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
<mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au
<mailto:mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au>> 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 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 <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au
<mailto:mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au>>
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
