Photonic Aether

[junglelord]

My apologies, it is more fundamental to state that electrons and photons exchange angular momentum, not energy.

An electron expanding at the speed of light is a photon in my book. The angular momentum is what they exchange, not energy.

Energy is a dimensional construct of five attributes.
Angular momentum is fundamental and is a quantum constant in and of itself.

It is incorrect to state that photons and electrons exchange energy.
it is correct to state that they exchange angular momentum.
Angular momentum and charge are associated quantum fundamentals.
The photon never makes a positive charge atomic unit.
It only makes electrons.

When a photon leaves a atom, the atom is left more positive, therefore a negivtive charge has gone somewhere.

The photon is a composite unit, possibly containing both electron and positron. This would cause it to appear neutral.

Hope that helps.

Here is some structural information on the photon.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 8&start=15

[earls]

"An electron expanding at the speed of light" The particle itself increasing in volume?

"When a photon leaves a atom, the atom is left more positive" [citation needed]

"The photon is a composite unit, possibly containing both electron and positron. This would cause it to appear neutral." And have twice the mass of an electron.

From the link:

"How do photons become electrons? How do electrons disappear to become photons?" Exactly when do electrons disappear to become photons and vice versa?

[webolife]

I have the same issues with some of this terminology, so furthering Earls's questions:
1. An "electron expanding" implies a process happening over time [albeit at the c-rate], which seems incredible here, considering all the photons there are in the universe, but this usually follows an other-dimensional line of reasoning, making it hard to visualize, to say the least. Nevertheless, it does bring up an important issue, ie. that a light action has radial effect to all available peripheral receptors, even if the light action is that of a single "photon."
2. I don't personally believe photons "leave" atoms, in the sense of flowing, streaming, or waving or in any other sense being emitted from an atom... further, generally in a light action the electrical state of an atom becomes "lower" [as in a lower potential energy level]... but I don't see how this necessarily indicates "more positive."
3. Presumably if electrons and positrons are involved in "photons", their mass coefficients would be opposite, therefore combining to zero mass?
4. In my view when an electron "drops" to a lower "energy state" we see that [as peripheral members of the field of the centroidal atomic system that did the "dropping"] as a light action... the dropping field energy actually "tugs" at our retina. The electron is thus not transformed as such, but its field changes in "voltage" with respect to us, and we detect it, we "see" the light.

[Lloyd]

Huntington, do you think the following may be consistent with your theory that photons move very little and only the waves move at the speed of light?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... bcc#p28366
http://physics-edu.org/structure_of_an_atom1.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =30#p28472

[seasmith]

rjhuntington wrote:

I'm suggesting that there is a non-baryonic medium uniformly filling space, that it is comprised of photons, and that it directly supports the propagation of electromagnetic waveform phenomena.

A very interesting question, Solar. In fact I think that all particles are "condensed light" in the sense that the photon is the ultimate particle and everything is some combination of them. If an electron can "give up" a photon by moving to a different orbit, or take one on going the other way, I think that supports the notion.

Perhaps my previous response seemed a bit esoteric and off-topic, so getting back to what we think we know.

Photons vs Electrons:

Is it violating Kirchhoff's law? How can the law accommodate a further output signal, a photon or optical signal?"

Kirchhoff's current law, described by Gustav Kirchhoff in 1845, states charge input at a node is equal to the charge output. In other words, all the electrical energy going in must go out again. On a basic bipolar transistor, with ports for electrical input and output, the law applies straightforwardly. The transistor laser adds a third port for optical output, emitting light.

This posed a conundrum for researchers working with the laser: How were they to apply the laws of conservation of charge and conservation of energy with two forms of energy output?
"The optical signal is connected and related to the electrical signals, but until now it's been dismissed in a transistor," said Holonyak, the John Bardeen Chair Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Physics at the U. of I. "

Conventional perspective:

In a semiconductor crystal, the arrangement of atoms results in distinct bands of closely spaced energy levels; these determine the energy states of the crystal's electrons. Generally, only two bands matter: the valence band, which contains the energy levels normally occupied by electrons, and the band just above it, called the conduction band. Electrons energetic enough to reach the conduction band are free to accelerate under the influence of an electric field, thereby constituting current. The difference in energy between the top of the valence band and the bottom of the conduction band is known as the band gap, with typical energies ranging in wavelength from the infrared through the visible.

