(Polarization, Compton Effect, an Einstein "Relativity Formula", DeBroglie Waves)
A few words about Light Polarization:
In my previous "simple photon examples", we discussed only those photons that made many short "up and down" excursions during their long "forward" trips. I believe that such photons may be termed "vertically polarized photons". And if a light beam contains exclusively that "style of traveling photons", we may say that the light beam is of "Vertically Polarized Light".
However, if a Photon takes short excursions, say, to its left side and then to its right side (not up and down), then we say that we have "Horizontally Polarized Light".
The case of ‘Circularly Polarized’ light is likely more complicated to model, because a more complicated action may actually take place. For some further comments, see my Point 4B under ‘Summary and Conclusions’ near the end of my article. (And, as usual, the reader should feel free to explore other scientists’ models on the subject.)
Further Understanding the Photon by Comparing it to the Proton or Electron, etc.
(Optional: Regarding the subject of the small mass of an electron, and the greater mass of a proton, etc.; one may see my website article or published paper on "Particle Mass Ratios and Similar Geometric Volume Ratios".)
As advocated in my first web article, I believe the following: An aether is made up of ultra small mist-like entities of various size, having ultra high velocities, and varying in speed and direction. They are merging, splitting, deforming, reforming and even often deflected to form vortices with angular momentum. Thus, I argue that there arises, what we can call an "average" aether "mistlet" with an "average" discrete energy. The energy, of that ultra fast mistlet, is very high, despite its small mass. Thus, a sort of "equipartition of energy" arises between the average mistlet and an occasional greater mass conglomerate: the elementary particle, which is "slowly" spinning. (That spinning is approximately at the speed of light). There is a balance of pressures between the many low-mass aether "mistlets" and the spinning elementary particle's great mass.
Note: A few of the remarks below may involve some speculation.
Thus, I believe that the major differences, between the photon and elementary particles (such as the proton or electron) are these: All, or most, of an elementary particle consists of a ring-like, or sphere-like, circular symmetry and structure. (I say that, even though I don't know all the details.) By means of its spinning, the elementary particle "hosts" a large minimum "quantum" of energy, as it is required to do, (without any significant "time out"). This is like a ring, spinning rapidly on a person's finger, but not moving in the direction of the finger! The spinning (of the elementary particle's great mass) enhances its capability to remain stable. The elementary particle also has great amounts of aethereal energy arrayed around it, storing a steady " mc2 " of "potential" energy. That aether also acts, together with the elementary particle's spinning inertial mass, to enhance the elementary particle's stability. It prevents the ring from "spinning apart".
Thus, the elementary particle's equilibrium's was initially "designed" for (and defined for) "translational motion equal to zero", with respect to the aether. (That is like a spinning ring around one's finger, but without movement along the finger.) Unlike the photon, that spinning ring has yet an "unused" freedom of travel (i.e., along the length of the finger and onward). The elementary particle will strongly tend to maintain conservation of certain characteristics with respect to the aether. All of the above combination of factors makes the elementary particle more stable than the "delicate" photon. By contrast, the photon, (although also "designed" to conserve some things), is NOT designed to conserve any significant minimum quantum of energy, and it does NOT "host" such!
The "Compton Effect" (a few comments on the subject):
After a high-energy photon "hits" an electron and sends it traveling, we observe the following:
After the "hit", when the electron is stopped and examined, the electron "Is As It Was Originally"! By contrast, the deflected photon (even if its direction is restored by a later collision) has lost much of its mass, energy, and frequency and will "Never likely be the same"!
((That is because the photon, (per the previous paragraphs), was both designed differently from the elementary particle, and put in motions differently with respect to aether, with that different design! We will next derive a formula for an elementary particle's mass increase which differs from that of the photon's!))
Miscellaneous: (Revised 2-20-2009 by simplifying and shortening)
A simplified derivation of Einstein’s Equation: For a formula relating mass increase to travel velocity increase, see my Point 12, under ‘Summary and Conclusions’, near the end of my article; and also see my ‘Illustration. 1B’. (Some scientists have more complex models -- including one that envisions that when a particle commences travel, a decrease in its ring diameter occurs, without changing its spinning speed.17. 5.) I believe that any viable derivation of the above ‘Einstein equation’ should and does preserve a ‘conservation of angular momentum’ and also a speed of ‘C’ or simple multiple of that ‘C’.
