Re: Winds of change

From: John Kennaugh (JKNG_at_kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 03/24/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:22:12 +0000

Henri Wilson writes
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:29:18 +0000, John Kennaugh
><JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <1111012525.899665.313490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>shevek <shevek4@yahoo.com> writes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To exhibit a 'frequency' something must go 'boom', 'boom', boom',
>>>'boom',
>>>> 'boom'.......... at regular intervals.
>>>>
>>>> What aspect of a single photon does this?
>>>
>>>The electric field goes "boom, boom, boom" - where each "boom"
>>>represents a peak strength in the field.
>>
>>What do you mean by 'field'. There are two possible meanings:
>>
>>A field which is physically real is a stress in something. e.g. a field
>>is a stress in the ether and given the right circumstances that stress
>>may propagate through the ether at c = light as per Maxwell.
>>
>>OTOH if there is no ether a field is metaphysical. It is a 'field of
>>influence' of action at a distance force i.e. the direction and strength
>>of the action-at-a-distance force which *would* act upon a charge *if* a
>>charge is placed there. Unlike the Maxwell stress-in-the-ether field it,
>>cannot have a separate existence. A non-existent stress cannot propagate
>>in a non-existent ether. Then the only possible field is one caused by a
>>charge mapping action at a distance. If no ether then No charge = no
>>field.
>>
>>If we say there is no ether then we have not the faintest idea what
>>Maxwell's equations are describing. If they mean anything then a photon
>>has a field associated with it and if we assume no ether it suggests
>>that a photon must contain charge. As a photon is neutral it means it
>>must have equal massless positive and negative charges. As Maxwell's
>>equations imply changing electric and magnetic fields the charges must
>>be moving and as the terms: frequency, wavelength and phase are a
>>property of light it would suggest rotation. Hence my suggested model of
>>a photon is a massless positive charge an a massless negative charge
>>rotating about a common centre tracing out a double helix in space. The
>>faster it rotates the more electrical energy it can contain.
>
>John, this model has been suggested several times here by myself and others. It
>appears very logical, as you so conveniently point out. It provides a photon
>with physical properties like cross-section, wavelength, frequency and energy.
>
>Several questions arise.
>
>Firstly, it would be nice to be able to define 'charge' in some kind of
>physical manner rather than in terms of the fields it produces. For instance,
>what is the physical difference between a +ve and a -ve charge?

Let us not run before we can walk. The amount of charge on an electron
may be considered as a unit of charge i.e. you never come upon either a
positive or negative charge which is other than a whole number times
that on the electron. Charge, whatever it is, is therefore an entity, a
building block of nature. The fact that positive and negative charges
are the same magnitude must be significant - mirror images perhaps. The
positron/electron and the proton/anti-proton seem to suggest that either
a +ve charge can change into a -ve charge or that the charge and mass
are separate entities which together make an electron or a positron. If
the latter the idea that a massless charge may exist as part of a photon
is not too far fetched.

>Secondly, if the plane of rotation is perpendicular to the direction of motion,
>which I assume is correct, there should be no resultant magentic field in the
>centre. However there would be a kind of oscillating M field, more or less
>following each charge around. I don't know how polarization can be explained by
>this model.

I thought that polarisation might be related to angle between the plane
of rotation and the direction of motion. I have it in the back of my
mind that the polarization of light can be affected by a magnetic field.

>
>Thirdly, what might cause this spinning structure to self-propagate through
>space with little or no loss of energy. (I think it WOULD lose a little energy
>and that partly explains the cosmic redshift 'tired light' concept)

Why should it lose energy if space is empty? "Everything continues in
its state of uniform motion unless acted upon by a force".
I know you have theories about Red shift but whether the standard
explanation or yours is valid is not a part of this particular
discussion.

>Fourthly, what aspect of the model might cause the 'package' to initially move
>at 'c' wrt its source?

c is the maximum speed a force can be applied. As a photon is massless
it is the speed at which light leaves matter. Any other particle which
has mass will exit slower. No matter how often you apply a force to a
particle with mass it will never quite reach c. c is also the natural
speed at which photons and matter interact. If a photon travelling at a
speed other than c interacts with matter its speed will have a tendency
to return to c relative to that matter. How soon will depend on the
strength of interaction. Interaction = action at a distance force =
entering the field (of influence) of the matter. Hence for example the
sun is rotating but it is surrounded by a strong field so photons will
exit that field at c relative to the sun as a whole and not w.r.t the
differentially moving sides of the sun.

I have suggested that where this occurs the photon retains the same
energy by means of an interchange of forward and rotational speed. i.e.
A photon from a receding orange source will appear red primarily because
it is travelling at c-v. If it passes through matter (a window for
example) it will re-emerge travelling at c and be indistinguishable from
a locally emitted red photon.

>If we can speculate about the answers to these, we might be able to improve the
>model.

I don't think that anyone is interested in doing so. Anyone wanting to
research the matter has all plausible avenues denied to him by the
conventional wisdom that a photons speed is independent of the source. I
would suggest that that is the reason we have no greater idea today as
to what it is which travels from the transmitter to your aerial than
they had a century ago.