Reunion through resonance:
.

Because energy is always conserved, this recombination of an electron and a hole is accompanied by the release of energy. In the case of an LED or a laser, a photon is released, whose energy matches the difference between the conduction band and the valence band--the band-gap energy.
But in addition to energy, electrons also have momentum. In indirect-band-gap materials such as silicon and germanium, the minimum energy in the conduction band and the maximum energy in the valence band occur at different values of electron momentum.
Because of that, an electron in the conduction band can recombine with a hole in the valence band to produce a photon only if a source of momentum of the right magnitude, such as a vibration in the crystal lattice--a phonon--is generated and assists in conserving momentum in the process

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hard ... or-laser/2



~ The above quoted blather just citing what we don't know.

I think your theory does a better job of understanding the observable data, tho I pause at your statement:
" that the photon is the ultimate particle..."

"Particle" imo, are human constructs; and limit an ultimate understanding of
"a non-baryonic medium uniformly filling space".

~ It begs the question of "space", and if the "medium" Is the message...



s

[Solar]

~ The above quoted blather just citing what we don't know.

I think your theory does a better job of understanding the observable data, tho I pause at your statement:
" that the photon is the ultimate particle..."

"Particle" imo, are human constructs; and limit an ultimate understanding of
"a non-baryonic medium uniformly filling space".

~ It begs the question of "space", and if the "medium" Is the message...

s

Indeed. But who understands or recognizes "space" as a medium? - not many. Unfortunately, the perception and/or 'conditioning' of "space" as "empty", a "void" or "vacuum", something that objects occupy or 'fill' is pretty much complete. It is difficult for many to turn around from that and consider it as 'something.'

Your previous questions were quite Intuitive in relation to your understanding/recognition that there is no "vacuum" or "void" nor "emptiness" with regard to "space":

Some Aetheric Speculations:

~ fluid dynamics analogs might be particulates, coalescence, and flocculation

Yes, in terms of formative ‘self-differentiations’ induced via the ‘perturbation’ of an initially balanced ‘undifferentiated’ state or phase as opposed to something being ‘added’ to something from an external source. It would probably be a good idea to, in limited fashion, define “Aether”. This is a very limited subjective two-fold definition:

1) A fundamental primordial substantive ‘essence’ - the self-interaction of which induces the multiplicity of energetic forms and events.

2) Also, and probably that which may cause some confusion imho, any reference to any particular phase of said multiplicities. For example, a “photon aether” is a reference to all photons and the energetic relations that they may produce upon self-interaction, or a “uniform electron gas” aka “jellium” is a reference to an idealized particular phase of the Aether consisting of all “electrons”, and so called “virtual particles”, “electric potential”, a “neutrino sea”, Dirac’s “sea of negative energy” etc. All ideations expressed in reference to theses in terms of initially being ‘uniform’ or ‘homogenous’ until ‘perturbed.’

It’s the later subjective definition that tends to get overlooked imho because of the necessity to avoid creation ex nihilo. Hence the tendency to visualize a uniform homogenous initially balanced phase or state of some form of ‘quanta.’ From there, because of ‘self-interaction’, secondary, tertiary, quaternary ad infinitum ‘phase-states’ (“successive resonant amalgamations of quanta”) are wrought i.e. “From the one; many”! – As exemplified by your fluid dynamics analogy.

? Can we equate “tunneling” with filamentary propagation?

Yes and No. “Tunneling”, as it relates evanescent waves and wave-coupling, would be the dissolution of the resonant secondary, tertiary, quaternary etc ‘particle phase-state’ to such extent that said “particle” becomes analogous to ‘an energized region’ of the initial ‘wave-phase-states’ from which said “particle” stems. After the disturbance by a barrier the naturally occurring resonance may be re-established resulting in the re-formation of said “particle” phase.

For example, consider “neutrinos” as a ‘medium’ within which a wave or vibration may occur. Supposedly a significant amount passes right through objects without any interactions i.e. we don’t see them; we don’t know that they are there. Consider a resonant form of “quanta” being formed via ‘neutrino self-interaction’ or “overlapping as Meyl conceives it. Then disturb a flow of those quantized units via a barrier. The quantized unit ‘smears’ its energy back into an energized region of the original ‘neutrino waves’ from whence it came because of the disturbance. This would then present a wave pattern as opposed to the ‘impact point’ of a quantized “particle.”

