photon's substructure, the wave-particle duality, and quantum solutions

[tony fleming]

the photon turns out not only to have a tiny but non-negligible mass,
it also has a sub-structure. it can be visualized as two particles
having equal mass and equal and opposite charge. we can observe this
structure to have both a particle character, and yet it also is seen
(from the side) as a wave, as such it is a quantum of the
electromagnetic field

the following paper discusses the substructure
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Medical_therapy_cyma1000_racehorse_study_june_2005.pdf

notice that this self-field model is obtained by using the same
self-field equations as was used for the hydrogen atom

http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_08_04.pdf

the analytic solution for the photon is balmer-like but its
spectroscopic response is valid at all frequencies since its two masses
are equal and hence ALL frequencies are valid solutions.

it is only when the masses are unequal as in the hydrogen atom
(electron is balanced by the proton) that we end up with a quantum
solution of discrete frequencies

[Dr Photon]

tony fleming wrote:
[stuff]

what gets me is that for all your "new physics", the proof you give of
its validity, and the experimental equipment used, is a horse-tendon.

Not regarding whether the tendon got better or not, it's hardly a
victory for your theory over standard physics. How do you know that the
healing of horse tendons is incompatible with the current Standard
Model?

br

[John Sefton]

Tony
Perhaps you will read my Galaxy Model for
the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
which uses linked rotations in two planes.
Sounds very similar.
John

[tony fleming]

ok, thanks for the comment on that conference report. this is a theory
that has not been fully written up yet, although we have been asked to
write this experimental work up for a journal. it obviously needs a
lot more fleshing out into a full journal paper; this was just a
conference report.

appreciate the medical worth of this device however, the same
technique, using acoustic frequencies for replication of the various
organs and tissues of the body, and apoptosis -cell death- of unhealthy
tissues, including cancers etc, is another weapon in the battle against
disease and injuries. it is currently being extensively used within the
cosmetics industry.

we have presented the work at two biophysics conferences now including
the following 'slide show' which also develops the photon theory; this
was presented at Kos, Greece, lst October from memory.

http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Photon%20chemistry_UP_Mar_2004.pdf

the point is that the 'massive' photon takes you a long way into the
realm of the standard model and does things that the standard model
hasn't yet predicted, including the tie-in between the photon and the
phonon, and their link to the gluon.

this was never meant to be a 'proof' of the self-field theory, but a
glimpse at the theory of the photon as seen by self-field theory.
don't forget, QFT says this is all bunk, yet here we are using it to
justify physical effects that otherwise would not (currently) be
understood.

[tony fleming]

John; many thanks, i have just visited your site; most interesting; it
IS similar.well done on the site.

although the maths behind self-field theory also holds for any other
periodic shape, such as elliptical and more irregular paths, the circle
DOES feature in the maths; i call these periodic paths spinors in
general, because of their physical and temporal response as given by
maxwell's equations; i know this term has been used by QFT as a unit
rank 2 tensor, but i'm using the term in a physical sense, a vector
that rotates.

i'll examine the site in detail; i'm having problems with the
animations; do i need some special software? i'll start reading the
text and get back to you; you'll know how difficult it is to produce
3-D plots of the actual orbits.

cheers tony

[Dr Photon]

tony fleming wrote:
[snip]

>appreciate the medical worth of this device however, the same
>technique, using acoustic frequencies for replication of the various
>organs and tissues of the body, and apoptosis -cell death- of unhealthy
>tissues, including cancers etc, is another weapon in the battle against
>disease and injuries. it is currently being extensively used within the
>cosmetics industry.

acoustic frequencies! that also got my attention previously, but I
didn't comment.
You think there is new physics in the phonon/photon connection - you
are going to have an *awful* lot of explaining to do before you
convince any hard-nosed physicists (you may be able to swing a
bio-physicist or two, so long as they have no experience in solid-state
physics).

[snip]

>this was never meant to be a 'proof' of the self-field theory, but a
>glimpse at the theory of the photon as seen by self-field theory.
>don't forget, QFT says this is all bunk, yet here we are using it to
>justify physical effects that otherwise would not (currently) be
>understood.

QFT says the physics is bunk, but what you need to explain is the
*biology*. Creating a whole new theory of physics to justify a puzzle
in biology is way over the top. It is possible that mobile phones
affect human memory, though no-one may know exactly why, but to produce
an explanation that it therefore proves the existence of tachyons from
an alternate universe is hardly going to convince anyone. That's the
type of situation I see you in here.

