Hi Robin,
See my answers inline below ...
Bob
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 3:56 PM Robin <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au>
wrote:
> In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Oct 2021 13:58:12 -0600:
> Hi Bob,
> [snip]
> >I believe photons to be corpuscles having more than one cycle (sort of
> like
> >a gaussian envelope) but finite in size. The envelope is a soliton
> >solution supported by the nonlinearity of the aether; which is different
> >from a linear EM excitation of the aether. Each photon contains a fixed
> >energy as a corpuscle. You cannot ascribe an energy/cycle because the
> >waveform is not sine.
>
> Then what are frequency/wavelength related to in such an entity?
The frequency/wavelength ratio within the photon is not known because the
nonlinear equations have not been solved. The photon carries a finite
amount of oscillatory energy. When the photon interacts with an atom, it
is a complicated oscillatory dance. This dance may even require a
non-sinusoidal E-field within the photon for interaction with the atom's
electron. That's OK because the photon was generated by a transmitting
atom that had to go through that same dance to release the photon.
>
>Also, within the nonlinearity of the photon
> >excitation of the aether, the velocity is different due to the
> >nonlinearity. Photons must have a fixed size, commensurate with the
> >electron orbital that can absorb it.
>
> Try assuming that absorption depends on frequency not size.
> Take the swing example. A push at the right moment leads to large
> oscillations, even though the length of the "push" is
> much smaller than the amplitude of the oscillation. IOW frequency
> (timing), not size, determines energy transfer.
>
Atoms are not magic antennas that can reach out and grab energy from the
aether with a reach much bigger than the orbital size. Consider the atomic
electron to be an antenna nearly the same size as the orbital. When an
atom absorbs a photon - it consumes ALL of it. This means that the photon
must be of commensurate size to the electron orbital. It helps to think
like Goedecke ("Classically Radiationless Motions) - this was the
foundation of Mills' derivation.
I have been giving a lot of thought lately to the transient behavior of the
electron in natural collisions with other atoms. The physics of this are
mostly ignored. The electron orbital will wobble as it gains or loses
energy in the collision. According to Goedecke, only when the orbital is
in perfect balance between angular momentum of the electron and orbital
period does the electron not radiate RF energy. When an electron gains
energy from collision, it is perturbed out of its radiation-less
condition. It radiates energy until it reaches the condition of
non-radiation. But what happens if the electron is perturbed to an energy
below that of the infinitely narrow radiation-less condition? If
reciprocity is applied, it means that whenever the electron is not in the
radiation-less condition, it has a non-zero radiation resistance. It can
not only radiate energy, but it can receive energy. I propose that when
the electron is perturbed out of the radiation-less case to a lower energy
that it actually takes (receives) energy from the aether to go back to the
ideal radiation-less case. This has other implications that I am trying to
thread through now.
>
> >Photons propagate completely
> >differently than normal linearly excited EM waves.
>
> So where is the frequency dividing line? IOW If radio waves are EM waves,
> and light is photons, then at what frequency
> does that change over from EM waves to photons occur?
>
It is an energy density issue in the aether. The lower the frequency, the
more spread out the energy is across many units of the aether lattice. At
higher frequency, the energy density can be higher over the course of a 1/2
wavelength creating greater likelihood of stimulating a nonlinearity. The
soft threshold is in the THz range. I say soft, because it has to do with
field strength and that depends on amplitude and frequency. The field must
rise very quickly before the energy radiates away via the normal linear
means.
BTW, this is the same mechanism for phonon formation in a condensed matter
lattice. Phonons are the same kind of corpuscular solution in a nonlinear
excitation of the lattice. When you look at the derivation for the
acoustic properties of a lattice, the first thing they do is linearize the
Young's modulus and solve for the linear solutions. Phonons will not be a
solution within a linear formulation! They linearize the Young's modulus
so that they can solve the math.
>
> >
> >Photons don't arise from Maxwell's equations because Maxwell's equations
> >are a linear description of space. Maxwell believed there IS an aether
> and
> >his equations reflect this. Even though the aether was not measured, they
> >continued to use Maxwell's equations for normal EM excitation because they
> >worked (proving there is an aether). Those that believe there is no
> aether
> >cannot understand the possibility of a soliton solution for a photon.
> >Soliton solutions require a nonlinear medium. From their perspective, if
> >space is empty, how can "nothing" be nonlinear? From my perspective, the
> >existence of photons provides another proof that there is an aether and it
> >is nonlinear.
>
> ...only if photons are indeed Solitons.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au>
>
>
