
South. Et cetera.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Regards<br class="">
JohnD<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br class="">
Sent: 29 January 2017 22:58<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John D<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
smaller as the longitudinal wavelength gets smaller with
energy.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
An opening which will allow a high frequency wave to pass
through, will also completely block a significantly lower
wavelength from passing.<br class="">
<br class="">
So it seems that all wavelengths do not have the same
physical transverse extents.<br class="">
(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 class="">
</blockquote>
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 class="">
expected interfering frequency and the attenuation
required.)<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Your thoughts?<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Duffield<br class="">
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:37 PM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip:<br class="">
<br class="">
Planck’s constant h is common to all photons regardless of
wavelength. Look at those pictures of the electromagnetic
spectrum. Irrespective of wavelength, the <br class="">
</blockquote>
depicted amplitude is always the same.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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 class="">
<br class="">
As for which characteristic of space, I’m not sure.
Perhaps it’s something like an elastic limit.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards<br class="">
JohnD<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br class="">
Sent: 29 January 2017 14:36<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John D<br class="">
<br class="">
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? <br class="">
</blockquote>
To which characteristic of space are you referring?<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of John Duffield<br class="">
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:25 AM<br class="">
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>; <br class="">
</blockquote>
'Hodge John' ><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Subject: Re: [General] On
photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Chip:<br class="">
<br class="">
I think the electron has the mass that it has because h is
what it is, because space has a particular characteristic:<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Some people liken it to a crystal.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards<br class="">
JohnD<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br class="">
Sent: 29 January 2017 13:45<br class="">
To: 'Hodge John' >; 'Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion' <br class="">
<br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John Hodge<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Hi Chandra.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
inertia. 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 <br class="">
outside force. It 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 class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
differential displacement of a transverse wave, with one
part moving one way and the other part moving in the
opposite direction. This differential displacement is <br
class="">
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 confinement <br
class="">
in elementary fermions which Albrecht talks about.<br
class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
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
class="">
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 also <br class="">
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 class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Hi Andrew<br class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
</blockquote>
of waves. But I understand your example and appreciate its
simplicity, and the smallest value of n could be whatever
nature has chosen.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Chip<br class="">
<br class="">
From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Hodge John<br class="">
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:10 PM<br class="">
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
><br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br class="">
<br class="">
I do. And it explains diffraction.<br class="">
Hodge<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:12 PM, Dr Grahame
Blackwell > wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Dear All,<br class="">
[Notably Chandra & Chip],<br class="">
<br class="">
I'm having a bit of a problem over this question of: 'How
does a photon carry momentum'? (or similar words.)<br
class="">
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 class="">
</blockquote>
by a photon.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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 class="">
</blockquote>
phenomenon which in turn refers to momentum - i.e. circular
references.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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 class="">
</blockquote>
that's a measure it's not a definition).<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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 class="">
</blockquote>
we 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 <br class="">
dressed up in fancy clothes). It certainly doesn't DEFINE a
photon's momentum, just evaluates it.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
(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
class="">
</blockquote>
all, or at least most, physicists.)<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Thanks in anticipation,<br class="">
Grahame<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <br
class="">
</blockquote>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com"
class="">jchodge@frontier.com</a><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <br
class="">
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
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:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
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:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
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:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
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:member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk">member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
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:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br
class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
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:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br
class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<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>