Indeed, your current approach will likely give biophysics a bad name.
What trained physicists do you have in your team? The probability that
you are right is so remotely small that you should really devote more
time to standard physics explanations, and in particular to
*biological* explanations.

Bjoern has kindly replied to your posts several times, take what he
says *very* seriously.

br

[John Sefton]

Some animations are on petcom.com and
some on accesscomm.ca.
I believe petcom is down at the moment.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/He.GIF
is on accesscomm,
It reresents 2 electron *centers* with spin
of one and a second spin of 2 normal to the
first spin.
Notice 2 and only 2 members allowed in this path.

John

[Autymn D. C.]

As the foton's fields don't decay to nought over some distance, it has
a slim response to mechanical forces by being absorbed into an exciton.
So in a way of speaking, the foton has a far-field massive
pseudoparticle, as they say. I'd just call it a proxy particle.

-Aut

[tony fleming]

thanks for those words br(ian?), the trouble with bjeorn is that he is
sometimes too arrogant and doesn't listen before rushing to put pen to
paper and it is not a good practice to have a full-in furfight picking
each line to bits when you're trying to understand a whole new maths,
he has to learn to take what i say seriously too; i know what i'm
talking about; communication is a problem, learning to use the lingo of
the various groups of scientists. SFT is analogous to QFT in the same
way as FDM and FEM as i say. let bjeorn try to pick it to bits, it will
help flesh the method out for those on the periphery to understand its
relationship to QFT.

i can see you understand the situation with respect to 'hard' science.
having been a professional 'hard' scientist for many years now (some
decades in fact) its nice to be able to act in an independent role. it
is good that there ARE independently minded scientists around to give
unbiased unmainstream opinion. to give you an example, there is
currently a discussion i'm having with uncle al and others about the
double slit experiment. of course we all know this leads to EPR etc,
and i guess this is where i knew i'd run into the full-on 'wierdo'
scientists who 'believe' in what they do, just like me!! so i don't
debunk what they are doing, i am just trying to see quantum tunnelling,
action-at-a-distance, superluminal effects, quantum computing,
teleporting, worm holes, etc ad nauseum from a different angle. don't
forget the photon has a substructure, and so there are subphotonic
'fields' of incredibly small scale.yes self-field theory IS
confrontational for science and so it should be if it is valid, and it
is!! SFT is a new and wonderfully exciting mathematical procedure!!

as to biophysics, it already HAS a bad name with all those hard-headed
physicists; but who cares?? with respect i find all this talk about bad
name and biophysics just prattle. after all, the world of physics has
its OWN battles with SFT; some amongst the ranks of biophysicists and
physicists have both been open enough to accept a new theory to explain
what is otherwise unexplainable and i refer to the photon chemistry.

[Potte]

Hey dude. While Bjoern is taking a weekend leave to the beach
island with his girlfriend. Try to tell us what you think happens
in Entanglement, Quantum Tunnelling, etc. Remember you tried to wipe
out the foundation of QM by stating that HUP is not true,
uncertainties is not built into reality but a problem of our
instruments, etc.

Anyway. I can bet your model is wrong. For nearly a century.
Thousands of the most brilliant minds are into it. Why can't
they see what you see. Some of them independent enough. It
is easy to say they are wrong. But hard to refute their
stunning experimental data that cover from Aspect to
Z particle.

About photon chemistry. It is not complex and elegant enough to
explain the biophysics data.

Potte

[Y.Porat]

Bravo
i saw your link

i agree that the photon has mass
and i agree that it has a structure
not sire about 'substructure

now another bravo
i saw there the helix structure!!
is that your original idea or may be
you saw it before??
because i for instance am suggestion it for many years ago
and i a not sure even that i didnt see it from someone before me
it is very important to be honest
and to give credit to those who deserve it

now i suppose your next step will be to declare about a basic particle
that will be called
THE CIRCLON (:-)
as a composer of the photon ...!!

or may be just change its name
and tell the people
you have an original new suggestion.....

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------

[tony fleming]

lucky bjeorn!! i'm at home with my missus, the ball and chain!! LOL but
we did just now in fact take sally our small norwich terrier down to
the beach for a walk; maybe that qualifies me to speak while bjeorn is
away.

quantum tunnelling: a proton fired at a hydrogen atom (take the
hydrogen atom for simplicity and because we can compare QFT and SFT)

(1) according to the classical picture we can't overcome the energy
barrier presented by the potential wall.

