Photon structure

[Jacques]

I think so, but I am far from being able to tell you that's it!

Norman:

Nobody commented on my efforts to Fourier transform my model, but if I have done it correctly there is a well-defined single momentum in the x-direction producing a delta function in but a spread in the transverse spectrum reflecting the exponential falloff.

I would like to be able to comment your work, but I lack the knowledge, but I am sure that some one here can understand you, and I would like to ear them.

I like Elas post. Is it like the weak and strong force are dual of gravity and electromagnetism ? Like the plane at infinity is the dual of the point at center of the unit sphere ?

[elas]

Norman Alber

Jacques

 

The question is:

 

How does the QM and other mainstream physic theories describe the structure (topology...) of a photon ?

 

And the point I am making is that they do not because for all the predictive accuracy, the theories are based on mathematical shortcuts and shortcuts cannot be used to explain structure. That is why some books contain statements such as:

 

Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980)

 

It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0

The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained.

 

 

Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.

 

Jim Baggott (in his book) wrote bluntly “The theory is not meant to be understood”

[swansont]

Swanson:

At these energies, how can we make the difference between real photon scattering, and pair creation and the scattering of photons with electron or positron ? In the later case it make me think of the electron and the positron being the "force" carring particle for the photons interaction...

 

The scatter probably looks like that in a Feynman diagram.

 

If you create a real e-e+ pair, that you won't get the original photon energies back — you'll get annihilation radiation. You can't do that in free space anyway, since momentum (or energy) will not be conserved. For one photon, at least. I suppose it could happen with two photons. (The A² term was routinely discarded in the problems I recall working)

[Norman Albers]

Photon-photon interaction to get to pair production requires levels of luminosity obtainable in one way by having x-ray ports at the accelerator storage rings at SLAC, creating "dueling lasers" aimed at a small region. I gather there are other ways, since we have pulsed lasers whose momentary power output is high. I'm playing with figuring energy densities; if I come up with anything decent I'll share it here. Swansont, in what energy ranges were you working? Elas we are on the same page. I was amused once to answer a QM student whose impressively stated integral for the average field of a photon was zero. Magnetic moments I guess are supposed to come from the Easter Bunny.

[elas]

Norman Alber

 

The nonzero anomalous magnetic moment describe at:

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0609/0609008v1.pdf

 

is a theoretical prediction, but has it been proved by experiment?

 

The statement made in the summary of the paper at:

 

http://www.mlawrence.co.uk/a46ch341.htm

 

is in complete agreement with the theory I outline on:

 

http://69.5.17.59/clf8.pdf

 

and debate on:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845

 

where I also suggest an explanation of an observed anomalous magnetic moment.

So I would not agree that Magnetic moments are supposed to come from the Easter Bunny. but out of the natural interactions of particles. I think your guess is wrong.

[Farsight]

Can anybody give me any advice on submitting a formal paper?

[swansont]

Can anybody give me any advice on submitting a formal paper?

 

Include lots of science (i.e. science as defined by scientists)

[iNow]

Can anybody give me any advice on submitting a formal paper?

 

Form a hypothesis. Design a test, define your methods, run the test, show the results, discuss the outcome, and cite supporting studies. I think these are the key pieces.

 

 

Here's a few quick links that seem useful:

 

http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWsections.html

http://aerg.canberra.edu.au/pub/aerg/edupaper.htm

http://www.richmond.edu/~ggilfoyl/intermediate/writing.pdf

 

 

Remember with scientific papers, "SHOW us, don't TELL us."

[Norman Albers]

Farsight, don't even think of professional journals, but I'm sure there are an expanding number of expression possibilities. Starting three years ago, I submitted my electron and photon papers, which are rather mathematical, to Russian JETP and also US JMP(Journal Mathematical Physics). They agreed between themselves to have the Russians read me. They spent two and a half weeks reading two and a half pages, then refused saying NOTHING. I got the photon paper to Nature, Physics (UK) and they said, this is provocative but 'not sufficiently accepted for us to publish', which I sort of liked. One year ago exactly, JMP read my gravitation paper, and it passed peer review. After three weeks on the final editor's desk, it was turned down for that issue. I do not wish this on you. On the other hand, I was somewhat thrilled, and a few weeks later, H.Puthoff answered me and we embarked on a five-month exchange, honoring the fact that we do similar physics in the Polarizable Vacuum. This is all I need, namely, CONTACT. Publication is a main route there, but I do not have to care now. My job is to find the end of the usefulness of my hypothesis. There is yet none in sight. I am working with a brilliant man who is formulating further QFT very much in line with what you've heard from John Baez and a few others, and who sees my ideas as completely parallel.

[Farsight]

Thanks for the input guys.