So that, hypothetically, the supposed ‘particulate’ nature of photons fired through the double slit becomes ‘dispersed’ via a disturbance by the slit; of its resonant ‘particle’ property. Thus, an energetic wave passes through the slit – not the ‘standing wave(s)’ considered to be a “photon particle.”

Likewise, with “tunneling”, it would be the frequency/amplitude of the wave(s) that “tunnel.” It is actually more so ‘transmission’ of frequency/amplitude via “wave coupling” - with the constituents forming the barrier. This may be what passes through to the other side i.e. a somewhat dampened pattern of frequency/amplitude. After passing through, resonance may re-assert and reformation of said “quanta” may occur. "Reunion through resonance" as you recognize.

Why? Because the resonant state of that quantized “particle” (standing waves) is a phase state produced from the entire “Neutrino Sea”, not just the conditions in the lab. The “Neutrino Sea” would exist on both sides of, and even through, the barrier - already. The principle is the same with the Aether, the “quanta” produced from its ‘self-interaction’, and energy of frequency & amplitude as ‘transmitted’ via wave-coupling.

Specifically, the “tunneling” aspect imho, is similar to having a friend knock on the door while you stand on the other side of the door, with your hand on said door, and feel the ‘energetic transmission’ of the knocking. The substance of the door ‘transmitted’ the energy. The friend induced a wave through the medium of the door. This dynamic is what gets interpreted as “tunneling.”

It may also be interpreted as analogous to “pressure.” Yet, I don’t think that the universe is operating under “pressure” for It has no ‘container’ or ‘boundary’ to induce such a feature. Energetic quanta, inducing waves, in the ‘medium’ from which they stem, would seem to naturally ‘transmit’ energetic relations – between the various quanta - via the energetic coupling, of those waves instead.

Consider wave coupling along those lines when reading things like “Quantum Tunneling.”

The ‘transmission’ of energy via ‘resonant filamentation’ would work the same only at much higher phase-energies (amplitude & frequency).

You appear to take the concept “electricity” as a primary energy state that is formed, by some ‘harmonic’ principle, into resultant “filamentary … currents”.

As a hypothetical suggestion, when electricity - via resonance - assumes the filamentary form, as opposed to a ‘static field’ for example, yes. A “filament” could be expressed as a longitudinally extended vortex or spiral. From the Latin: “filare” - to “spin.” When studied, the filament action of the currents undergoes ‘self-interaction’ via Biot-Sarvart long-range attraction/short-range repulsion (helical twisting) but it is still “spin.”

Is it also possible that the filaments (electric currents) are primary to the resultant “waves”, or periodic (sometimes harmonic) fields; in an aetheric circuit?

This proposed “Photon Aether” is a good example of that. Not that it is the only good example but that the principle expressed via the proposition of any ideally balanced 'medium' undergoing phase-transformations only for its energetic relations to eventually 'return' to that original 'state' is an example signifying the cycle. Taking the principle of the “absorption” of photons to impart energy as well as ‘coalescing’ in order to ‘compose matter’ there is also the release (emission) of the same photon energy that had been previously “absorbed.” There is something to this relationship as a principle and perhaps it can be viewed as a “cycle”, whether photonic or aetheric, because the energy “absorbed” is the energy is “returned” as in a “cycle.” This “cycle”, as you’ve put it, is observed all along.

At other scales the same principle via interactions of electricity and plasma in space will show this “cycle”:

“The necessity of a global electric current description to describe the transfer of energy in magnetized cosmic plasma...” – Peratt: Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets

So, the electric currents (filaments) transfer energy to the magnetized plasma yet, at the same time, the magnetized plasma can induce filamentation. As to which is “primary”, this is ‘relative’ to the observer and which aspect has been determined to be of greater influence or significance. Yet, neither can seem to be able to exist without the other.

[Or even reflexive, as in an aetheric cycle ?]

The “reflexive” is interesting in terms of “stress” or “strain” accompanied by the release of such ‘tension’ or ‘relaxation’ via the ‘dispersal’ of energy. But, which induces a ‘reflex’ in the other? Would an electrically delineated (double layer) magnetized plasma cloud induce filamentation (electric currents) or does the diffusion of filamentary currents beget plasma clouds? Or are they two distinct entities existing totally separate from one another? Energetic interactions, produce energetic ‘structures’ or objects. The universe is either continuous or discontinuous as Boscovich argues. I think he’s correct in that it is Continuous. In some way; one energetic ‘form’ leads to another from the least to the largest ad infinitum. We just don’t know how. Yet, methinks the amalgamation of ‘forms’ (self-differentiation) via resonance to be a significant factor.

