Allow me to suggest that a photon is a complex nest of recirculating, standing waves where the propagation of one photon can be compared to that of a smoke ring. The propagating toroidal photon is twisting around its circular center line propelling the center of the toroid forward while the outside periphery recycles back toward the inside of the toroid. The propulsion is possibly caused by like-polarity, repulsing string charges appearing on the leading edge of the toroid, possibly aided by unlike-polarity, attracting string charges appearing on the trailing edge of the toroid.
The image shows the proposed nested core of a photon. Please note that secondary, telltale electric and magnetic fields are not shown.
A segmented cross section of the toroid shows the nested, standing waves representing the varies wavelengths of multi-chromatic visible light. As is easily envisioned, the propagation of this toroidal nest generates the variation in frequency and wavelength that we associate with the telltale electric and magnetic fields generated by a propagating photon.
justcurious
Re: The Photon
That is pretty cool. How about toroidal vortex?
Bengt Nyman
Re: The Photon
justcurious wrote: That is pretty cool. How about toroidal vortex?
Exactly ! That brings to mind the correct analogy.
I thought the graphics on that page have some resemblance to your toriod. Miles has send his work to the professor recently, he has an open invitation for new proposals.
The physical photon is very important to understand and would solve many mysteries, at least Miles has made a lot of headway in this regard.
Kind regards, Daniel
Bengt Nyman
Re: The Photon
D_Archer wrote: Hi Bengt,
Miles Mathis recently linked to a page from the University of Glasgow: http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/physics/research/groups/optics~ I thought the graphics on that page have some resemblance to your toriod. The physical photon is very important to understand and would solve many mysteries. Kind regards, Daniel
I agree. Thank You Daniel.
Considering that we just got our first composit energy images of a hydrogen atom including proton and electron, we have a long way to go before we get similar images from an electron or a photon. If mass is any indication we need to be able to magnify another 1836 times to see the standing wave structure of a "stationary" electron. If a photon can be represented by its two constituents; one electron and one positron, the "size" of a stationary photon might be in the same range as the electron. Even though the "tire tracks" of a photon are commonly illustrated as alternating electric and magnetic fields, it says very little about the vehicle itself. We can probably deduct the frequency of the events inside a monochromatic photon from its tire tracks, but very little else. A full spectrum photon is likely to be even more complicated.
An experiment that I wish somebody would do is to put two identical monochromatic lasers shooting at each other, looking for photon scattering in form of an occasional photon becoming red shifted in relation to the laser frequencies.
jjohnson
Re: The Photon
Hi, Bengt,
An intriguing concept, as always. Your laser experiment seems like it would be easy to set up on an optical bench. One thing occurred to me: If there are occasional photon collisions - actual physical collisions, with an exchange of energy and momentum, the law of conservation of momentum (skipping the angular momentum for now) say that if one of the photons is red-shifted as it departs the collision site, the other one should be blue-shifted.
Does that sound right to you? That gives you two chances (per collision) to see if there was a change in momentum, red and blue. Now the "but" part:
But if the photons move at c, and they all mass the same, and momentum = mv, then there cannot be any exchanges of energy. Vector direction may change (glancing collisions as opposed to dead-center collisions), but not the scalar parts, because they are all, always, moving at the same scalar velocity, and all have the same mass.
Are you proposing that they do not all have the same mass? Or are you equating mass with energy and saying that "bluer" electrons have more energy than redder ones, and therefore they have more mass? I'm not too hot to trot with that latter idea. More energy - yes, certainly. More mass? I am not sure about that. A little too Einsteinian, and Steve Crothers might well disagree with that part, too.
More, please!
Jim
Farsight
Re: The Photon
Take a look at gamma-gamma pair production then Compton scattering then annihilation.
Two photons interact to make an electron and a positron. A photon interacts with the electron, losing energy and changing direction. It's still going at c, but it is decelerated in the vector sense. Meanwhile the electron is accelerated. It annihilates with the positron, and then you're back to two photons.
See Williamson and van der Mark's paper here. Williamson is at Glasgow. These depictions are from their paper:
PersianPaladin
Re: The Photon
For people here relatively new to (or unfamiliar with) Electric Universe perspectives on "light"; I strongly suggest that you read this piece by Wal Thornhill:-
@ farsight: Very interesting diagrams. What is curved space? How is it different from "flat" space?
The energy flow pathway is similarly interesting with its double circuit of the toroid, but what kind of energy is being routed round and round this tiny structure? Energy is one of those amorphous terms that we have trouble defining, other than words like "the ability to do work". Is energy here expressed in joules? Is it quantized or not? And why is it thought to move; i.e., translate on a trajectory through space within the tiny but supposedly finite dimension of a photon?? If it really is moving, then part of the time it is moving faster than light, and part of the time slower than light. What lets it do that?
Just questions to get us thinking about what we are being shown here. I'm not saying wrong or right - just thinking about things out loud. Have to be careful, interpreting sketched diagrams with claims of showing something. The question here is, showing what ?
Jim
seasmith
Re: The Photon
Farsight wrote:
Two photons interact to make an electron and a positron. A photon interacts with the electron, losing energy and changing direction. It's still going at c, but it is decelerated in the vector sense. Meanwhile the electron is accelerated. It annihilates with the positron, and then you're back to two photons.
Unfortunately, Gabriel LaFreniere's Aether Wave website has been highjacked or died on the vine, but consider a 3D version of this 2D image:
Take the light areas for electrons and the dark areas for positrons (in 3D+t the initial progression continues).
