"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4522987B.5050407@globetrotter.net...

FrediFizzx a écrit :

"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4521EB43.9080004@globetrotter.net...

FrediFizzx a écrit :

"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4520424B.60302@globetrotter.net...

FrediFizzx a écrit :

"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:45201196.3020001@globetrotter.net...

FrediFizzx a écrit :

Actually without SR, I would have to reject photons. But I

highly

suspect there is much more to the complete story. ;-)

Interestingly, I derive them straight from Maxwell, with SR not

even

in the picture.

André Michaud

Well André, I would have to say that your photons are not the

same

as

QED's photons then.

Right. No relation to QED virtual photons at all. My photons are

the

same as those Einstein was talking about and proved can dislodge
individual electron from material.

Well, QED's photons can do that also. No problem there.

Well, I would like to read a paper detailing a _verified_

experiment

where a QED virtual photon was observed knocking out an electron.

There are plenty of papers about that and plenty of books also.
Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Intro. to QED" for one book with
reference to experiments about that. All photons are essentially
virtual in nature. But certainly some are more "real" than others.

QED virtual photons were clearly defined in Feynman's initial 1949
papers. Strictly representing interaction between charged particles.

Actually they were pretty much completely defined generally by Dirac in
1927 in "The Quantum Theory of the Emission and Absorption of
Radiation", Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A114, 243 (1927). I believe this was
the start of QED. Feynman just presented a mechanism for simplification
of the process of the interaction between charged particles. A way to
get rid of the infinities involved in that particular process. There is
more to QED than just that. An excited atom does in fact emit a QED
photon when it drops to a lower level as described by Dirac.

By very definition, Feynman's virtual photons are metaphors for
the Coulomb electrostatic interaction between particles. Can't
be knocked against and can't knock anything about. A mathematical
metaphor for all intents and purposes from my perspective.

How did we jump from QED's photons to Feynman's virtual photons
pertaining to Coulomb interactions? ;-)

Because QED's photons _are_ Feynman's virtual photons, which he

defined

as an easy "snapshot" so to speak of any momentary state of

interaction

between charged particles. That the concept was then extended by
others is irrelevant to the initial mathematical concept.

You have extremely limited yourself in thinking this. QED's photons are
what Dirac described.

I am talking about relatively free photons that like come from the

sun.

Or a laser beam, etc.

Those are the ones I am talking about. Real physical EM photons.

These are all perfectly well described by QED.

I don't think so. Feynman's initial paper definitely says otherwise.

I strongly urge you to get Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Intro. to
QED". You will see a much different picture for QED. "Feynman's Way"
doesn't even come into the QED picture until chap. 12 sect.10 at the end
of the book. Feynman merely put some of the "finishing touches" on QED
to help make it a more consistent theory. Much work was done by others
before that. Believe me, "real physical EM photons" are very well
described by QED. Granted that some of the interpretations might be a
tad lacking, but I think I have that figured out. ;-)

I agree that such photons cannot be described from plane wave
starting point, although plane wave treatment can be mapped on
them afterwards. I went in deep and had a look at Maxwell's
spherically expanding wave front from its mandatory point source,
and did some geometrizing and mathematizing so to speak of what
the EM pulse would be like if it remained a point source instead

of

spherically expanding. That's how I ended up with that LC

oscillating

equation I mentioned once. The equation of a localized moving

real

physically existing and moving photon in my model.

I am not sure right now but I think your model has trouble with

the

photon having a dipole moment. Which it is known that photons

don't

have a dipole moment. Did you check that aspect? Did I ask you

this

before?

You didn't. But yes, in my model discrete EM photons do have a

dipole

moment. Like all electromagnetic particles in physical reality. And
the model doesn't have "trouble" with it. This is a natural outcome
of the model.

To my knowledge, the assumption that photons shouldn't have a

dipole

moment is just that, an assumption. The math is apparently seamless
from Marmet to the final equation.

There have indeed been experiments that have tried to detect an

electric

dipole moment for photons (and all elementary particles). All

results

are consistent with it being zero for all elementary particles.

What is

the formula for your photon electric dipole moment? Or what would

be

the dipole moment for a typical visual light photon in your model?

Electric ! I see. I thought you were talking about the magnetic
dipole moment, and that's what I was answering about. The formula
for magnetic dipole moment of elementary particles, photons included,
is in my model

mu = (e c alpha^2 lambda)/(4 pi)

Well, photons have a magnetic moment consistent with zero also so I
don't know how you are going to get by that one either.

For electric, I tried to explain once I think. Traditional electric
dipole is calculated from _signed_ charged particles, all charges
being viewed as being signed.