Therefore, as ‘forms’ coalesce via resonance (‘structure via absorption/compactification’ of photons in this example); they also change (grow) and can ‘dissociate’ at some point with the release (emission/radiation) of photons. As the dynamic works with photons - in principle, that would also seem to suggest some form of an “aetheric cycle” because it speaks to the fractal nature of things.

? Could these “systems as a whole” be viewed as crystalline entities with filamentary axies + ?

Crystalline as an ideal undisturbed electrostatically balanced ‘phase-state’, filamentary when longitudinally spiral or propagating i.e. a ‘phase-form’ of it. One needs only to look at the “Birkeland current maxima” infusing the pole of Saturn’s vortex to see this as “filamentary axies.”

Now, as with all things, this is totally up to individuals to interpret because although some of the currents of Saturn appear at the pole; consider Jupiter and Io and the size relationship there. The “touchdown point” for one of the primary electric currents between Jupiter and Io forms a “bright spot” at the north pole of Jupiter. Its counterpart forms the “plume” of Tvashtar on the moon Io. This indicates that the current “path” is in the form of an arc, not a straight axial line at all. This would seem to have implications for a “filamentary axial” electrical relationship for electrical currents that may form between the planets and the Sun as well.

~ Could these “resonant systems” then be viewed as crystal growth / or exclusion ;
In a way that crystals form as a ‘seed’, then grow/ propagate as a fractal larger twin?

And ‘grow’ via the Golden Mean or “Phi.”. “Exclusion” in terms of the ideal crystalline aspect no longer being the ‘primary’ aspect we notice; not that the crystalline phase isn’t still there. But this has changed somewhat owing to the ability to view the very small crystalline nature of things such as Liquid Crystals, Ferromagnetic substances etc where we can see the lattice array. Therefore, expanding back outward yes, the “fractal larger twin” or ‘descendant’ (a resonant phase relationship) exist within - as a result of ‘resonant aggregation’ - and is still dependant on that initial crystalline state.

Likewise, with the Aether, upon the ‘collapse’ of that crystalline state, the ‘phase-change(s)’ produces “quanta” which is still dependent upon that initial state within which it emits “waves.”. It is that continuous ‘absorption’ and ‘emission’ (the cycle) which produces those qualities noted as “intrinsic” to said “quanta” i.e. “quantum jitter”, inherent motion, the ‘liveliness’ of a thing.

~ Indulging the above, one might then bloat the analogies to presume intra-crystalline and inter-crystalline “boundaries” ; with the transitional interactions between them (either viewed as particulate/photonic or as wave-like) as Not propagations through a vacuum (for there can be no such thing); but as along filamentary trajectories.

That is interesting. It reminds me of Aspden and his work with ferromagnetic materials. Here, “Domain Walls”, “Neel Walls”, “Bloch Walls”, “Cross-Tie Walls” might be of interest and the way the crystalline structure of ferromagnetic materials ‘organize’ as made applicable to ‘aether theory’ by Aspden. Particularly as relates potential filamentation along the ‘axis’ of the ‘boundary’ as the ‘particles flip’ or change their polarity when ‘flowing’ between “domain walls.” Again, an interesting combination since you are familiar with the work of Aspden an "domains."

I agree with the notion “Not propagations through a vacuum (for there can be no such thing); but as along filamentary trajectories.” Indeed, along filamentary trajectories as the phases of the Aether ‘organize’ into phase-structures (quanta) of standing waves. Not a “vacuum” AT ALL!!

“Fields” then might be considered as ‘matrices of trajectories over a duration’ .

Yes, and well said. The “trajectories” due to ‘polarization’ of constituents in the spatial region of an object presents the event known as a “field” via which “wave coupling” facilitates an exchange of energy by way of the mutual exchange of frequency & amplitude between “particle” and “field.” This interaction induces a “particle” (vortical aggregation of standing waves) to ‘move’ along a vector. Perhaps increasing the’ rate’ of the aforementioned “cycle” until as such time said “particle” resides in a region wherein it re-establishes its natural equilibrium. Then, the activity is observed and quantized as an object covering a distance over time. I don’t see problem with referring to it in manner you have.

