Re: [Vo]:photons

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Just one Remark as I basically agree with Bob.

The only (tiny) perturbation we see is in the energy transfer of 
differently polarized photons. See also Goos Haenchen effect.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goos%E2%80%93H%C3%A4nchen_effect

A photon is pure magnetic flux that can carry two orthogonal momenta, 
what is shown above.



J.W.

On 11.10.2021 17:15, Bob Higgins wrote:

Hi Robin,
See my answers inline below ...
Bob

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 3:56 PM Robin 
> wrote:


In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Oct 2021 13:58:12 -0600:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>I believe photons to be corpuscles having more than one cycle
(sort of like
>a gaussian envelope) but finite in size.  The envelope is a soliton
>solution supported by the nonlinearity of the aether; which is
different
>from a linear EM excitation of the aether.  Each photon contains
a fixed
>energy as a corpuscle.  You cannot ascribe an energy/cycle
because the
>waveform is not sine.

Then what are frequency/wavelength related to in such an entity?

The frequency/wavelength ratio within the photon is not known because 
the nonlinear equations have not been solved.  The photon carries a 
finite amount of oscillatory energy.  When the photon interacts with 
an atom, it is a complicated oscillatory dance.  This dance may even 
require a non-sinusoidal E-field within the photon for interaction 
with the atom's electron.  That's OK because the photon was generated 
by a transmitting atom that had to go through that same dance to 
release the photon.


>Also, within the nonlinearity of the photon
>excitation of the aether, the velocity is different due to the
>nonlinearity.  Photons must have a fixed size, commensurate with the
>electron orbital that can absorb it.

Try assuming that absorption depends on frequency not size.
Take the swing example. A push at the right moment leads to large
oscillations, even though the length of the "push" is
much smaller than the amplitude of the oscillation. IOW frequency
(timing), not size, determines energy transfer.

Atoms are not magic antennas that can reach out and grab energy from 
the aether with a reach much bigger than the orbital size.  Consider 
the atomic electron to be an antenna nearly the same size as the 
orbital.  When an atom absorbs a photon - it consumes ALL of it.  This 
means that the photon must be of commensurate size to the electron 
orbital.  It helps to think like Goedecke ("Classically Radiationless 
Motions) - this was the foundation of Mills' derivation.


I have been giving a lot of thought lately to the transient behavior 
of the electron in natural collisions with other atoms.  The physics 
of this are mostly ignored.  The electron orbital will wobble as it 
gains or loses energy in the collision.  According to Goedecke, only 
when the orbital is in perfect balance between angular momentum of the 
electron and orbital period does the electron not radiate RF energy.  
 When an electron gains energy from collision, it is perturbed out of 
its radiation-less condition.  It radiates energy until it reaches the 
condition of non-radiation.  But what happens if the electron is 
perturbed to an energy below that of the infinitely narrow 
radiation-less condition? If reciprocity is applied, it means that 
whenever the electron is not in the radiation-less condition, it has a 
non-zero radiation resistance.  It can not only radiate energy, but it 
can receive energy.  I propose that when the electron is perturbed out 
of the radiation-less case to a lower energy that it actually takes 
(receives) energy from the aether to go back to the ideal 
radiation-less case.  This has other implications that I am trying to 
thread through now.



>Photons propagate completely
>differently than normal linearly excited EM waves.

So where is the frequency dividing line? IOW If radio waves are EM
waves, and light is photons, then at what frequency
does that change over from EM waves to photons occur?

It is an energy density issue in the aether.  The lower the frequency, 
the more spread out the energy is across many units of the aether 
lattice.  At higher frequency, the energy density can be higher over 
the course of a 1/2 wavelength creating greater likelihood of  
stimulating a nonlinearity.  The soft threshold is in the THz range.  
I say soft, because it has to do with field strength and that depends 
on amplitude and frequency.  The field must rise very quickly before 
the energy radiates away via the normal linear means.


