Hijack from Particles / waves

[martillo]

28 minutes ago, geordief said:

I thought there was a well known description by (was it Feynman?) that if you did not find Quantum Mechanics confusing , you didn't understand it

 

Your illustration is an analogy ,isn't it ? Very ehnlightening  but doesn't it still beg the question?

What does that "composite  truth" look like under  deeper analysis?

 

I agree. That's only an analogy with a structure that could in principle be in agreement with the "wave-particle duality" concept. It is not a given structure for light or any particle.

For all of you to have an idea of what I'm talking about, the special structure I gave for a photon is basically a pair of rings of current, one positively charged, the other negatively charged and travelling together at an equilibrium distance equal to half of the De Broglie lambda. They also have a protective shield around which acts in the case of collisions with other particles.

The diffraction behavior is explained then as in the "Photons diffraction" pdf file I have attached.

 

Photons diffraction.pdf

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo

[Markus Hanke]

 

47 minutes ago, geordief said:

Your illustration is an analogy ,isn't it ?

It's an analogy of the principle that not everything is 'either A or B'. Sometimes there's a deeper reality, and what you observe depends on how you look at it, as is the case here.

49 minutes ago, geordief said:

What does that "composite  truth" look like under  deeper analysis?

It looks precisely like quantum field theory. Photons are just that - excitations of the underlying quantum field. As such, they are neither classical particles nor classical waves, nor both together. They don't have to be either of those things - that's just a cognitive bias that we as humans have, since our direct experience is purely classical. 

47 minutes ago, martillo said:

the special structure I gave for a photon is basically a pair of rings of current

This is completely inconsistent with quantum electrodynamics - an extremely successful and well-tested model.

[martillo]

21 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is completely inconsistent with quantum electrodynamics - an extremely successful and well-tested model.

Yes I know. Mine is a new one challenging that yet needing to be tested the same way or harder.

Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Do not hijack other people's threads with your own ideas.

 

[martillo]

I understand. My intention was to give an idea of what I'm talking about but I understand.

[Ghideon]

Here are a few questions.

9 hours ago, martillo said:

the special structure I gave for a photon is basically a pair of rings of current, one positively charged, the other negatively charged and travelling together at an equilibrium distance equal to half of the De Broglie lambda.

From the PDF

Quote

It is proposed that photons tend to be aligned to form trains of photons: Each photon links to the next by the same equilibrium phenomenon described for the positrin and negatrin that constitutes a single photon. A positrin is always followed by a negatrin. The electric and magnetic forces maintains a strong link.

How does a single photon, that according to the idea has one positive and one negative side, interact with external magnetic and electrical fields? 

If you have two laser beams, almost parallel, crossing each other at a narrow angle, what does your idea predict regarding the photons' interactions and the resulting "train(s)" of photons? 

How does your predictions match observations and the explanations available in the currently accepted theories and models?

Edited August 18, 2020 by Ghideon

[swansont]

10 hours ago, martillo said:

I agree. That's only an analogy with a structure that could in principle be in agreement with the "wave-particle duality" concept. It is not a given structure for light or any particle.

For all of you to have an idea of what I'm talking about, the special structure I gave for a photon is basically a pair of rings of current, one positively charged, the other negatively charged and travelling together at an equilibrium distance equal to half of the De Broglie lambda. They also have a protective shield around which acts in the case of collisions with other particles.

What is charges that gives rise to this current, and how does this happen considering the photon is massless?

What keeps these charges separated? Why are they not separated by external fields?

How does this behavior depend on photon energy?

 

[martillo]

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

How does a single photon, that according to the idea has one positive and one negative side, interact with external magnetic and electrical fields? 

In my theory the Electric and Magnetic Fields have a factor s=root(1-v2/c2), same as Relativity Theory, explaining many "relativistic effects" but without any mass variation. The factor is in the fields, not in the mass of the particles. This factor becomes zero at light velocity c so photons are not affected by Electric and Magnetic Fields "at rest".

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

If you have two laser beams, almost parallel, crossing each other at a narrow angle, what does your idea predict regarding the photons' interactions and the resulting "train(s)" of photons?

I think both will curve slightly their path and they both will pass over continuing after their straight path.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

How does your predictions match observations and the explanations available in the currently accepted theories and models?

The theory agree with all observations and experiments I could analyze although many of them require a different explanation than the current ones. The theory disagrees, with Relativity, "Quantum Physics" and the "Standard Model" of elementary particles replacing all of them with an entire unique totally consistent new theory. The key features are that a structure is given to the elementary particles and the fields of forces are more complex than the classical ones explaining the "relativistic" and the "quantum" behaviors of them. This way for instance Einstein's equation E=mc2 remains valid but with a new physical meaning. Same way de Broglie law is valid with a little correction at very slow velocities (removing the discontinuity at zero velocity) and has a new physical meaning: it represents a distance between elementary particles, not a wave length.

Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo

[MigL]

13 minutes ago, martillo said:

features are that a structure is given to the elementary particles

Then they are no longer 'elementary' or fundamental.
Which means they can be broken down into their constituents.
Even your 'positrin' and 'negatrin' have constituent charges and currents.

If you are basically going to 'replace' all of modern Physics, and account for the implications of that replacement, you'll need a much better argument than you've presented so far.

[martillo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What is charges that gives rise to this current, and how does this happen considering the photon is massless?

By definition the elementary particles are made of rings with continuous linear distribution of charge. The total charge is that of the electron. the rotation of the rings around their center produce their current which at its time produce their magnetic fields.

In this new theory photons do have mass and the following equations are verified simultaneously: Einstein E=mc2, De Broglie lambda=h/(mc), Planck E= hc resulting in m=h/(lambda.c)

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What keeps these charges separated? Why are they not separated by external fields?

Their electric and magnetic fields produce opposite forces establishing equilibrium states at a distance equal to half of the De Broglie lambda. 

The Electric and Magnetic Fields are more complex than the classical ones having a factor s=root(1-v2/c2) (equivalent to the relativistic gamma) which becomes zero at light velocity c and so photons are not affected by fields "at rest".

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How does this behavior depend on photon energy?

I don't understand what you are asking here.

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

Then they are no longer 'elementary' or fundamental.
Which means they can be broken down into their constituents.
Even your 'positrin' and 'negatrin' have constituent charges and currents.

If you are basically going to 'replace' all of modern Physics, and account for the implications of that replacement, you'll need a much better argument than you've presented so far.

NO. In the new theory the elementary particles have a geometrical structure that cannot be broken into more elemental pieces in any way. They are the end on the smallest things in the universe. They are mathematical structures. The universe is essentially mathematical.

Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, martillo said:

the rotation of the rings around their center produce their current which at its time produce their magnetic fields.

Why do they rotate and not separate ?

 

19 minutes ago, martillo said:

Their electric and magnetic fields produce opposite forces establishing equilibrium states at a distance equal to half of the De Broglie lambda. 

 

A ring of current produces a magentic force at right angles to the plane of the ring, not an in plane force.

[martillo]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why do they rotate and not separate ?

 

I don't know if I understand properly your question. The rings are rigid ones, they cannot expand.

Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo

[studiot]

I say again, why not ?

You have posited a circulating ring of charge (two in fact, of opposite charge polarity).

What causes the charge in each ring remain in the ring, when electrostatic repulsion would cause them to break up and their charges to fly apart.

 

Invoking De Broglie does not help you for his theory has an additional force due to the field of the nucleus to balance this.

Edited August 18, 2020 by studiot

[martillo]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

I say again, why not ?

You have posited a circulating ring of charge (two in fact, of opposite charge polarity).

What causes the charge in each ring remain in the ring, when electrostatic repulsion would cause them to break up and their charges to fly apart.

 

Invoking De Broglie does not help you for his theory has an additional force due to the field of the nucleus to balance this.

As I answered to MigL: In the new theory the elementary particles have a geometrical structure that cannot be broken into more elemental pieces in any way. They are the end on the smallest things in the universe. They are mathematical structures. The universe is essentially mathematical.

You are costumed with point-like particles. This is not the case.

Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo

[joigus]

As Swansont and Studiot have implied, but in my own re-phrasing: If the charges are separated, you need a non-local interaction to account for them being separated rigidly with no possibility of pulling or pushing one against the other. This exotic force would have to be repulsive and non-local, exactly compensating the mutual attraction between your positrin and negatrin. Charges polarize the space around them, so charged particles always have mass. How does that mass not appear in your photons? I hope it doesn't, as photons are massless.

As Ghideon and MigL are implying too, how do you recover known laws of physics? Other examples:

Do your photons go through each other at low energies, while scatter at very high energies, which is a known fact of QED?

Do they behave as they must when they scatter electrons? Do they contribute to mass and charge renormalization of the electron?

Why aren't there 0-spin photons? Why can't they flip? Your model seems to allow for it. Are you considering selection or superselection rules? If so, which are those?

Why aren't there multipolar states of those? More selection rules?

How do you account for the transversality of photons? The radiating EM field is always perpendicular to the direction of propagation.

How do you account for circular, linear, and elliptically polarised photons?

More coming. It's 100 years of photonics.

Edited August 18, 2020 by joigus

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, martillo said:

As I answered to MigL: In the new theory the elementary particles have a geometrical structure that cannot be broken into more elemental pieces in any way. They are the end on the smallest things in the universe. They are mathematical structures. The universe is essentially mathematical.