Or even that these harmonic Golden Spirals create duration.

Phi, the “form constant” of growth.

The golden section is not a product of mathematical imagination, but the natural principle of the laws of equilibrium.

“ … generation calls for a growth in volume, and since all growth can only be made in a harmonious rhythm, that is, rhythm proportional to a particular coefficient, and since this rhythm is undeniably governed by [Phi]… - Schawller de Lubicz: Temple of Man pg 814 Vol 2

Therefore, the Golden Section ‘governs’ the growth - of the ‘Forms’ - of Function.

So, your statement is true because ‘duration’ (existence and the perception thereof) is the ‘presentation’, regardless of the sphere of activity, of Function - through ‘Forms’ – the growth of which are “governed by” Phi as has been touched on many; many times by member Junglelord.

btw, I favor Kevin’s model of an AC or pulsed ‘electric’ generator…

Can you PM me a link to his discussion of that?!?

[remelic]

luminiferous aether:

sorry if this is off topic or mentioned before but to me luminiferous aether simply means light-magnetic...or magnetic light. The ancients were probably describing plasma/EM. Light that is magnetic. Unless I'm wrong about the translation?

Cheers.

[webolife]

A thought back to Seasmith regarding optical transistors:
Referring back to my previous post, the reason Kirchhoff's law is not violated IMO is because light is not "stuff" being "emitted" at all... it is just the receptor's resonant response to the change in the electrical field, the voltage drop through the transistor.

[remelic]

A thought back to Seasmith regarding optical transistors:
Referring back to my previous post, the reason Kirchhoff's law is not violated IMO is because light is not "stuff" being "emitted" at all... it is just the receptor's resonant response to the change in the electrical field, the voltage drop through the transistor.

Why can light not be physical?

[webolife]

By "physical" you mean an object or assemblage of objects? Refer to other threads, such as the "Robert Archer Smith" or "Materialism" thread, and several others for discussion of this. I do believe light is "physical" in the sense that it is a measurable response to a physical interaction between objects, however in my [from RASmith's] view, it is a force/pressure effect across distance, rather than a stream or wave of "material" moving from one place to another. So in this view the eye becomes like a voltmeter registering the field of voltage change across the transistor as a light impulse, but not as highspeed stuff "impacting" the retina in some way.

[remelic]

By "physical" you mean an object or assemblage of objects? Refer to other threads, such as the "Robert Archer Smith" or "Materialism" thread, and several others for discussion of this. I do believe light is "physical" in the sense that it is a measurable response to a physical interaction between objects, however in my [from RASmith's] view, it is a force/pressure effect across distance, rather than a stream or wave of "material" moving from one place to another. So in this view the eye becomes like a voltmeter registering the field of voltage change across the transistor as a light impulse, but not as highspeed stuff "impacting" the retina in some way.

If you were referring to my post, yes as in solid particles combined into packets of various sizes. I'm just curious as to why it cannot be physically solid? My entire theory (based on research of others) results upon the idea that light is physical in nature but extremely small being able to pass between atoms easily.

But if you can explain why it cannot be I'll reconsider based on your information.

Thanks

[earls]

Define "solid".

[remelic]

Define "solid".

A sphere of near infinite density and being the smallest sphere that physical mass/energy can existence.

There are more variables but that is the definition of "solid".

Thanks.

[seasmith]

Phonons vs Photons

Just as photons of a given frequency can only exist at certain specific energy levels — exact multiples of the basic quanta —so, too, can phonons, Chen says

.

But unlike photons (the particles that carry light or other electromagnetic radiation), which generally don't interact at all if they have different wavelengths, phonons of different wavelengths can interact and mix when they bump into each other, producing a different wavelength. This makes their behavior much more chaotic and thus difficult to predict and control.

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=170 ... oo%21+Mail

[webolife]

It seems strange to define "solid" in such a manner. "Solid" generally is an describer of the limited movement of particles with respect to each other. But I bring up the necessity that at any scale one must deal with the question, what exists in the space between objects/particles? Is that intraspacial "what" still "physical", as in made of objects, or can it be considered "physical" even if it is not made of "objects" but rather of "force"?