If in the posts above, the meeting of two 'photons' was in a box with receiver-sensors on all eight sides, instead of just one receiver/detector; would multiple electrons and positrons be detected ?
Bengt's idea here does work with Thornhill's concept of mass, to explain why a photon has zero (or vanishingly small) mass. Toroids can be very stable, and according to Thornhill's idea of mass, very stable orbits within a particle = low mass.
Farsight
Re: The Photon
jjohnson wrote: @ farsight: Very interesting diagrams. What is curved space? How is it different from "flat" space?
Curved space is just what you think. Imagine a flat calm ocean. Now add a wave. Where is the sea curved? Where the wave is. Where is space curved? Where the photon is. Note that curved spacetime equates to a very gently curved path of the wave. Gravity is just a "trace" force when electromagnetic forces don't quite cancel. See this thread for more information.
jjohnson wrote: The energy flow pathway is similarly interesting with its double circuit of the toroid, but what kind of energy is being routed round and round this tiny structure?
Light. Electromagnetic energy.
jjohnson wrote: Energy is one of those amorphous terms that we have trouble defining, other than words like "the ability to do work".
When you probe the fundamentals, energy is in essence "stressed space". It's very real, we can make matter out of it.
jjohnson wrote: Is energy here expressed in joules?
I don't know. I don't think it matters.
jjohnson wrote: Is it quantized or not?
Yes. The h in E=hf relates to the diameter of the torus, whilst the wavelength is twice the circumference. You can only make an electron with one particular wavelength.
jjohnson wrote: And why is it thought to move; i.e., translate on a trajectory through space within the tiny but supposedly finite dimension of a photon??
Because of electron magnetic moment and the Einstein-de Haas effect which "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".
jjohnson wrote: If it really is moving, then part of the time it is moving faster than light, and part of the time slower than light. What lets it do that?
It doesn't. It's just light. It going round at c.
jjohnson wrote: Just questions to get us thinking about what we are being shown here. I'm not saying wrong or right - just thinking about things out loud. Have to be careful, interpreting sketched diagrams with claims of showing something. The question here is, showing what ?
The electron.
The depiction isn't perfect, nor is the image above. All we're dealing with is "field". A better depiction would show more and more of the "onion ring" layers along with their frame dragging. That's essentially what an electromagnetic field is.
Farsight
Re: The Photon
seasmith wrote: Unfortunately, Gabriel LaFreniere's Aether Wave website has been highjacked or died on the vine, but consider a 3D version of this 2D image:
Take the light areas for electrons and the dark areas for positrons (in 3D+t the initial progression continues).
The light and dark areas aren't electrons and positrons. A photon is essentially an aether-wave soliton. When it's stuck in a tight closed path we call it an electron. Or a positron if it's got the opposite chirality. Reverse the arrowheads on the torus for that. A positron is a "time reversed electron". It isn't going back in time, or anything, it's just like a mirror-image moebius strip. Check out Dirac's belt:
"In this sense a Mobius strip is reminiscent of spin-1/2 particles in quantum mechanics, since such particles must be rotated through two complete rotations in order to be restored to their original state".
seasmith wrote: If in the posts above, the meeting of two 'photons' was in a box with receiver-sensors on all eight sides, instead of just one receiver/detector; would multiple electrons and positrons be detected ?
No. Each photon deflects the other into itself, then it deflects itself continuously. Only we don't call it a photon any more. We call it an electron. Or a positron. It's essentially a standing-wave. But don't think a standing wave is truly motionless. If you've got a standing wave in a box like a Fabry-Perot cavity, then if you drop one of the sides it's out and away at the speed of light. It can't do that from a standing start.
seasmith
Re: The Photon
Farsight wrote:
A photon is essentially an aether-wave soliton. "
That i essentially agree with, tho it should probably be prefaced with the word 'transitional'.
Farsight wrote:
Each photon deflects the other into itself, then it deflects itself continuously.
That's not the behavior of a soliton wave, which would refract, reflect or adsorb. It sounds more like some virtual particle (if you want to start here with the "either-or particle-wave state", as artifact of detection).
If so, i do think you are on the right visual atd track with the twisted Mobius figure, but space will be filled more efficiently (which is precisely what any wave is trying to do), if you go with something like an iterating Lissajous schematic, as others have done before.
seasmith wrote: That's not the behavior of a soliton wave, which would refract, reflect or adsorb.
It is, seasmith. The photon features displacement current wherein "light consists of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena". Imagine you're in a canoe in the sea and a wave comes along. You go up. There's a "current" pushing the water up. Then you go down. This current is alternating. Hence vacuum impedance. Impedance is like resistance, but for alternating current rather than direct current. When you "wrap up" the displacement current as an electron and then move it, we call it conduction current. Move it back and forth and we call it alternating current, move it in the same direction and we call it direct current.
seasmith wrote: It sounds more like some virtual particle (if you want to start here with the "either-or particle-wave state", as artifact of detection).
The photon is definitely real, and it definitely has a wave nature.
seasmith wrote: If so, i do think you are on the right visual atd track with the twisted Mobius figure, but space will be filled more efficiently (which is precisely what any wave is trying to do), if you go with something like an iterating Lissajous schematic, as others have done before.
Look at the black line in the torus above. That's your Lissajous schematic. It's essentially the same as Qiu-Hong Hu's "hubius helix". See http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 and this:
