Could Photons be Dipoles?

[TakenItSeriously]

Is there any property or function of a photon that would make them inconsistent with being dipoles?

 

Acting as force carriers, propagating at the speed of light, having 0 mass,...?

[swansont]

Is there any property or function of a photon that would make them inconsistent with being dipoles?

 

Acting as force carriers, propagating at the speed of light, having 0 mass,...?

 

 

 

Lack of charge would be a conspicuous problem.

[Enthalpy]

Insensitivity of light to electric fields and their gradient, too.

 

Having zero rest mass, which combines with light speed, looks uncompatible with one or two charges, as this means energy at rest.

[Sensei]

Having zero rest mass, which combines with light speed, looks uncompatible with one or two charges, as this means energy at rest.

Nothing is at rest.

If you see something at rest, it just means your velocity vector is the same as that thing, giving illusion of being at rest to observer.

 

The smallest currently known, in Standard Model, charged particles are electron and positron.

Photon obviously cannot be made of electron and positron joined together (in such way to cancel each other influence to external observer).

As their total energy (1.022 MeV) is tremendously higher than typical photon (say green photon 2.32 eV 532 nm).

[Enthalpy]

Everyone understands "rest mass" but you.

[TakenItSeriously]

Nothing is at rest.If you see something at rest, it just means your velocity vector is the same as that thing, giving illusion of being at rest to observer.The smallest currently known, in Standard Model, charged particles are electron and positron.Photon obviously cannot be made of electron and positron joined together (in such way to cancel each other influence to external observer).As their total energy (1.022 MeV) is tremendously higher than typical photon (say green photon 2.32 eV 532 nm).

Everyone understands "rest mass" but you.

This brings up an interesting point.

 

An object at rest has 0 potential energy, but to an object in relative motion, its energy is > 0.

 

Does this imply that energy is a relative property?

Edited July 14, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[John Cuthber]

The path of a dipole would be deflected by an electric field; photons are not.

[swansont]

This brings up an interesting point.

 

An object at rest has 0 potential energy, but to an object in relative motion, its energy is > 0.

 

Does this imply that energy is a relative property?

 

 

Kinetic energy is a relative property. Rest mass energy is not. (also, being at rest says nothing about potential energy, which is a function of position)

[TakenItSeriously]

The path of a dipole would be deflected by an electric field; photons are not.

Is this based on how molecular dipoles behave?

 

I'm not trying to refute this, I'm just trying to understand it. I don't see why a photon dipole would be deflected given that it's net charge would be 0. For instance EM fields have no influence over neutrons AFAIK.

Edited July 15, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

Is this based on how molecular dipoles behave?

 

I'm not trying to refute this, I'm just trying to understand it. I don't see why a photon dipole would be deflected given that it's net charge would be 0. For instance EM fields have no influence over neutrons AFAIK.

 

 

Molecules have a net charge of 0, too. You can deflect a stream of water with an electric field. Neutrons have a magnetic moment.

[TakenItSeriously]

Molecules have a net charge of 0, too. You can deflect a stream of water with an electric field. Neutrons have a magnetic moment.

I don't think the water example makes a good case for evidence with regards to photons being diepoles or not.

 

If you increase the speed of the water molecules as they pass through the field by increasing the pressure at the tap, the effect becomes insignificantly small. Of course photons are moving at the SoL so they would pass through an electric field too quickly to notice.

 

Also, I would think the dipole moment which is related to the distance between poles would be considerably smaller than that of an H2O molecule, or even a neutron for that matter.

 

It could be a different matter if the field were AC at a very high frequency, where the wavelength is relative to the SoL but we know that the path of photons are effected in that case as carriers of HSD signals. I'm not sure it the two effects are related though.

Edited July 16, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

I don't think the water example makes a good case for evidence with regards to photons being diepoles or not.

 

If you increase the speed of the water molecules as they pass through the field by increasing the pressure at the tap, the effect becomes insignificantly small. Of course photons are moving at the SoL so they would pass through an electric field too quickly to notice.

So you make the field cover a longer area, and/or make it stronger. Any experiment would put an upper bound on the value.

 

Also, I would think the dipole moment which is related to the distance between poles would be considerably smaller than that of an H2O molecule, or even a neutron for that matter.

You're moving the goalposts. You said you didn't think a dipole would be deflected. I gave you evidence they will be.