[BenTheMan]

Can anybody give me any advice on submitting a formal paper?

 

Don't include pictures of clocks, beans, or optical illusions.

 

And be prepared to defend your arguments even more vigorously than you have here, and with more details. Most journal reviewers are post-docs, or young professors, who know their stuff VERY well.

[elas]

BenTheMan

 

For starters I have submitted an amended paper to The Open Directory. Would appreciate your opinion as to the standing of this organization.

[Norman Albers]

Elas,, I want to read your treatment of the anomalous magnetic moment, and am downloading it.(the difference of the gyromagnetic moment from exactly two.) This is nice and is what is always touted as the greatest success of QED. Dirac called this "essentially coincidence". In 1977 he said, "People have done an enormous amount of work with the quantum electrodynamics, as it is called. They have noticed that, although attempts to solve the wave equation always lead to infinities; those infinities can be managed in a certain way. In particular, it was shown by Lamb that the infinities could be removed by a process of renormalization. This means that you assume that your parameters e and m occurring in the original equations are not the same as the physically observed quantities. In general the idea of renormaliization is quite physically sensible, but the way it is applied here is not sensible, because the factor connecting the original parameters with the new ones is inifinitely great. It is then not a mathematically sensible process at all. But still, people have worked with it, in particular Lamb. The surprising thing is that with the infinities discarded by these aritificiall renormalization rules, you get results in agreement with observation... to a very high degree of accuracy. Most physicists are very satisfied with that result. They say that all a physicist needs is to have some theory giving results in agreement with observation. I say this is not all a physicist needs. A physicist needs that his equations should be mathematically sound, that in working with these he should not neglect quantities unless they are small. Well, here again I find myself in disagreement with the great body of theoretical physicists. They are complacent about the difficulties of the QED, and I feel that kind of complacency is similar to that which people at one time had with the original Klein-Gordon equation. It is a complacency which blocks further progress. Any substantial further progress, I feel, must come from some drastic changes in the basic equations. Just where they should be I do not know but I feel this change will be rather similar to the changes the Heisenberg introduced in 1925 [non-commuting algebra]. It is a change which people will probably come to eventually only by an indirect route. The only feature of the new theory which one can be sure of is that it must be based on sound and beautiful mathmatics." Also, folks, read earlier in the paper: "One can go to 4x4 matrices [from the Pauli 2x2 matrices] and then one can easily get an expression for the square root of the sum of four squares. This led me to a new equation involving these 4x4 matrices... One can modify this equation to bring in the electromagnetic field in the same way that Schroedinger brought it to the de Broglie equation. The result is an equation for the electron moving in the EM field, in agreement with the basic requirements of relativity and quantum mechanics. It was found that this equation gave the particle a spin of half a quantum. And also gave its magnetic moment. It gave just the properties that one needed for an electron. That was really an unexpected bonus for me, completely unexpected." So, folks, you will find me in my dunce corner, meditating with dead guys. What is going round and round, Elas?

[elas]

Norman Alber

 

What is going round and round, Elas?

 

A cyclotron sends leptons and bosons around at the speed of light within a tube. A muon is introduced into this flow, but the muon has greater mass and therefore its maximum speed is marginally less than the so-called electro-magnetic flux.

The speed differences causes the muon to fall back one rotation of the flux every 30 circuits of the tube. Therefore the axis of the muon retards 12 degrees every circuit of the tube. We observe the relativistic effect of a particle traveling within a field that is itself traveling at 99..999% c. This time dilation enables an observer to see a particle change ('decay' in QT) in slow motion.

 

The planets orbiting the Sun display a similar effect at non-relativistic speeds in that the rotation of the Sun and its gravity field occur at different speeds to the orbital speeds of the planets.

[Norman Albers]

Nice, Elas. I have to think about what is implied here. Time dilation is simply so. What is the relation of the muon to the field?

[elas]

Norman Albers

 

What is the relation of the muon to the field?

 

My mathematical skills are weak. The Constant Linear Force theory is about my limit. The mathematics of time dilation is not something that I have practiced. If I may be a little conceited, I take pride in problem solving and it seemed to me that particle structure must in the beginning be simple; it was a question of pursuing all avenues (that I understood) until I had a satisfactory explanation of particle structure. It has taken 18 years.

 

I cannot provide a mathematical answer to your question, but charged particles that escape from the nucleus (even if they enter during a collision) expand until they stabilize as shell particles (electrons). This is not a decaying process; the contents of the particle remain unchanged. It is an adjustment to a change in compaction state. This is like reading table 1 from the bottom upwards or Fig.6b from right to left. Just as jet experiments produce particle jets that expand at right angle to the line of advance so does the muon expand as it travels around the cyclotron.

