A photon as a 'twist' in space

[arthur jackson]

I hope this is allowable. I’ve read your Guidelines and ‘Are you a quack’ pages and I suspect you’ll think I am but please bear with me.

I’ve often wanted to understand the atomic physics I was taught for my electronics degree. While I was trying, a possible model in the spirit of Bohr occurred to me which (I think) helped me to better understand the basic ideas and equations of atomic physics. It seems simple and logically consistent, but not being a physicist, what would I know? I’m not saying any current theories are wrong. I just think this is a simple way to visualize photons and particles. So, this is a request for (specific, please ) comments, preferably as simple as possible: where have I gone wrong? 

---------

View space as being made up of ‘imaginary’ positive/negative charges: ±e. These arrange themselves in pairs +/-/+/- in three dimensions, so all is stable. Briefly hitting a charge pair with a small pulse of energy rotates it slightly. When the pulse stops, it and the surrounding charge pairs vibrate or ring.

 

A photon – a twist in space

If the strength of the energy pulse reaches Planck’s constant, the charge pair rotates half way round. Then, positive points to positive and negative points to negative so the charges start to repel, and the charge pair continues round for a complete rotation. That is a photon: a ‘twist’ in space. The effect (action) travels off at speed c. None of the charge pairs actually moves, but the rotation passes on from one to the next in a straight line like the wheels of a conveyor belt.

The charge pairs along the photon’s path make a full rotation. The surrounding pairs try to follow them round but aren’t strong enough to form another photon, and instead form virtual photons. The strength of their rotations die away as the cube of the distance as they spread out. Along the photon’s path, these rotations form the electric wave. Across its axis at 90° is the magnetic wave coming from the side-on attraction of the surrounding charge pairs. The electric and magnetic waves show as sine waves: something rotating. The charge pairs continue to ring slightly after the electric/magnetic wave has passed on. This seems compatible with polarization, diffusion, and also the double slit experiment?

Particles

A twist with high enough energy pulls out a real electron with a balancing positron. Immediately around an electron, the charge pairs align so their positive charges are attracted inwards and their negative charges point outwards towards the world. So from the outside, the electron looks like a negative bubble or cloud of charge.

With h being the energy over time needed to make one twist, the average value around a complete twist is h/2π: the angular momentum. Since a photon has spin ħ and splits into an electron and a positron, each carries off a spin ħ/2. Both still spin around their axes at speed c, which therefore appears in the relevant equations.

The electric and magnetic fields are now concentrated around a particle, and the electron acts as a magnet with a north and south pole. The mass of the electron can be seen as the ‘electric self energy’ – the total energy needed to bring the electron’s negative charge from infinity to itself, working against the repulsive force keeping it apart. The surrounding charge pairs pull together to fill the gap, distorting space around the particles slightly to give the effect of gravity.

Hit an electron with a photon and they stick together, (-+ - or + - + depending on the particle), swirling off as they go so the twist again behaves like a wave. The photon’s momentum is transferred to the electron, along with its angular momentum to give 3ħ/2.

With higher energy, a charge pair produces a real proton and a balancing anti-proton. … and on for a model of how atoms are formed, which also seems to follow quite simply and logically.

---------

So, is this a useful way to visualize things on the way to learning how they’re actually explained? In some ways it does make predictions as your website requests: like the angular momentum of a photon is ħ and that of an electron is ħ/2, but that hardly makes sense since I’ve worked back from there. 

 

[swansont]

As the speculations guidelines say, we want a model of some sort. Some way that the idea makes specific predictions and makes it testable.

[arthur jackson]

Fair play - although as I say the model predicts that - given the angular momentum of a photon is ħ - then that of an electron is ħ/2, and that for an electron hit by a photon is 3ħ/2, two photons it is 5ħ/2 etc.

I have gone through the basic atomic physics equations and it does 'predict' all the major ones that I can see from my electronics degree (1970s admittedly). It 'predicts' the effects of gravity, electric and magnetic forces for example. I put 'predict' in inverted commas because I'm working backwards as I say, but it does seem compatible with them. I'll include a few if that would help. I took them out because I wanted to just give the basic idea.   

[joigus]

21 minutes ago, arthur jackson said:

These arrange themselves in pairs +/-/+/- in three dimensions, so all is stable.

I don't see that's stable. The minutest fluctuation would bring the poles of +/- pairs on top of each other until they cancel each other out, if you don't introduce some restrictive 'force' that impedes negative charges fall into the positives (and viceversa) like quantum mechanics does with position-momentum quantum uncertainty (dispersion). So much of the stability of the world we see depends on quantum fuzziness...

Why do you need electric charge to generate space? Just curious.

 

 

[studiot]

Quote

A photon as a 'twist' in space

 

An electronics engineer ?

Well have you seen this article ?

