Photon structure

[elas]

Norman Albers

 

Wavelength is one of the items I am going to try and give a better explanation of in my current revision. Meanwhile I have improved my explanation of 'energy' and 'mass' see:

http://69.5.17.59/lnr E.pdf

At present we have the relationships between linear force, energy, vacuum force, anti-vacuum force, radius and mass. In a stationary particle the values attached to these measurements are the same for all radii; but, in a moving particle they vary in proportion to radial lengths (I did a diagram to illustrate this point). This presents two problems, the first being that we only observe the lead radii, the second being that speed is relative and therefore we can never be sure that we are observing a stationary particle, or the true speed of the particle being observed; we can only observe particles in a set of predetermined relative conditions.

[Norman Albers]

Here is a good example of why I am confused, from an admittedly older textbook, but which I find intelligently written. The subject is the broadening of spectral emission lines, and the first effect was Doppler shift. The second part is: "Pressure: Using the light from a single unresolved spectral line, it is possible, under favorable conditions, to produce interference fringes when the difference in the path of the two beams is a much as several hundred thousand wavelengths. In terms of classical theory, this fact was interpreted to mean that the wave train sent out by any particular atom is continuous, i.e., is without change of phase, for at least that number of vibrations. In order that the atom may emit wave trains of this length, it must be "free from interruptions" for a corresponding period of time. In the terminology of the kinetic theory of gases, this means that the mean free time between collisions with other atoms must, on the average, exceed the time required to emit a complete wave train..." Yah, OK, so what does QM interpret here???

 

Elas, part of what you say resonates with me. I am thinking that we do not adequately account for high-energy locales (particle nearfields) by speaking of [math]\epsilon_0[/math], vacuum permittivity, and then claiming to account for the vacuum fluctuations, or virtual field. It seems to me the electron may be seen as an arrangement of that field.

[elas]

NormanAlbers

 

It seems to me the electron may be seen as an arrangement of that field.

 

I agree with you entirely on this point. swansont supports the view that particles are pointlike objects, but this is only one half of an ongoing debate; the other side is that particles have radii as explained in "The Enigmatic Electron"

 

I am slowly coming around to the view that space is created (Big Bang) by the division of Vacuum Zero Points. It follows that the pointlike and radii arguments are simply different ways of looking at the same picture.

[swansont]

Let me remind everyone posting here about the rules, specifically section 2, rule 5: Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory

 

This thread is about photon structure. Other discussion should take place in other threads.

[elas]

It always surprises me to find that what I thought was my original idea is someone else's published work:

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1rw38x1tr714566/

Hector A. Munera6

(6) Department of Physics, Universidad National de Columbia, A.A. 84893 Bogota, Columbia

Abstract

In the context of a 4D aether model, where rest mass is associated with a flow of primordial mass (preons), the photon was described as an electron-positron pair. Such a composite particle is then a charge-neutral and mass-neutral entity; thus accounting for photon standard properties: zero charge and null rest mass. The electromagnetic field of such photons contain both advanced and retarded components, without any causality breach. The model obeys conventional Maxwell equations.

 

As an amateur with no training whatsoever; I thought this was so blindingly obvious that there must be something wrong with my thinking, that it was not a generally accepted truth.

[ydoaPs]

How is an electron positron pair mass neutral(assuming mass neutral means massless)?

[swansont]

"4-D aether model" That should set off the alarm bells.

 

Hector A. Munera appears to be a little, ahem, "out there" in terms of physics; suffice to say there's not a lot of support for his theoretical musings. He's got experiments looking for pendulum anomolies during eclipses, and a presentation of "Re-interpretation of Michelson-Morley/Miller: Propagation in a Preferred Frame" at a conference with Marmet and van Flandern. He's an anti-relativity crank. Nothing to see here.

[Norman Albers]

Don't we all agree there must be some sort of inhomogeneity or we are in a mess? Swansont, where these folks use the term "aether", do you not use the terms, "quantum vacuum, and virtual fields?" I feel we have not well integrated these things into our cosmology; we pass off total vacuum energies as being irrelevant because they are the "common sea level".

[elas]

Norman Albers

Don't we all agree there must be some sort of inhomogeneity or we are in a mess? …………."quantum vacuum, and virtual fields?"

Where the Standard Model refers to ‘vacuum’ the SM means partial vacuum it is acknowledged that there is no such thing as total vacuum unfortunately SM is not clear as to what replaces the missing vacuum in a partial vacuum state. This is where we anti-relativity cranks come in, except that we are not ‘anti’ anything, we are simply looking for a believable interpretation.