 

It could be a different matter if the field were AC at a very high frequency, where the wavelength is relative to the SoL but we know that the path of photons are effected in that case as carriers of HSD signals. I'm not sure it the two effects are related though.

HSD?

[John Cuthber]

Is this based on how molecular dipoles behave?

 

I'm not trying to refute this, I'm just trying to understand it. I don't see why a photon dipole would be deflected given that it's net charge would be 0. For instance EM fields have no influence over neutrons AFAIK.

Strictly, |I think it only shows that they are not dipoles with a non-zero polarisability- but that's pretty much the same thing unless you presume that a photon is infinitely stiff.

Have you heard of NMR spectroscopy? It shows that neurons are affected by them radiation.

[TakenItSeriously]

So you make the field cover a longer area, and/or make it stronger. Any experiment would put an upper bound on the value

 

You're moving the goalposts. You said you didn't think a dipole would be deflected. I gave you evidence they will be.

I wasn't trying to take a position, only trying understand your reference. When you mentioned electric field, I was thinking in terms of charged particles that moved in a parabola, but the only reference Ive seen for dipoles would be to create a torque on their dipole moments causing them to polarize. The path of the particle doesn't deviate because their wouldn't be a net force in either direction that would cause them to deviate.

 

The effect you seemed to be talking about is an electrostatic effect which is a small effect that is similar but not necessarily the same as when you rub a balloon on a sweater. The water reference was when an electrostaticaly charged plastic comb could be used to deflect a slight flow of water out of a tap.

 

I'm not so sure that there is a single accepted explanation for the effect, as each article I found had pointed out different misconceptions about the effect. Some stating ion impurities in the water, another stating that it was due to a non uniform electrostatic field which didn't help me with the understanding much. Others stating it had to do with H2O dipole moments and others claiming it would effect any material with a strong enough field. Of course, these effects are at a relatively static state and the speed of light is at the other extreme and takes something more than a static field.

 

HSD?

HSD or High Speed Design, is the study and treatment of high frequency signal waves in a Printed Circuit Board Domain as they change from behaving like DC circuits to behaving like AC circuits (alternating voltage). It's a relatively new field where digital design underwent a paradigm shift in the 90s due to the signal frequencies becoming too fast in terms of frequency, relative to the speed of light, causing Printed Circuit Boards to fail while digital design engineers couldn't understand why.

 

Simply put, high speed digital waves propagate through EM fields within the substrate material of a PCB at the speed of light (6"/ns for FR-4) and they are carried by photons, just like light waves. Also digital signal waves aren't really square waves, they are only approximations of square waves created by combining odd harmonics of sine waves.

 

Once the signal transition time fits within the length of the trace as defined by the speed of light (that converts length into time) then you need to treat them very differently.

 

One of the fundamental effects is that instead of following the path of least resistance, a signals return path through a ground (or power) plane is the path of least impedance which is typically directly under the signal trace. Another words, the waves carried by photons will follow a curved path, not a straight line. How much they curve is dependent upon the frequency.

 

Strictly, |I think it only shows that they are not dipoles with a non-zero polarisability- but that's pretty much the same thing unless you presume that a photon is infinitely stiff.

Have you heard of NMR spectroscopy? It shows that neurons are affected by them radiation.

I haven't heard of NMR Spectroscopy but I will look it up, thanks.

 

My interest in photons being dipoles could be enough to explain their self propagating through a vacuum which I think the current model fails to do.

 

If they were able to orbit each other as differential pairs, where their dipole moments would cause them to orbit, then they would be self propagating.

 

Imagine a photon moving in a helical motion, then the EM waves would be the perpendicular projections of the wave. Only a single photon wouldn't orbit itself. If photons were dipoles, then two of them could propagate in a dual helical motion and their EM waves would then be differential.

 

Differential waves are self probagating, also they don't require a reference, since they are self referencing.

 

On the left is the model for a particle helix I was thinking about. Unfortunately I don't have a gif for a dual helix that creates differential waves. You have to imagine a second helix and differential sine waves that are 180⁰ shifted to each other.

 

On the right is a model of a differential pair where the arrows represents the EM field and the black dots show the motion of the electrons. Note the helical shape. Unfortunately both images are much better representations as animated gifs, which I don't know how do post.

Edited July 16, 2016 by TakenItSeriously