 

What is an Electron  ?

A new model: the phase locked cavity.

 

R C Jennison PH D Bsc FIEE FRAS FInstP FRSA

~~Electronics Laboratories University of Kent at Canterbury.

Wireless World June 1979 pages 42 to 47

 

There has also been mathematical work( By Drazin) by regarding a photon as a solitary wave or soliton.

 

Here are the first and last pages of Jennison's article.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, arthur jackson said:

Fair play - although as I say the model predicts that - given the angular momentum of a photon is ħ - then that of an electron is ħ/2, and that for an electron hit by a photon is 3ħ/2, two photons it is 5ħ/2 etc.

Except that it isn’t. A free electron never absorbs a photon.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Except that it isn’t. A free electron never absorbs a photon.

Is the reason known?

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is the reason known?

Energy and momentum cannot be both conserved in such a process.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Energy and momentum cannot be both conserved in such a process.

Thanks. That makes sense.

Edited November 1 by StringJunky

[arthur jackson]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

As the speculations guidelines say, we want a model of some sort. Some way that the idea makes specific predictions and makes it testable.

Taking questions in order. Please bear in mind that this is intended as an visualization of what happens rather than a new theory. I may be using ‘predicts’ a bit flexibly and I’d perhaps replace it with ‘is compatible with’. So, starting from the premise that space is underlain by positive/negative point charges that can rotate to form photons, I’d say the model predicts that:

 

* the electric and magnetic waves associated with a photon are sine waves and perpendicular to each other.

* it takes a certain energy a certain time to produce a photon, or h=Et (along with E=pc and pλ=h)

* angular momentum is the average value of energy*time around a complete twist, so h/2π

* photons can be polarized, synchronized and can diffract (because the charge pairs around nearby twists can add/subtract and so interfere with each other)

* the charge pairs continue to wobble slightly after a photon has passed, so twists can even interfere despite being separated in time so (I think) representing the hidden variables required by EPR model, and so similar to the pilot wave suggested by De Broglie and developed by David Bohm

* virtual particles can be created in a vacuum as long as ΔEΔt < ħ/2

* if a photon has angular momentum ħ, then electrons, positrons, protons and antiprotons each have angular momentum ħ/2.

* particles or photons can pass through every possible path allowed by lenses or openings (QED interpretation)

* electric and magnetic fields are generated by virtual photons

* electric fields are much stronger than magnetic fields (although I can’t see that it predicts that E = Bc)

* the charge pair being pulled out to form a particle leaves a gap which distorts space as the surrounding charge pairs pull together, so leading to the effects of gravity.

* particles have a Compton wavelength: the wavelength associated with the particle’s mass

* With E=pc and p=mc we get, simply, E=mc2.

* hitting a particle with a photon accelerates it, so the electron swirls to a new wavelength and is compressed along the direction of motion because virtual photons entering and leaving the front and back of the object are both travelling at the speed of light.

 

I originally wrote this as an introduction to atomic physics because I wanted to know whether it all worked, and to understand things I need to write them down to see what makes sense and what doesn’t. It does work as a prediction of atomic structure, and I got as far as Schroedinger’s equation and it does seem to work for that, too.

 

ETA: While we’re on predictions, here’s a challenge to anyone on the site. My model also predicts (and shows quite clearly) that Planck’s statement that “energy is quantized” (which has confused me ever since I was at uni) is wrong.

I believe I can demonstrate this to you using my model in a single sentence. If I’m wrong I’ll donate $20 to the server fund, you can delete this thread and ban me from the site (although you can clearly do this anyway ).

So any takers? Who holds that energy is quantized?

 

Edited November 1 by arthur jackson
adding the eta because two posts were merged.

[joigus]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is the reason known?

Relativistic conservation of momentum would be violated. It's a common exercise for students to prove.

Only virtual photons can be absorbed by an electron. They must be off-shell is another way to say it.

Somewhere on these forums I included a proof of the converse theorem. Namely; that a free electron cannot emit a 'proper' photon (one that satisfies Einstein's mass-shell condition). The alluded result can be found here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225522/free-electron-cant-absorb-a-photon

Sorry, @Genady. I hadn't noticed you'd already answered that.

Edited November 1 by joigus
Substantial addition

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, Genady said:

Energy and momentum cannot be both conserved in such a process.

I thought there was also another reason: you need a transition dipole moment, which a free electron cannot provide on its own. But that’s just what I have understood from quantum chemistry.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Sorry, @Genady. I hadn't noticed you'd already answered that.

No problem, I thought so.

28 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I thought there was also another reason: you need a transition dipole moment, which a free electron cannot provide on its own. But that’s just what I have understood from quantum chemistry.

I don't know this.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, arthur jackson said:

Taking questions in order.