For a short and simplified explanation and description of ‘DeBroglie Matter Waves’; see my Point 14, under ‘Summary and Conclusion’ near the end of my article. It is likely important to keep in mind the following: When a spinning elementary particle commences travel through space, its motion is not significantly slowed by ‘friction’ (provided there is no ‘gross matter’ near it). Yet, I believe space is occupied by spinning sheets of vortices consisting of real matter, and thus space has an overall low mass density. I believe that photons must develop a unique ‘wavy, wiggle, or spiral’ motion, based on their ‘particulars’ and Planck’s Constant, and thus conform to the actions of space’s existing vortices, in order to travel basically unimpeded. And thus, when a spinning elementary particle also commences travel through space; it too passes vortices in space, and brings to their vicinity a new directional angular momentum action. And, thus, such elementary particles, also, must develop an additional ‘travel style or aspect’ to also travel basically unimpeded. And thus, the DeBroglie wave, that is associated with a traveling elementary particle, is a manifestation of that alteration in order to be compatible and travel unimpeded. (Of course, when an elementary particle commences travel, its mass, its centripetal force, and its relationship to the surrounding aether that continues to support its stability – must alter also.)
I have read that the higher the speed at which the ‘beta particle’ was emitted, the more its spin axis (or polarization) is aligned with its forward velocity.18 (A beta particle is an electron or ‘positron’.)
I am not sure of the emitter details regarding the underlined above. We may note, however, that many elementary particles apparently don't have their spin well aligned with their forward velocity, and so some my modeling has involved some over-simplification.
Optional generalization as follows: Let us imagine a ‘projection’ on a screen of some spin axis when that spin or spin axis is at some angle, say 45 degrees to that screen. (Or imagine the projection of a circle’s perimeter when that circle is spinning at speed ‘C’, but spinning at, say, a 45 degrees angle to the screen). Thus, we imagine a plane (containing that projection) as being perpendicular to the forward traveling direction of a particle, but at an angle with the ‘spinning axis of such particle. We can imagine that, in places, the radius (moment arm) of the projected spin is smaller, but the projected speed, ‘C’, is maintained in two places. Presumably, if the real and projected spin speed were suddenly decreased by half, the real and projected mass would still have to double in all their corresponding small regions to maintain their respective (real and projected) spin angular momentum.
Reader may go directly to my "Summary and Conclusions", (and skip my below "optional" and miscellaneous comments), or skip to the end of the article I have presented some analogies in my article. To apply the likes of them to still more complicated material entities is beyond the scope of this article, (even if I could present it in a "compelling" simple way). Again, it is important to remember that our above theory (involving elementary particles) is based on an imposed ‘minimum energy hosting requirement’, a conservation of average 'spin' angular momentum for the ‘spinning structure’, and also the "conservation of the 'resultant' (Total) speed of its parts"!
Optional: In my opinion, the top velocity of light is constant under quite a range of circumstances. And I think that Einstein found in his own algorithms, perhaps, a parallel system, from which he could ‘squeeze’ a maximize amount of knowledge out of that aspect of light -- however strange his methods. And it is admirable that he thus felt able to create his ‘special relativity equations’ (and ‘general relativity equations’) in his own way, but such that he felt confident in advocating their use for predicting various material behaviors. And his broad advocacies and predictions (or something very close to it) seem to have been proved meritorious -- based on later experimentally results.
Of course, others felt too, even before 1905, that various characteristics of matter, and/or its dimensions, changed greatly as speeds approached ‘C’. Thus some similar ‘relativity-like terms’ began to appear for some things, even before 1905. (For example, Larmor predicted the slowing of a clock on an orbiting electron, compared to a clock on the more stationary entity that was orbiting around.) It is beyond the scope of this article to address those subjects much further.
(Few people realize that Einstein spoke more and more of a need for an aether to support his own theories, as he got older. However, his was a more abstract aether, without simple mass behavior, and not a ‘dynamic’ aether. I have read that Einstein, in effect, predicted that a clock (or’ time’) at the center of the earth, where the NET gravity is zero, would be slowed (or ‘dilated’). That is, compared to a clock far out in ‘outer space’ where the NET gravity is also approximately zero! Based on satellites and modern global positioning, that prediction, admirably, seems to be right or very close to right. ((Of course, we note that the escape velocity of a rocket (through a mine-shaft) from the center of the earth to outer space – would have to be greater than the escape velocity from the earth’s surface to outer space.))
Carl R. Littmann
always welcome) For
my Email and address, see my Homepage
my Email and address, see my Homepage