I calculate (but,do not rely on this calculation) that a muon normally travels about 150 meters during its lifetime; but, 30 times around the cyclotron is about 3950 meters. The muon covers this extra distance because it is traveling in a field that is itself traveling at c. It is therefore in a completely different time zone to that of the observer. That means that time in the magnetic flux is almost stationary.

I have started writing some notes on interpretation with a view to expanding on what is already on my URL. I am attaching a copy so that you can see where I am heading; but do not take this as a finished paper, it is just some start up notes.

Thanks for your interest

elas

[elas]

Norman Albers

 

Just realized that I can put it in simple terms as follows:

The muon observes that it (the muon) has completed one circuit of the magnetic field at 99.99% c.

In the same time the external observer observes that the muon has completed 30 circuits of the magnetic chamber at 99.99% c.

As Einstein pointed out "c is constant for all observers". But, of course; that does not mean that we cannot observe the difference.

[Severian]

Norman, thanks for your quote from Dirac. I had never heard that before. I am somewhat surprised, but strangely reassured, that someone as clever as Dirac can so fundamentally misunderstand the point of renormalisation.

[Norman Albers]

Severian, say more please. I am not well educated here yet. Elas, I worked as a student on an experiment team with the Brookhaven accelerator beam at 3 GEV. We smashed protons into protons (I think in carbon nuclei). I'll have to look up the details, but to look at the lifetime of one of the resultants, it would have been expected to decay in a very short distance even moving near c. However, it flew many meters and produced an event in our wall of neutron counters. Time dilation is given by: [math] d\tau = \sqrt{1-\beta^2}dt [/math] where t measures lab time and [math]\tau[/math] the particle frame, "along for the ride". [math]\beta[/math] is v/c. . . . . . . . .time passes . . . I started reading the lengthy wiki entry on 'renormalization'. My, my, it all hits the fan here. There is the Lagrangian I have been wondering about, and we are talking basic electron nature and virtual fields. These are things on which Singularities-R-Us has offered more than a little perspective. Speaking as Principal Instigator, I see the virtual field (as does H.Puthoff) as "loosely" an electron-positron plasma. Electrons may be seen as similar to plasma instabilities, only they are stable. This in the context of uncertainty, which points to their nature as a self-consistent process where virtual e-p pairs can be seen as tending in response to a point-like field to manifest skewing of their populations. A divergence of polarization is to be seen as charge density. The field I present in my electron study is only the first and handiest mathematical structure. In fact I have over the last few days, realized a different version characterized by a Gaussian falloff of nearfield. I chose to reject this when I worked 3-4 years ago because the [math]e^{-r}[/math] looks "more pointy". However, the squared exponent falls off faster, with a broader center. It works equally well in terms of cancelling the embarrassing orders of infinity. My colleague working on non-local QFT said he needed an inflection, so I found one. Quantum mechanics gives me a virtual field of "electron-positron pairs 'popping in and out of existence'". Though this phrase drives me up the wall, I can work with it since it manifests on the scale of Planck length and time. Think about dipole pairs in a very brief existence, given a radial E-field and central B-field. What will tend to happen to those randomly offered in either radial or transverse orientation? How will they tend to move? Given this sort of dynamic disposition we can see the monopole as nothing but an illusion of dipoles.

[elas]

Norman Alber

 

Two parts of your reply leapt out at me:

it would have been expected to decay in a very short distance even moving near c. However, it flew many meters and produced an event in our wall of neutron counters.

I would need the details of several such experiments in order to try and build a theory, but I believe the explanation I gave for anomalous magnetic moment would apply.

 

Quantum mechanics gives me a virtual field of "electron-positron pairs 'popping in and out of existence'".

The CLF model has ‘zero charged particles’ passing through charged particles.

The Standard model classes the graviton as a charge 0 particle; CLF classes it as a charge 1 particle. Gravity appears to be neutral for the same reason that atoms appear to be neutral: that is because particles on any given radial are arranged in a pos/neg chains.

As the photon passes from particle to particle it creates a composite which may have a stable phase as in proton + photon =neutron in an atomic nucleus; or a temporary phase as in electron + photon = ‘high energy’ electron.

In passing through gravitons the photon creates the so-called virtual electrons and positrons that are not true electrons and positrons but simply a composite that closely resembles electrons and positrons. Hence their extremely brief lifetime and the appearance of a seething background of virtual particles in QT.

 

”QT predicts – CLF explains”

[Norman Albers]

Beautiful paper, Elas. You dare to say Nature is unified. I have not yet touched on hadrons and <m=3> interpretations of loops, but I have found expression of electrons, photons, and gravitation from a common interpretation of the vacuum "availability", as I like to call it. Do you produce transverse localization of photons, as I have?