 

I don't see an answer to a single question of mine.

So have I wasted my time pulling this material out for you ?

 

1 hour ago, arthur jackson said:

ETA: While we’re on predictions, here’s a challenge to anyone on the site. My model also predicts (and shows quite clearly) that Planck’s statement that “energy is quantized” (which has confused me ever since I was at uni) is wrong.

Anyone who has ever done any quantum or classical resonance calculations will know that the above quote is a meaningless statement by itself.

Energy of what , under what circumstances, over what timescale and within what region of space ?

All those pieces of information are needed. the calculations cannot be done without them.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, arthur jackson said:

* angular momentum is the average value of energy*time around a complete twist, so h/2π

* photons can be polarized, synchronized and can diffract (because the charge pairs around nearby twists can add/subtract and so interfere with each other)

What is polarization in terms of this twisting? How is this twisting possible for linearly polarized light? The fields do not change orientation.

Why don’t these charge pairs cancel?

What are these particles? Charge is a property, not a substance. How do we get these massless particles to have a charge? How do they respond to a static electric field? 

2 hours ago, arthur jackson said:

Who holds that energy is quantized?

Off-resonant light is not absorbed by an atom, rather than being partly absorbed. e.g., if there is a transition at 1 eV and you shine a 1.5 eV source at the atom, you do not get photons absorbed and 0.5 eV photons emitted. 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I thought there was also another reason: you need a transition dipole moment, which a free electron cannot provide on its own. But that’s just what I have understood from quantum chemistry.

You're right about that. Those go under the name of selection rules for photon absorption/emission. The one that rings a bell to me is \( \Delta S = 0 \) for angular momentum. As magnetic dipole moment is proportional to spin angular momentum, there you go.

Here's an interesting Q/A dialogue on the topic, that explains more:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174719/selection-rule-delta-s-0-why-does-a-photon-not-interact-with-an-electrons-sp

[julius2]

I like the innovative thinking.

Does this affect spacetime?

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, joigus said:

You're right about that. Those go under the name of selection rules for photon absorption/emission. The one that rings a bell to me is ΔS=0 for angular momentum. As magnetic dipole moment is proportional to spin angular momentum, there you go.

Here's an interesting Q/A dialogue on the topic, that explains more:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174719/selection-rule-delta-s-0-why-does-a-photon-not-interact-with-an-electrons-sp

Good point, conservation of angular momentum also rules out a free electron absorbing a photon. s= 1/2 and that’s all it can ever be, whereas a photon has 1 unit that has to go somewhere. In a bound state the electron may be able to acquire other types of angular momentum apart from its intrinsic spin, e.g. orbital angular momentum in an atom or molecule.

[arthur jackson]

20 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't see that's stable. The minutest fluctuation would bring the poles of +/- pairs on top of each other until they cancel each other out, if you don't introduce some restrictive 'force' that impedes negative charges fall into the positives (and viceversa) like quantum mechanics does with position-momentum quantum uncertainty (dispersion). So much of the stability of the world we see depends on quantum fuzziness...

Why do you need electric charge to generate space? Just curious.

 

 

Hopefully the diagram inserts ok (sorry it's unnecessarily large).

With no external energy the +/-/+/- charges will be stable. A brief, small amount of energy (below Planck’s constant) will kick one of the charges so it rotates slightly. Then, the positive half of a charge pair in the top row for example will rotate so it begins to point to the positive halves of the surrounding charges. That means they tend to repel, so increasingly resisting further rotation. When the impulse is released the surrounding charge pairs have stored the energy and release it so they vibrate. The whole is stable in the sense that nothing changes (the charge pairs just vibrate).

If the impulse reaches Planck's constant the charge pair makes a full rotation, and drags the next charge pair in line round, and the next - like the wheels of a conveyor belt turn but don't actually move.

You say: “if you don't introduce some restrictive 'force' that impedes negative charges fall into the positives (and viceversa)”

That’s a fine point that I’d not considered. It would be another premise that the charge pairs attract/repel each other but don’t fall into or disappear into each other, so like electrons and protons don’t normally fall into each other.

I wouldn’t say you need electric charge to generate space. More that a model of space should include explanations of positive/negative charges and electromagnetic waves (as well as gravitation etc).

 

That make sense?

20 hours ago, studiot said:

 

An electronics engineer ?

Well have you seen this article ?

 

What is an Electron  ?

A new model: the phase locked cavity.

 

R C Jennison PH D Bsc FIEE FRAS FInstP FRSA

~~Electronics Laboratories University of Kent at Canterbury.

Wireless World June 1979 pages 42 to 47

 

There has also been mathematical work( By Drazin) by regarding a photon as a solitary wave or soliton.

 

Here are the first and last pages of Jennison's article.

 

Interesting, thank you. Apologies for not replying sooner - it takes me time to work out replies. I will get to them all.