In my model, the sign of a charge turns out to be a relative property
apparently acquired at the moment of decoupling of a photon of
sufficient energy, meaning that before decoupling the charges seem
to be unsigned.

See below.

But, the Maxwell equations are fully compliant with SR. So SR

has

to be in the "picture" even if you don't realize it.
;-)

Matter of opinion maybe. I analyzed that Maxwell was way more
fundamental than SR. As far as I analyzed, time and space

contraction

are absolutely not needed nor hinted at in native Maxwell.

"Space contraction" goes to what we were talking about in that

space

is

just the stage for actors to play on.

Total agreement.

It has no other properties so it
is in fact the interaction of quantum objects that would give us

the

apparent "mapping" of "space contraction".

Agreement also.

IOW, it is really not space
that could be giving us that impression as it has no properties to

even

be able to do it.

Agreement also. To me, vacuum has no properties at all.

Everything we know about comes from the interaction
of quantum objects. The same sort of concept applies to time

also.

Entirely due to the behaviour of quantum objects and our

perspective

wrt

them.

My view exactly.

"Derivation of Maxwell's Equations from the Local Gauge

Invariance

of Quantum Mechanics"

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000046000004000342000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes

"Maxwell's equations are derived from the principle of form

invariance

of quantum mechanics under multiplication of the wave function

by

a

space- and time-dependent phase factor (local gauge

transformations

of

the first kind). The principle leads to the introduction of the

vector

and scalar potentials, which are shown to transform under the

usual

gauge transformations of electromagnetism (gauge transformations

of

the

second kind). The electric and magnetic fields are introduced in

the

usual way to obtain observable fields which are gauge

independent.

Faraday's law and the condition of no magnetic monopoles are

obtained

from the gauge transformations of the potentials. Conservation

of

energy

and the linearity of the field equations are assumed to obtain

Gauss'

law and the Ampere-Maxwell law".

This is a pretty good paper on what would be the case if a

hypothetical

physicist knew about quantum mechanics but for some reason did

not

know

about E and B fields. He could deduce the E and B fields from

QM.

SR

enters via the Local Gauge Invariance.

I agree that Maxwell can be retro-derived from SR and even QM. I

think

however that Maxwell is more fundamental than both, more

fundamental

than Lorentz even.

Simple opinion, of course.

Yes, I know. I am always trying to persuade you to change your

mind.

;-)

I'm afraid it would be impossible at this point. If there were any
break in the mathematical sequence, I would definitely reconsider,

but

there are none. The sequence is now complete. The coherence is
sufficient to easily see how all classical force equations reduce

to

F=ma as I explained to someone here some time ago. The same for G
being definable to apply to atoms. How to describe a coherent
structure for nucleons. And more. Much more.

For I see that all physics could be emergent from the concept of
massless point-like basically neutral "particles" in interaction

with

each other. "Neutral" here means charge-wise.

I see the same. In my model, the sign of charges is a property

acquired

at the moment decoupling (already mentioned if I recall). Prior to

that

the fundamental particles are photons, which in my model are

precisely

that: "massless point-like neutral particles in interaction with

all

other particles in the universe".

However they can't be
completely neutral with respect to some attributes other than

charge

otherwise Planck's constant and c would not emerge.

Here we diverge. My model is not time based (Planck's constant), as
you know, but transverse amplitude based (H=hc), and both h and c

are

derived from the concept that the energy of a free moving EM

quantum

is always inversely proportional to distance it covers during 1

cycle

E=1/lamda

which makes the product (lambda E) a fundamental constant that I

named

H in my model and which I found to be equal to a set of other

constants

derived from Marmet's work

H = lambda E = e^2/(2 eps0 alpha)

From which H = hc can ultimately be derived

What exactly these
other attributes are remains a mystery at present and we may never

know.

But they are what are really fundamental.

The only really fundamental attributes I found are the tripple
orthogonality of all electromagnetic quanta. It is sufficient
to derive the entire model.

The true indivisible "atoms" of nature. But I could be wrong and
nature really did just give us different kinds of indivisible
"particles" to start with. ;-)

I for one, suspect that there is only one kind, the unsigned
charges that naturally emerge from the equations when you
resolve eps0 and mu0 to their pi forms.

I still don't understand this "unsigned" charges concept. Explain
more if you wish.

I will try. Not easy though without clear visualization of the
3 spaces geometry.

It stems from equations transformation to represent energy as
"something" in any electromagnetic energy quantum being subjected
to cyclic transverse acceleration.

