causeeffect.org 
My
Articles

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION of the Photon Particle Exists... (Also see Illustration 1A and 1B) (Some modeling, details and conclusions that follow, involve approximations and some speculation. For derivation of an Einstein's "relativity equation" for simple cases, see point #12) 1. Matter exists in 5 major "forms": Solid, Liquid, Gas, "Radiant", "Ethereal". (The "Radiant" form was routinely mentioned in famous lectures in the 19^{th} century, but sort of "faded out of sight" in the 20^{th }century. The "Ethereal form" goes back to the Greeks, but has sort of "escaped our grasp" ever since.) 2. The pressure of the aether prevents high concentrations of matter from very much exceeding the "forward speed of light (c)" for very long. Aether pressure is the major factor keeping spinning nuclei and electrons stable so they don't "fly apart". There are no "innately 'attractive' nuclear forces that 'pull' touching matter together". Similarly, there are no "innately 'attractive' gravitational forces 'pulling' touching matter together", nor any such "attractive actionsatadistance" forces. External aether "pressure" is required! Although we can't understand all details about all things using an "aether concept", yet without aether we can't understand anything basic about anything! (See next point.) 2.5. (Added 8152006) The Universe is infinite, and every cubic centimeter of it contains some mass and stupendous amounts of energy. Since high density energy regions tend to expand, and ‘attractive forces’ have never existed; a ‘preBig Bang’ condition never existed in which all the universe’s energy was confined to a small region. Nor inside a ‘small point’, either! Neither condition ever existed! 3. The photon particle very likely exists, is real mass, and "flies" through "rarified", ethereal space. It flies through space with a steady forward speed "c" while "wiggling" as it goes. The photon is very important, delicate (not tough), and often is "delightful". But aether does the big jobs! Photons (and other mass) that fly through space, with only a speed of "c" or less, are limited in capability. They can not deliver the steady stream of "hard punches" to cause the ultra high "gravitational" pressures that exists inside some heavenly bodies, and some other places. Photon streams, etc., simply don't have a great enough density, while flowing at "c", to deliver the "punches"! (Aether has velocities far exceeding light's speed, so aether gets those tough jobs done.) 4. A "decaying" nucleus may emit a photon of mass "m" as follows: The nucleus loses the mass "m" from its great mass. The mass of the decaying nucleus, therefore, decreases by "m"; and the decayed nucleus and its adjacent aether together lose a total energy of (1mc^{2 }). The following results: The emitted photon (that mass "m") proceeds through space with forward speed c, along with an "adjacent" aether. Together they carry that total energy of (1mc^{2 }). (The aether acts as a sort of "partner".) The photon's steady forward speed "c" carries (½ mc^{2}) worth of "forward kinetic energy". But, of course, there is another ‘hidden’ (½ mc^2 ) contributing to the total photon energy to account for. And we offer either of two different models to help account for those details. We now commence describing one model; but for an alternate appealing model, see my point 4B about a dozen lines below what follows: Independently, the photon also oscillates, say "up and down", as if on an ethereal spring, with sometimes as much as (½ mc^2) worth of "vertical (wiggling) kinetic energy". At another stage of its "springlike cycle", the photon has no "vertical (wiggling) kinetic energy" and does not wiggle. The prior "wiggle energy" is then temporarily stored in the "aether spring" (i.e., as potential energy). (Often, other people prefer to describe the aether's springlike action as "a changing field", or "E & H", or "frequency", etc., when describing the photon particle's "mysterious" wavelike behavior. In my opinion, when interpreted appropriately, Einstein's "1mc^{2 }> ½ mc^{2 }" (special relativity theory) encompassing the "electromagnetic" paradigm! It also likely encompasses a Heisenberglike "uncertainty principle", whether "Einstein likes it or not"! (See my points #6 & #13 regarding maximum speeds and momentums). In my opinion, since the aether caries about 1/4^{th} of the photon's energy during most its flight time; it is no wonder that the photon has a wavelike behavior! 