Edited November 1 by arthur jackson

[studiot]

So we have Maxwell's hexagonal aether agin.

Maxwell himself rejected it and commented that it was the only mechanism he could think of or make work for the aether.

But we know better today.

Please note that all known carriers of charge are material.

As swansont has already said there is no magic substance called charge.

Edited November 1 by studiot

[arthur jackson]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Except that it isn’t. A free electron never absorbs a photon.

Thank you for this - I'll go back and look at what I've written.

So what I've said above ("The photon’s momentum is transferred to the electron, along with its angular momentum to give 3ħ/2.") would only be true for an electron in an atom, for example? Otherwise, as you say, free electrons are accelerated by virtual photons, for example from an electric field.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

 

I don't see an answer to a single question of mine.

So have I wasted my time pulling this material out for you ?

 

Anyone who has ever done any quantum or classical resonance calculations will know that the above quote is a meaningless statement by itself.

Energy of what , under what circumstances, over what timescale and within what region of space ?

All those pieces of information are needed. the calculations cannot be done without them.

Apologies again - I studied electronics at uni but have never worked as an  electronics engineer, I'm retired now but worked as a technical/technology writer.

I meant the general statement that I learned at uni that "energy is quantized", which always confused me. When I say that it's not quantized, I mean that it's actually action (energy * time) that is quantized: you can only have a complete photon. 

 

Eta: I'm now going to have to go and think about the next questions. I may be some while  

 

Edited November 1 by arthur jackson

[Sensei]

@arthur jackson

His post was misleading (lying) to novices like you. A photon can be reflected/reemitted at lower energy.... e.g., some energy is absorbed and some is reemitted depending on the angle, etc, The most important part is "absorption", "absolute". He meant "photon absorbed" = electron accelerated and photon gone (and nothing left behind!).

On Feynman diagram, we should see photon + e- -> photon + e-

(because momentum must be preserved)

ps. That is, one particle absorbs energy and the other loses it, one is accelerated and the other is decelerated.

 

Edited November 1 by Sensei

[swansont]

1 hour ago, arthur jackson said:

So what I've said above ("The photon’s momentum is transferred to the electron, along with its angular momentum to give 3ħ/2.") would only be true for an electron in an atom, for example? Otherwise, as you say, free electrons are accelerated by virtual photons, for example from an electric field.

It’s a tad more complicated, because an electron in an atom can have orbital angular momentum, and the spin is added to that but can be in the opposite direction. So an excited state electron can absorb a photon in the S orbital and still have h-bar/2 of angular momentum (the P_1/2 state)

[arthur jackson]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

What is polarization in terms of this twisting? How is this twisting possible for linearly polarized light? The fields do not change orientation.

Why don’t these charge pairs cancel?

What are these particles? Charge is a property, not a substance. How do we get these massless particles to have a charge? How do they respond to a static electric field? 

Off-resonant light is not absorbed by an atom, rather than being partly absorbed. e.g., if there is a transition at 1 eV and you shine a 1.5 eV source at the atom, you do not get photons absorbed and 0.5 eV photons emitted. 

The twists have a particular orientation so can be polarized along that orientation – again like wheels of a conveyor belt. Similarly the twist is in the direction of travel of the photon rather than normal to it. Not sure what you mean about the fields not changing orientation, though.

How do you mean about the charge pairs cancelling? I’m assuming that the +ve/-ve charges can coexist alongside each other, and can rotate round each other.

Yes, I’d see the charge pairs as having charge as a property. I’m not sure whether they’d be better seen as particles or point charges, I don’t think they’d have mass. I’d see them as ‘below’ the surface of space. I think they’d take up a particular orientation to point along a static electric field.

 

*here as elsewhere I'm flailing around in the dark somewhat I hope my replies are vaguely pertinent.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

@arthur jackson

His post was misleading (lying) to novices like you. A photon can be reflected/reemitted at lower energy.... e.g., some energy is absorbed and some is reemitted depending on the angle, etc, The most important part is "absorption", "absolute". He meant "photon absorbed" = electron accelerated and photon gone (and nothing left behind!).

The assertion that the electron would have 3ħ/2 of angular momentum already restricts this scenario to there not being a photon after the interaction.

Unless you are asserting there can be a photon with no angular momentum.

 

 

15 minutes ago, arthur jackson said:

The twists have a particular orientation so can be polarized along that orientation – again like wheels of a conveyor belt. Similarly the twist is in the direction of travel of the photon rather than normal to it. Not sure what you mean about the fields not changing orientation, though.

If you have linearly polarized light with the electric field in the vertical direction, it’s alway vertical. It doesn’t point in any other direction. Even with randomly polarized light, the field is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. With your configuration and twisting, that won’t be the case.