The primary equation is obtained by resolving eps0 in the equation
for energy drawn from Marmet's development (described in my little
pdf)

E = hf = e^2/(2 eps0 alpha lambda)

E = (e^2 10^-7)((2 pi c^2)/(lambda alpha))

(Note that it is this equation that allows reducing all existing
classical force equations to F=ma as I already explained.)

The part being accelerated transversally is (e^2 10^-7) where further
analysis shows that the 10^-7 is only due to my working with SI units
and is not to be extracted the root of when e^2 is extracted the root
of to separate them.

The acceleration is ((2 pi c^2)/(lambda alpha))

in it, ((lamba alpha)/(2 pi)) is the maximum electrostatic
transverse amplitude of the electromagnetic cyclic swing
of the e unsigned charges towards and away from each other.

That maximum extent is determined by the speed of light being
maximum velocity reached during transverse motion (explanation
too complex to elaborate here).

Now, when the primary equation is obtained, the very form e^2 reveals
that both particles of this representation have to be identical (just
like both electron and positron would be identical if it weren't for
the opposite signs), either with the same sign, or more fundamentally,
simply neutral |e2| as I hypothesized, which makes absolutely logical
that the opposite signs of a decoupling electron/positron pair
(+ and -) be acquired as the pair decouples.

The final questions in this regard are now "What are they?" and "How
do they initially come into being?". For example, when a pair

decouples,

the residual energy in excess of the 1.022 MeV required to form the
mass of the separating pair and that causes the now massive electron
and positron to fly away from each other seems to be again simple
normal photons that are simply slowed down by the presence of the
massive particles (explained in chapter The Carrier Photon in my
book). How does the new pair of neutral corpuscles of each new
residual carrier-photon come into being ?

It may simply be a not yet understood universal primary and very
mechanical uniform initial step of energy quantization that would

occur

whenever local electromagnetic equilibrium requires it and that then
can be accelerated, inducing more energy.

Also, what happens to them when the energy that their acceleration
induced has completely crossed over to magnetostatic space at the end
of a cycle ? Do they momentarily cross over too, converting to kinetic
energy, to re-quantize as neutral corpuscles as the energy starts
reentering electrostatic space ? Do they remain as energyless neutral
corpuscles on the electrostatic side of the tri-spatial junction, to
draw again the energy from magnetostatic space as they draw apart as
they initiate the next cycle ?

These questions remain to be answered. A new frontier even in my model.
This structural analysis highlights one more astonishing fact about
electromagnetic energy, which is the fact that its transverse

integrated

amplitude, being subject to the speed of light as a maximum limiting
velocity as it accelerates transversally in both electrostatic and
magnetostatic spaces, can only be de facto different from classical
amplitude, and can only correspond to the integrated classical

absolute

amplitude of the particle's energy ((lambda alpha)/(2 pi)).

This reveals furthermore that the classical absolute wavelength of a
photon (lambda=c/f) boils down in context to simply being the distance
covered per second in vacuum by a localized photon during one cycle of
its electromagnetic frequency, which second simply happens to be an
arbitrary duration defined as the standard unit of measurement of time
flow.

Now, considering the cyclic to and fro motion of the pair of unsigned
charges involved in this proposed photon internal dynamic structure,

it

must be obvious that only displacement current can be at play. It is
well understood since Maxwell that displacement current also acts as a
source of magnetic field and that a changing electric field (which

would

be the case with the cyclic symmetric dynamic motion of the pair of
unsigned charges) in a region of space induces a magnetic field in
neighboring regions, even when no conduction current and no matter
are present. This relationship, was apparently first proposed by
Maxwell in 1865.

This is what then led me to elaborate the LC oscillating formula for
the photon, which eventually led to single formula that can provide
both relativistic velocities of moving electron and speed of light
velocity of free moving photons. If my premises about unsigned
charges were not right, how could I then possibly have gotten these
equations from these premises that always give the right velocity
and relativistic mass values for electrons, whatever their velocity.

Well, this is about the gist of it.

I am afraid however that it may not make much sense to you, let alone
anybody else not minimally privy to the 3 spaces space geometry of my
model.

OK, thanks. "Unsigned charges" makes sense to me in the context of a
system of +, - bound charges in a medium.

I believe the quantum "vacuum" is such a system. Which gives us photons
with no electric or magnetic dipole moments.

Consistent with experimental evidence.

I think if you dig deeper into the quantum "vacuum" you will find that you
are effectively trying to model it.

We had to go to at least a dual
spacetime concept to help model it better but maybe it does require a 3
space concept.

Anywise, QED photons do not have a magnetic moment so
that seems to be one of the differences with yours so far.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com