4B. There are other models for a photon, with some details differing from those I have described under my point 4, above. And some may have some advantages; and that may be partly due to the possibility that there may be difference ‘forms’ of light. (For example, ‘vertically polarized’ or ‘circularly polarized’ light) An example of one alternate model that is popular and sometimes helpful  is as follows: A photon may consist of two ‘subparticles’ that mutually orbit each other at speed ‘C’, as they also travel forward at speed ‘C’. And thus that constitutes a ‘spiraling pair’. Most scientists, using that model, regard each of those particles (constituting that pair) as being oppositely charged, one with positive charge and the other with negative charge. So, they regard that photon as like a forward traveling and spinning ‘dipole’, but with a net neutral sum of the charges. That also simplifies the visualization of how a photon can have one full ‘unit of spin’, while spiraling at ‘C’; compared to a lesser amount of spin that a more solid, compact body of equal mass would have if only its equator spun at a top speed ‘C’. I would hope, however, that the ‘dipole’ model (and many other models where abstract ‘charges’ must be postulated) could be further improved as follows: By substituting different ethereal flow directions to replace the ‘algorithm’ of socalled ‘charges’; or possibly substituting different flows of material within the particles – with or without different external flows of the aether surrounding the particles. ((However, suppose we accept that a powerful ‘attractive’ force exists between highenergy, mutually orbiting dipoles  somewhat like the force that holds a spinning proton together? The question arises, “since lower energy dipoles are further apart, how can such force then maintain the orbit, since most forces decrease with the inverse square of distance? (I.e. although centripetal force decreases inversely with distance also, that decrease is ‘simple’  without the ‘squared’ action.) And if the those lower energy dipoles have lesser mass, which also helps decrease the centripetal force; does that lesser mass also lead to lesser net ‘attractive’ force being exerted on lesser surface area? I think the solution may be that a major aspect of ‘the algorithm of charge’ is this: A minimum quanta of ‘charge’ implies that the entity carrying that charge must also have some minimum limit for its effective surface area, despite its shrinking mass!) 5. We have used the terms "up and down wiggling" for the photon's "wag", as it proceeds forward; but such a photon may also be described as simply "vertically polarized". (If, instead, the photon wiggled, say "left and right", it then could be described as "horizontally polarized".) 6. The sum of the photon's "wiggle related energy" (½ mc^{2 }), plus its "forward kinetic energy" (½ mc^{2}), is equal to its total photon energy (1mc^{2 }). When that photon (or what I call the "photon System") hits an "appropriate" target, it delivers to it the following: the photon's total mass "m", and the photon System's total energy (1mc^{2 }). And the mass of the target is thus increased by mass "m", and the energy of the "target System" is increased by "1mc^{2 }". (By "target system", I mean the "mass of the target and its 'adjacent' aether". While the photon was in flight, the aether supported the photon's stability, despite its wiggles and despite its momentary, cyclic speed exceeding "c". (The photon's speed does exceed "c" during parts of its cycle, as it is diverted somewhat upward, and then somewhat downward, from "the horizontal". But those "wiggles" do not change its steady "forward speed c"). 7. The photon mass, m, is conserved during its flight. (I believe in "conservation of mass".) However, because momentarily each cycle, half of the photon's total energy is "stored" in the aether; therefore the photon behaves as if it is a wave. But only its "wiggle" Energy has been transferred to the aether, NOT its Mass, (i.e., In my opinion, its mass has not been dissolved into the aether)! There are, of course, other classes of events, such as the "photoelectric effect", in which the photon does lose mass to the aether, or to an elementary particle (which in turn loses mass to the aether). And suppose that a photon is "pulled" toward a cool star by gravity. Then the photon may actually gain aether mass and associated energy. 8. The aether is like many small ultra highspeed "mistlike" particles, flying much faster than "c", and in various directions in space. These "mistlets" divide, merge, sideswipe, and form tornadolike vortices throughout space. (Perhaps nature's only really "perfect storms".) These vortices have an average amount of angular momentum, say approximately "h" amount. The photon likely "flies" along these vortices by commencing its "wiggles", and thus, perhaps, taking on a significant trace of angular momentum itself, so it can continue its forward speed "c". (I call this, "a sort of 'equipartition of angular momentum' shared" between the aether and photon.) 9. There are countless "mistlets" making up the aether. But there is an "average aether mistlet", and each average mistlet has an "average kinetic energy". However, the aether does NOT share any "equipartition of energy" with the photon. Thus, the aether does not impose upon the photon any minimum energy of consequence. (The aether, however, does force each Elementary Particle to "host" a minimum quantum of energy. This makes an "elementary particle" very different from a photon, including how it behaves.) 10. A photon responds to an attempt to increase its energy as follows: Suppose an old star "attracts" a photon toward it, or the like. A photon will maintain its velocities, and increase its mass, and, therefore, its total energy. It will also decrease the vertical length of each "vertical" excursion but increase the number of such excursions, (i.e., increase its frequency of shorter excursions). That very subtle (clever) response seems to allows the photon to avoid increasing its angular momentum, (i.e., its angular momentum remains constant as it proceeds along the aether vortices). All that leads to the famous "algorithm" for it: E = (h)(f), where h is Planck's constant "in units of angular momentum", and f is the frequency of the photon. The photon responded uniquely, per above, to the energy added. This is because the photon's has always utilized both its "vibrational" and "forward" travel options, ("degrees of freedom for which it was originally 'hurled' into using"). We shall later see that the elementary particle, which is just "spinning" (but not yet moving forward), responds much differently to additions of energy, (i.e., the elementary particle still has it forward "degree of freedom" uncommitted, "unoccupied"). 11. Per above, let us imagine an elementary particle, (say a proton or electron) as a high concentration of mass, shaped into a ring, and spinning at the speed of light, "c". (Of course, that is just an approximate representation. The actual entity likely involves averages, and even perhaps a different shape.) Let us imagine that such elementary particle must host directly the minimum (½ mc^{2 }) energy, and does so by its spinning, (i.e., simple kinetic energy). And that the springlike aether (surrounding it) hosts another steady (½ mc^{2 }) of potential energy, to keep the elementary particle stable. Thus it does not "fly apart". Both these energies together total (1mc^{2 }) for that "Elementary Particle spinning ring System" or paradigm. ((I wish that word, "System", or paradigm, had been used since Boyle's and even Democritus' time. And that the related question, "what holds particles together", had been asked and addressed before "Einstein's relativity" was developed! (Sigh!, I too have occasionally wished for time to run backwards, i.e., "to try again"!) Not necessarily with a different end result, nor a disrespect for the remarkable people who predicted it, but rather a smoother, more normal evolution to it.)) 12. One of Einstein's relativity equations may be easily derived, at least as it applies to elementary particles in simple cases: Let us discuss how a "ringshaped" elementary particle (just spinning in place at speed "c") responds, when it is subtly accelerated forward. Suppose it is caused to move forward at nearly speed "c". Certain conservation factors and/or other factors are associated with the ring's parts, their original spinning speed "c", their final "Total" speed, "c", and the aether and its equilibriums. As the ring now proceeds forward at nearly "c", the spinning speed of the ring will nearly stop. The new rotational speed is given by: (V_{ring's new slow rotational speed})^{2} = c^{2}  (V_{ring's new fast forward speed})^{2} . However, since the aether shares a sort of "equipartition of angular momentum" with the spinning ring, the now slowly spinning ring must absorb surrounding mass, to maintain its former rotating angular momentum, (i.e., conservation of angular momentum!). Thus, a forwardmoving spinning ring increases in mass according to the "relativity equation": (m_{original ring mass})(c)={M_{slower spinning ring mass}}{square root of [(c^{2 })  (V_{ring's forward speed})^{2}]}. Note: the above "relativitylike" equation was quickly derived for simple, important cases. (And the first equation above has a form somewhat like those in physics textbooks relating "time interval delta t* to time interval delta t." See my article for some other comments, including the comparison of slowed up spinning of rings with slowed up rotating clocks.) 13. The "elementary particle" (spinning ring system) hosts a high minimum quantum of energy in equilibrium with the kinetic energy of the "aether's average mistlet". This, (together with aether's other actions) gives the elementary particle great endurance, restorability, and stability. The photon lacks these qualities, (it is delicate). Thus, when a photon collides with an electron, and both are deflected, the following usually ensues: According to "Compton experiments", the photon loses some of its mass and energy, and can never likely be the same. Yet, after the traveling electron is "stopped" and "examined", it is "its original restored self". ((A photon, of mass "m", has a momentum of "(m)(c)", in its forward direction. But I think that, during part of its cycle, the photon even has a momentum exceeding "(m)(c)": For example, when it is travelling "somewhat upward", and also when it is travelling somewhat downward). But these "components" do not affect its "forward" momentum "(m)(c)". The subject of photon energy was previously covered under "point #4" above)). 14. (Revised 8152006) There exists a phenomenon known as ‘DeBroglie Matter Waves’. I.e., that is  fast ‘forward’ traveling molecules and elementary particles behaving like they have a frequency and wavelength. For example, forward moving electrons tend to ‘bounce’ off crystals accordingly. Let us consider that elementary particles often travel forward with significant forward momentum, and that that momentum becomes exposed to vortices in the aether of space. The newly forward traveling particle likely should develop an independent new (vector) angular momentum because of its new independent forward travel, a little like a newly created photon does. Meanwhile, when the particle travels forward, its ‘centripetal force’ (produced while the particle maintains its original ‘spin value’) is reduced  compared to before it started traveling. ((That is because of conservation considerations; the new increased mass ‘brought aboard’ when the forward travel began; and because the velocity of the spinning decreases, (i.e., assuming the particle’s radial dimension remains constant).)) That frees more energy to commence a ‘DeBroglielike dance’, especially when things are shifted forward. Incidentally, we might think of the additional netted mass (m_{n}) as also adding an (m_{n})(c^{2}) amount of energy to the forwardmoving system. ((Half that energy is due to the added kinetic energy of that new (m_{n}) brought aboard; and the other half is due to an antishock ‘aether spring’ absorbing some energy to gentling bring that (m_{n}) aboard.)) All that is likely an oversimplification, and there are other worthy models worth considering. 15. I have read, in effect, that the greater the speed at which a "beta particle" was emitted, the closer the alignment of its spin axis (or polarization) with its forward velocity. (A beta particle is an electron or a "positron".) Although I do not fully understand the details; point 15 is a reminder that my modeling (point 12) involve some oversimplification. My main article addresses this matter a little further. 16. Of course, if one rocket goes northward at ¾ "c" and a second rocket southward at ¾ "c", they are moving away from each other at 1½ "c". If a photon is a true particle mass, then one rocket can send the other rocket such photon (real information) by at least part of the photon's moving off and away from one rocket, toward the other rocket, with absolutely 1¾ "c" speed! (Otherwise, it wouldn't get there!) This fact can not be "rationalized away" by "group velocity", "curved space", or other "gimmicks", in my opinion! (Additional remarks are made in the article, but I believe some matter did leave one rocket and it arrived at the other.) We note that the notion of "the maximum speed limit, 'c' for everything"becomes still more absurd, when we consider traveling nuclei (not just "abstract" photons). Suppose we contemplate a few nuclei sent northward at 0.75 "c", and a few others sent southward at 0.75 "c". Suppose one of the southbound nuclei has its southward motion halted, and then that nucleus is sent northward at 0.75 "c". We should not hide the approximately 1.50 "c" velocity accumulated, since that one southbound nucleus began slowing down, and thereby parted company from its southbound cotravelers. 16.5. (Added 8152006) Like those previously mentioned two ‘rockets’, let us imagine this: Two radium nuclei are symmetrically receding away from each other at a combined ‘parting’ velocity of (1.5C); and a ‘beta particle’ (i.e., an electron), is emitted from one nucleus and catches up with the other nucleus. Then the following must have occurred: The emitted electron was hurled away from the radium nucleus with an absolute velocity of at least (1.5C) – i.e., no matter whether Einstein Relativists believe it or not! In my opinion, that is, in a sense, what Heisenberg and Pauling tried to convince Einstein of. Suppose that that electron achieved that (1.5C) velocity shortly after it was emitted (maybe with an assist from a small electron accelerator nearby, and maybe not). Linus Pauling might have argued that Heisenberg’s principle does ‘allow’ a particle to travel faster than simply ‘C’ for a very short distance and time. ((And I would extend that by arguing that it did, does, and continued to; and it is fortunate that quantum mechanics (or something) launches the stage for that. That’s because ‘Einstein relativity’ must remain incompatible with quantum mechanics (or something), in at least special cases, for the world to work!)) Thus, I think that many Einstein Relativists error by geometrically shrinking a nearly ‘2C’ total receding velocity down to nearly ‘1C’. They may similarly error with geometry tricks to create a wrong cause of gravity between bodies traveling at less than ‘1C’. Intro/Part 1 Part 2  Part 3  Part 4  Part 5  Conclusions  References  Illustrations  Home 

Causeeffect.org
Carl R. Littmann (Readers’ comments
always welcome)