BTW, this is the same mechanism for phonon formation in a condensed 
matter lattice.  Phonons are the same kind of corpuscular solution in 
a nonlinear excitation of the lattice.  When you look at the 
derivation for the acoustic properties of a lattice, the first thing 
they do is linearize the Young's modulus and solve for the 

Re: [Vo]:photons

[Bob Higgins]

Hi Robin,
See my answers inline below ...
Bob

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 3:56 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Oct 2021 13:58:12 -0600:
> Hi Bob,
> [snip]
> >I believe photons to be corpuscles having more than one cycle (sort of
> like
> >a gaussian envelope) but finite in size.  The envelope is a soliton
> >solution supported by the nonlinearity of the aether; which is different
> >from a linear EM excitation of the aether.  Each photon contains a fixed
> >energy as a corpuscle.  You cannot ascribe an energy/cycle because the
> >waveform is not sine.
>
> Then what are frequency/wavelength related to in such an entity?

The frequency/wavelength ratio within the photon is not known because the
nonlinear equations have not been solved.  The photon carries a finite
amount of oscillatory energy.  When the photon interacts with an atom, it
is a complicated oscillatory dance.  This dance may even require a
non-sinusoidal E-field within the photon for interaction with the atom's
electron.  That's OK because the photon was generated by a transmitting
atom that had to go through that same dance to release the photon.

>

>Also, within the nonlinearity of the photon
> >excitation of the aether, the velocity is different due to the
> >nonlinearity.  Photons must have a fixed size, commensurate with the
> >electron orbital that can absorb it.
>
> Try assuming that absorption depends on frequency not size.
> Take the swing example. A push at the right moment leads to large
> oscillations, even though the length of the "push" is
> much smaller than the amplitude of the oscillation. IOW frequency
> (timing), not size, determines energy transfer.
>
Atoms are not magic antennas that can reach out and grab energy from the
aether with a reach much bigger than the orbital size.  Consider the atomic
electron to be an antenna nearly the same size as the orbital.  When an
atom absorbs a photon - it consumes ALL of it.  This means that the photon
must be of commensurate size to the electron orbital.  It helps to think
like Goedecke ("Classically Radiationless Motions) - this was the
foundation of Mills' derivation.

I have been giving a lot of thought lately to the transient behavior of the
electron in natural collisions with other atoms.  The physics of this are
mostly ignored.  The electron orbital will wobble as it gains or loses
energy in the collision.  According to Goedecke, only when the orbital is
in perfect balance between angular momentum of the electron and orbital
period does the electron not radiate RF energy.   When an electron gains
energy from collision, it is perturbed out of its radiation-less
condition.  It radiates energy until it reaches the condition of
non-radiation.  But what happens if the electron is perturbed to an energy
below that of the infinitely narrow radiation-less condition?  If
reciprocity is applied, it means that whenever the electron is not in the
radiation-less condition, it has a non-zero radiation resistance.  It can
not only radiate energy, but it can receive energy.  I propose that when
the electron is perturbed out of the radiation-less case to a lower energy
that it actually takes (receives) energy from the aether to go back to the
ideal radiation-less case.  This has other implications that I am trying to
thread through now.

>
> >Photons propagate completely
> >differently than normal linearly excited EM waves.
>
> So where is the frequency dividing line? IOW If radio waves are EM waves,
> and light is photons, then at what frequency
> does that change over from EM waves to photons occur?
>
It is an energy density issue in the aether.  The lower the frequency, the
more spread out the energy is across many units of the aether lattice.  At
higher frequency, the energy density can be higher over the course of a 1/2
wavelength creating greater likelihood of  stimulating a nonlinearity.  The
soft threshold is in the THz range.  I say soft, because it has to do with
field strength and that depends on amplitude and frequency.  The field must
rise very quickly before the energy radiates away via the normal linear
means.

BTW, this is the same mechanism for phonon formation in a condensed matter
lattice.  Phonons are the same kind of corpuscular solution in a nonlinear
excitation of the lattice.  When you look at the derivation for the
acoustic properties of a lattice, the first thing they do is linearize the
Young's modulus and solve for the linear solutions.  Phonons will not be a
solution within a linear formulation!  They linearize the Young's modulus
so that they can solve the math.