>>The problem with modern physics is that it is inconsistent. They say
>>there is no ether but do not accept the consequences. You do not solve
>>the problem with semantics by renaming ether 'space' or 'fields'. They
>>should not be allowed to get away with saying 'light does not travel at
>>c in the ether - it travels at c in a FoR'. A FoR is a mathematical
>>abstraction.
>
>You know, Einstein was very cunning.
>
>All he really did was replace the 'aether frame' with an arbitrary FoR in which
>the speed of light was always 'c'.
>His velocity addition equation then made light's speed automatically c in all
>other frames.
>
>His clock synch definition turned the length and time 'contractions' of Lorentz
>into observational illusions rather than real physical changes.
>
>Lorentz claimed that rods and clocks physically changed due to motion in the
>one absolute aether. Einstein achieved exactly the same with a purely
>mathematical treatment.
>
>It was all so impressive and consistent that few people ever questioned whether
>or not it matched physical reality...essentially, whether or not OWLS from a
>moving source WAS indeed always 'c'.
>
>In fact, the whole theory is based on an unproven postulate. It is just
>rehashed aether theory.

To be fair I don't think Einstein himself ever claimed otherwise. He was
following Lorentz of whom he said:

"Lorentz brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a
wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved the most
important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell."

He did not object to the concept of the ether in itself. His objection
was to the unique FoR which Lorentz's theory requires implying an
asymmetry in the theoretical structure while there was none in the
observations. He assumed source independence because he assumed an ether
of some sort and saw no reason to justify it. What he was aiming for was
symmetry. The relationship of all observers w.r.t the ether to be the
same. What the second postulate describes is every observer finding
himself stationary w.r.t the ether. Physically you cannot interpret
that. In his 1920 lecture he talked about an ether without the
immobility of Lorentz's. A magical ether which was all things to all
men. He was very specific about what it was not (Lorentz's) but totally
vague about his alternative - he never found one - which is why finally
he described his theory as a 'principle theory' downgrading it to a
mathematical model. Instead of conceding the philosophical weakness this
indicates, physics has gone the other way and declared that physical
interpretation is unnecessary in physics theories.

>
>If it DID happen to produce correct results (which I doubt will ever happen)
>then we should start looking for an aether again, not continue to glorify
>Einstein.

I think Albert was a bit of a showman. I get the impression that while
happy to acknowledge his debt to Lorentz that what he was actually doing
was developing the ideas of Poncere who he doesn't acknowledge. I think
he was also an opportunist. He got the Nobel prize for his discovery of
the photon which was mainly a case of noticing that the quantization
worked out by Planck also explained the photo electric effect. Planck
did the hard work. Having discovered the photon it did not seem to
affect his thinking. Photons are not mentioned in anything relating to
relativity. He ignores the fact that Planck drove a horse and cart
through the credibility of Maxwell and uses Maxwell/Lorentz as his
starting point. How many times have you heard Maxwell quoted by
relativists as if they are tablets of stone. You get 'told off' if you
mention photons and relativity in the same paragraph. Relativity is
classical physics, photons belong in quantum physics.

The more I learn the more I am convinced that the wheels have come off
physics. It is now a whole series of bad compromises. Modern spin is now
applied to try and find a reason to continue to believe in an ether
based theory now that it is very unfashionable to believe in the ether.
It owes more to human nature than to objectivity.

>>Basically either there is an ether, a field is real, and can propagate
>>in the ether as described by Maxwell or there is no ether, fields are
>>not real and you have to explain light in terms of particles we call
>>photons and action at a distance.
>
>We still have to answer the biggest question of all. What is
>action-at-a-distance?

The natural way force acts? We feel it needs an explanation because in
the macro world we see a need for a 'connecting rod' through which a
force acts. However physics tells us that even a 'solid' 'connecting
rod' is actually made up mainly of empty space and that its ends do not
actually make contact with either the force or the load. At the atomic
level there is no physical contact only action at a distance. All force
acts at a distance. It is counter intuitive but that is because our
intuition is falsely conditioned. 

-- 
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Winds of change
    ... It provides a photon ... The amount of charge on an electron ... Thermal speeds of hot stars are generally greater than their ... >interpretation is unnecessary in physics theories. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photons
    ... To say that photon are 'fields' is therefore nonsense unless you can ... A charge, a unit charge even, is one of the fundamental and most ... enduring concepts in Physics. ... everything we regard as real has been formed from electrons ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: electric field & virtual photons
    ... | photon is riding on the vacuum charge that is actually ... | doing the waving, so in the double slit expe, the photon ... the physics patrol group such ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Winds of change
    ... spatially removed charge. ... The ether is an entity that *conducts* force between charges. ... by the square of the distance from their center. ... > that a photon must contain charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Winds of change
    ... A field which is physically real is a stress in something. ... is a stress in the ether and given the right circumstances that stress ... charge mapping action at a distance. ... If they mean anything then a photon ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading