<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Hi John M and All,</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div> John M, I refer to your comment below:<div><div><blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><font face="times new roman" size="3"><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">Saying a photon has “wave-particle duality” is like saying that it has “top-bottom duality”. These are contradictory properties which cannot be equal partners. </p></font></blockquote></div><p>I have a different interpretation. One in which a wave and a particle can co-exist in the one structure, that which Einstein called Psi. I append a note that I have sent a couple of times before to the group. You may have missed it. In it I have shown in pictorial and mathematical forms that photons can indeed have wave properties and particle properties in the one structure. I do not see any reason why variations of such a structure cannot exhibit wave and particle properties at the same time. Your comments welcome.</p><p>I refer to your statement:</p><blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><font face="times new roman" size="3"><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">The group all favors a model of an electron as a confined, charged photon.</p></font></blockquote><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div> <div id="bloop_sign_1508100656228498944" class="bloop_sign"></div> Many of this group favor the electron as a confined photon. There is a consensus that the confinement is the photon making two revolutions within its wavelength, but not necessarily full agreement as others have forwarded different models. As to the idea that the photon is charged, ther appears to be two interpretations to that. One is that the photon is charged and when it rotates that charge is retained. I have seen no evidence of any liner photon carrying any charge. </div><div><br></div><div>Another to which I concur is that the act of the photon rotating produces the electric charge effect. This is possible in two ways. It may well be a combination of both. One is that the photon is circularly polarized and otherwise has a structure similar to that in my appended post. When it rotated the negative charge is always on the outside, giving the photon its negative charge. The other is that the act of the photon rotating requires a reason. That reason can be provided by the continual emission and absorption of photons. In my ongoing work I refer to them as “field photons”. It is they that generate the electric (and magnetic) field associated with individual particles. The “quantity of those field photons depends upon the angular momentum of the particle. As this is always half hbar, the value of the electric charge will always be the same. Personally I believe that the value of the charge is determined by the field photons generated because of the half hbar angular momentum and its polarity is due to the field that rotates to the outside in the spin hbar photon. </div><div><br></div><div>As always I am open to comment and suggestions.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>Vivian Robinson.</div><div><br></div><div>PS<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>My email program sometimes appends the attachment at the end. If you can’t see it, scroll down to the end and it should be there. A short version is posted at <a href="http://www.universephysics.com">www.universephysics.com</a>. Click on the Photon label at the top of the page.</div><div><br></div><div><br><p class="airmail_on">On 15 October 2017 at 12:50:50 AM, john@macken.com (<a href="mailto:john@macken.com">john@macken.com</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div><div></div><div><font face="times new roman" size="3"><p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">Hello All,</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">In previous posts, I have made the case that multiple photons always add their electric fields. It they encounter matter when the electric fields are adding and subtracting in an observable way, then we say the multiple photons have interfered. Another point is that quantized angular momentum (spin) is the most fundamental form of quantization. This is the physical property which makes waves achieve particle-like properties.</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">This post continues to expand on the idea that it is possible to understand wave-particle duality when quantized spin is understood and incorporated into the model. Here is another part of a paper that makes another important point.</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">"Photons are usually described as possessing “wave-particle duality”. However, this phrase is just a name given to something that we do not understand. The essence of a wave is that it is an oscillating disturbance with a definable wavelength and distributed over a substantial volume. A wave transfers liner momentum and some waves are capable of transferring angular momentum. Any wave disturbs the medium through which it is propagating such that energy is being converted between different forms.</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">The essence of a particle is that it is a single unit that differs from its surroundings. A fundamental particle is usually assumed to be energy concentrated at a point with no internal structure. A point particle or even a Planck length vibrating string is incapable of possessing ħ of angular momentum as a conceptually understandable physical rotation. The implied infinite energy density of a point particle also defies a physical explanation.</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">Saying a photon has “wave-particle duality” is like saying that it has “top-bottom duality”. These are contradictory properties which cannot be equal partners. A photon must either be a particle that somehow exhibits wave properties or a wave that is somehow quantized so that it exhibits particle properties. An informal survey of scientists has indicated that a photon’s contradictory properties are usually just tolerated without visualizing a specific unified model. "</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"><em>End quote from paper</em></p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">The group all favors a model of an electron as a confined, charged photon. I find that this lacks credibility because there is no model that explains, a photon, electrical charge and the structure of a "charged particle". The model of an electron must also simultaneously explain an electron's energy, de Broglie wave properties, electrical field, spin, gravitational curvature, electrostatic force and gravitational force. I know that this seems like a hopeless combination, but this is the complete problem. Is there a single model that explains and quantifies all these properties? More to follow.</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">John M.</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 12pt; word-wrap: break-word;">-----Original Message-----<br>From: john@macken.com<br>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:25am<br>To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>Subject: [General] Interference of Photons<br><br></p></font></div></div></span></blockquote></div></body></html>