>
> >
> >Photons don't arise from Maxwell's equations because Maxwell's equations
> >are a linear description of space.  Maxwell believed there IS an aether
> and
> >his equations reflect this.  Even though the aether was not measured, they
> >continued to use Maxwell's equations for normal EM excitation because they
> >worked (proving there is an aether).  Those that believe 

Re: [Vo]:photons

[Robin]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Oct 2021 13:58:12 -0600:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>I believe photons to be corpuscles having more than one cycle (sort of like
>a gaussian envelope) but finite in size.  The envelope is a soliton
>solution supported by the nonlinearity of the aether; which is different
>from a linear EM excitation of the aether.  Each photon contains a fixed
>energy as a corpuscle.  You cannot ascribe an energy/cycle because the
>waveform is not sine.  

Then what are frequency/wavelength related to in such an entity?

>Also, within the nonlinearity of the photon
>excitation of the aether, the velocity is different due to the
>nonlinearity.  Photons must have a fixed size, commensurate with the
>electron orbital that can absorb it.  

Try assuming that absorption depends on frequency not size.
Take the swing example. A push at the right moment leads to large oscillations, 
even though the length of the "push" is
much smaller than the amplitude of the oscillation. IOW frequency (timing), not 
size, determines energy transfer.

>Photons propagate completely
>differently than normal linearly excited EM waves.

So where is the frequency dividing line? IOW If radio waves are EM waves, and 
light is photons, then at what frequency
does that change over from EM waves to photons occur?

>
>Photons don't arise from Maxwell's equations because Maxwell's equations
>are a linear description of space.  Maxwell believed there IS an aether and
>his equations reflect this.  Even though the aether was not measured, they
>continued to use Maxwell's equations for normal EM excitation because they
>worked (proving there is an aether).  Those that believe there is no aether
>cannot understand the possibility of a soliton solution for a photon.
>Soliton solutions require a nonlinear medium.  From their perspective, if
>space is empty, how can "nothing" be nonlinear?  From my perspective, the
>existence of photons provides another proof that there is an aether and it
>is nonlinear.

...only if photons are indeed Solitons. 
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk 

Re: [Vo]:photons

[Bob Higgins]

I believe photons to be corpuscles having more than one cycle (sort of like
a gaussian envelope) but finite in size.  The envelope is a soliton
solution supported by the nonlinearity of the aether; which is different
from a linear EM excitation of the aether.  Each photon contains a fixed
energy as a corpuscle.  You cannot ascribe an energy/cycle because the
waveform is not sine.  Also, within the nonlinearity of the photon
excitation of the aether, the velocity is different due to the
nonlinearity.  Photons must have a fixed size, commensurate with the
electron orbital that can absorb it.  Photons propagate completely
differently than normal linearly excited EM waves.

Photons don't arise from Maxwell's equations because Maxwell's equations
are a linear description of space.  Maxwell believed there IS an aether and
his equations reflect this.  Even though the aether was not measured, they
continued to use Maxwell's equations for normal EM excitation because they
worked (proving there is an aether).  Those that believe there is no aether
cannot understand the possibility of a soliton solution for a photon.
Soliton solutions require a nonlinear medium.  From their perspective, if
space is empty, how can "nothing" be nonlinear?  From my perspective, the
existence of photons provides another proof that there is an aether and it
is nonlinear.

Bob Higgins

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 1:00 PM Robin 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Photons have a cycle time(T) = 1/frequency.
> Planks constant has the dimension of energy x time.
> So the energy of single cycle photon would be h/T = h x frequency, which
> is the formula for photon energy.
> What does this mean?
> It means that either the photon energy formula only describes the minimal
> energy of a photon, or that all photons only
> comprise a single cycle.
> If multi-cycle photons also exist, then their energy would be a multiple
> of the base photon energy.
>
> Comments?
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk 
>
>