You are costumed with point-like particles. This is not the case.

You haven't answered my question about your proposed Physics.

If you have a positive (or negative) charge distributed in the shape of a torus, what holds it together ?

The charge distribution is as uneven as it is possible to be since you have a charge on on side of the ring separated by empty space from another like charge.

This is a most unnatural situation by itself and contrary to all observation.

You are basically proposing that Physics is different within the empty space inside the ring and within the torus of charge.

Edited August 18, 2020 by studiot

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, martillo said:

By definition the elementary particles are made of rings with continuous linear distribution of charge. The total charge is that of the electron. the rotation of the rings around their center produce their current which at its time produce their magnetic fields.

Any evidence that particles like this exist?

 

Quote

In this new theory photons do have mass and the following equations are verified simultaneously: Einstein E=mc2, De Broglie lambda=h/(mc), Planck E= hc resulting in m=h/(lambda.c)

That runs up against a lot of other physics that says they are massless, which means they don't move at c

 

Quote

Their electric and magnetic fields produce opposite forces establishing equilibrium states at a distance equal to half of the De Broglie lambda.

It's not enough to merely state this. You need to show such a configuration is in a stable equilibrium. Account for the forces and torques.

 

Quote

The Electric and Magnetic Fields are more complex than the classical ones having a factor s=root(1-v2/c2) (equivalent to the relativistic gamma) which becomes zero at light velocity c and so photons are not affected by fields "at rest".

I don't understand what you are asking here.

If the separation is half the DeBroglie wavelength then the interaction between the rings varies with photon energy

Quote

NO. In the new theory the elementary particles have a geometrical structure that cannot be broken into more elemental pieces in any way. They are the end on the smallest things in the universe. They are mathematical structures. The universe is essentially mathematical.

You're saying they have a physical size (rings separated by half the DeBroglie wavelength), so they are not just mathematical structures.

Why would they not be separable? What physical laws would that violate?

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

As Swansont and Studiot have implied, but in my own re-phrasing: If the charges are separated,

Not quite for me.

I am examining( the stability of) each individual 'ring of charge' in its own right.

I am not talking about coupling to another ring.

 

I'm sure I remember someone proposing this before, and me saying it reminds me of the Rowland Ring theory of magnetism.

Edit however I see the swansont has nailed the coupling aspect pretty tightly.

Edited August 18, 2020 by studiot

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not quite for me.

So, what did you mean when you said,

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why do they rotate and not separate ?

 

?

Why they don't separate is a key question for me.

Edited August 18, 2020 by joigus

[studiot]

 

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

So, what did you mean when you said,

13 hours ago, martillo said:

The diffraction behavior is explained then as in the "Photons diffraction" pdf file I have attached.

 

The rings are clearly shown rotating individually  in the OP

Edited August 18, 2020 by studiot

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

 

Why the don't separate is a key question for me.

They would tend to push themselves apart because each ring is a line charge. Each element dq would repel all other elements in the ring.

And then the rings attract each other, but only repel if aligned a certain way, and the separation varies with energy, so I don't see how a stable configuration would ever be possible (even if it was stable at some value of separation, which it isn't)

[martillo]

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

As Swansont and Studiot have implied, but in my own re-phrasing: If the charges are separated, you need a non-local interaction to account for them being separated rigidly with no possibility of pulling or pushing one against the other. This exotic force would have to be repulsive and non-local, exactly compensating the mutual attraction between your positrin and negatrin. Charges polarize the space around them, so charged particles always have mass. How does that mass not appear in your photons? I hope it doesn't, as photons are massless.

This is a different question than that of studiot. The electric fields attract the rings while the magnetic fields repel. There`s an equilibrium distance. The force you are talking about is just the magnetic force between them.

 

[swansont]

Just now, martillo said:

This is a different question than that of studiot. The electric fields attract the rings while the magnetic fields repel. There`s an equilibrium distance. The force you are talking about is just the magnetic force between them.

 

You need to show this, rather than just assert it

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

They would tend to push themselves apart because each ring is a line charge. Each element dq would repel all other elements in the ring.

And then the rings attract each other, but only repel if aligned a certain way, and the separation varies with energy, so I don't see how a stable configuration would ever be possible (even if it was stable at some value of separation, which it isn't)

You're quite right. The force would have to be non-local, nonetheless. Plus photons don't have anything that corresponds to a proper length.

Edit: And I still can't see why they wouldn't flip.

Edited August 18, 2020 by joigus
Addition

[martillo]

Too many questions at the same time. Give me some time to answer all them. By the way, some of you didn't read some previous posts where your questions are already answered to other ones.

Edited August 18, 2020 by martillo