[elas]

Re: PHOTON LOCALIZAATION and DARK ENERGY

 

I am not qualified to comment on the mathematics, but, I am in general agreement with the opening summary. I restricted CLF to charged particles because I could not find sufficient experimental data to deal with zero charge particles.

In my opinion ‘0’ charge particles are particles with collapsed vacuum fields. As there are no gaps in the vacuum frame (made up of charged particles); then ‘0’ charge particles occupy the vacuum fields of charged particles where they are either retained (captured?) or expelled. The length of time a ‘0’ charge particle is retained is dependent on its compaction state (as demonstrated by a neutron in and out of the nucleus).

Expelled particles are always expelled at the same speed [c] because they are always expelled from a single elementary particle vacuum field (i.e. with the force related to the compaction state; the speed being ‘c’ in that compaction state).

The number of ‘0’ charged particles that can occupy the same space are limited; some research on the maximum was done in the field of LASER research, but I did not keep a copy of that paper.

 

The neutron radius found by experiment is about 88f. The neutron radius found using the CLF formula is 80f the difference is caused by the CLF formula assumption that all the Vacuum Zero Points are in one point which, of course is impossible: in reality they are 8f apart. This shows that the photon is present in the neutron as a separate entity and is not created by quark decay. It also shows that a photon is a two particle composite (it takes the linear force of five particles to obtain the observed radius).

 

The reason why we do not observe the [neutron] photon experimentally is the same as that I have given for the non-appearance of ‘0’ charge particles in a bubble chamber; that is that particles that pass through other particles do not leave a wake.

There is however another very fundamental point, we observe only the movement of vacuum fields, we do not observe the movement of matter. This is what the bubble chamber and the neutron experiment demonstrate; (i.e. it is not just my personal view).

The reason for this is quite simple vacuum force distorts matter and without that distortion matter is not distinguishable from the background field.

Finally we must ask, does the photon have a wave form or does it momentarily alter the waveform of the particle it is passing through? I think the evidence points to the latter, but having said that, it must be realized that two photons separating from the same point of origin, can carry a waveform between them in much the same manner as two carbon brushes can carry an electric current over a widening gap. This is a short range effect because the wave force decreases as the gap expands.

 

I am slowly writing this up in a paper on Interpretation although I have written most of it on earlier web pages. Unfortunately I am limited to 1-2 hours per day computer time. I have ordered a book on QT mathematics that might help me to get a better grip on QT papers such as yours; meanwhile I hope we will keep in touch.

Regards

elas

[Norman Albers]

Elas, be careful in characterizing my photon study. It is electrodynamics and satisfies Maxwell's equations assuming that the vacuum manifests a superconducting-like response to changing A-fields. Or to put things more accurately, I entered assuming the existence of a wave packet with Gaussian falloff, and showed that the math says: [math]j_i=(-\lambda^2+\rho/U)A_i[/math]. I don't yet understand your ideas of process but it seems you are characterizing particle sizes by energy, and this is fairly comfortable as a DeBroglie wavelength, no?

[elas]

Norman Albers

 

but it seems you are characterizing particle sizes by energy, and this is fairly comfortable as a DeBroglie wavelength, no?

 

I am saying:

Energy equals linear force multiplied by mass.

Speed is relative in that throughout infinity it is not possible to state the true speed of any particular body because we cannot prove that any particular reference point is stationary; 'c' in one compaction is not the same as 'c' in another compaction.

Although your maths are way beyond mine, The words used to interpret your maths indicate that our views of photons are close enough to generate some excitement. I suggest that any difference in wavelength is due to the composite nature of the photon but, that leaves open the possibility that the wavelengths should be proportional to each other.

What I would like to have is a sequence of not less than six wavelengths from you to compare with the fractional sequences used in my paper. Of course, you are free to do this without my involvement; I just feel that if we both did it; it would act as a cross check and the result would be more credible.

If there is agreement then we can think about the next stage. If there is no agreement we need to ask why?

[Norman Albers]

Elas, I appreciate your positive reply. I need to clean up my terminology about DeBroglie waves, as I was really implying Compton wavelength. DeBroglie waves are a subtle system. We assume the total energy of the particle or photon to be proportional to a frequency, and at rest for a mass there is still a frequency implied by its energy. Wavelength, however, is taken as proportional to momentum, so we are folding special relativity into the representation, at least once. So for a slowly moving particle there is a "effective momentum wavelenth", or Debroglie wavelength, that gets arbitrarily long; we can still speak of its characteristic Compton wavelength, defined as: [math]h/mc[/math]. This seems to me to suggest the usefulness of seeing mass as energy convinced to localize. Discussion of DeBroglie waves I guess is reserved for dynamics.