(2) according to QM, the nucleus is 'surrounded' by a probability
density. we talk about a coulomb barrier that can be overcome if we
speed up the proton (say) and it might reach the nucleus. we don't need
to 'scale' the potential wall because the particle tunnels through the
barrier

(3) according to SFT, we KNOW the electrons' actual motions, so there
are periods in its orbital and cyclotron motions when we can get
through inside the electron and onto the nucleus. there's a diagram in
the hydrogen paper that shows an actual plot for the electron in a
particular state (probably a higher state where the cyclotron motion is
smaller than the orbital motion.

let me come back to you on entanglement, you and p6 have put me on
notice, about it, ok? a couple of days.

i'm not saying anyone is 'wrong' including QFT; i think was what bjeorn
was trying to claim i said; NO, QFT is a numerical method that has
limitations, most importantly the uncertainty relationship[which is due
to the way the fields are determined and always have been since Coulomb
first took the radial distance in his formula from between the charge
points; in self-field theory, we take the fields BETWEEN CENTERES OF
MOTION which is much different at atomic dimensions; that's not to say
coulomb was wrong, he was just concerned with the macroscopic world and
couldn't take the fields between centres of motion.

actually as i said on the web site, i see QFT and SFT as stereoscopic
vision of physics, they bothe say similar but not identical things,
especially while we have HUP inside QFT; if we took it out (by using
centre-of-motion fields) i'm sure QFT and SFT would be even closer in
what they say.

i strongly think you're wrong about photon chemistry, mainly because it
gives us reasons why many phenomena occur that we cannot presently
understand such as ionospheric layers, black holes, magnetic flips of
the sun and earth, gravitation across galaxies and super clusters. all
of these phenomena can be understood once you realise that just like
atomic chemistry, a photon chemistry exists, and this gives you W+, W-,
Z0, gluons, bose-einstein condensates and hence you get a field for the
various quarks, muons, etc

[tony fleming]

thanks mon ami, the helix is a result of the mathematics; it solves the
periodicity demanded by the self-field condition which says the nett
radiation must be zero.

i HAVE actually met a bloke in melbourne here who wrote a whole thesis
based on a few very simple rules; he was a high energy physicist and
i'll dig up his work and refs for you. i am not a dishonest person, so
if you give me a ref to your work i will acknowledge you at some stage
in a future report, ok?

[Y.Porat]

Hi mon Ami Tony
since i am doing efforts to be honest
i must say that i am not sure if someone was preceding me
with that helix suggestion
yet i am sure i saw it on the net many years ago
now as for me
an electromagnetic wave is described at the appendix of my book
'A Model of the Atom and the nucleus'
that is copyrighted from 1993
some of the members here got a copy of my book and they can testify

now there is another suggestion in my book and in my site
that i am much more proud about
it is the Circlon idea
i called it in my book another name i called it there 'The Basion'
but the name is not important at all
it is a basic particle that moves naturally in a closed circle
and i called it later 'The Circlon'

btw
if your calculations brought you to that helix result naturally'
IE without your pushing it to that result
than it is a good sign for all of us.

now please note that this Circlon can as well be associated with your
helix
because one would ask how is it that a particle will move in a helix??
you would say :
'the electric field is doing it'
my answer is much more basic:

*no one is forcing it do do it * it does itself!!! (:-)
once you get the Circlon idea than its enough

if the Circlon is getting a perpendicular push from a 'colleague' like
himself
perpendicular to its regular circle movement then (in your language)
Voila
you get the combined movement that is the Helix.

it can get of course many pushes from angles that are not 90 deg
but all the other possibilities
and you get a whole 'family' of Helix paths.

just some creative imagination..
....
and on that 'Circlon' idea i definitely have a copyright !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------

[tony fleming]

Y, (btw what is your first name) there is a really basic dynamic
picture associated with SFT. the overall physics of the attraction or
repulsion (in hydrogen atom) can be viewed as many many photon-electron
or photon-proton collisions; just like a gas hitting a wall, but these
collisions are less random than a gas hitting a wall and creating a
force; they appear to cause the electron to move in a 'circle' but i
think this is just an approximation to a quite random jiggling motion.

i think this 'mechanical' ( i call it dynamical) view of
electromagnetics is what maxwell and einstein were looking for.

the repulsion is caused by the motions either hitting front on, or
looping around 'behind' each other. there appears to be a synchronous
frequency than can be associated with these electron-photon collision
that make both (1) the photons spiral while also performing smaller
helical motions as they transit (bothways) between the proton and the
electron in the hydrogen atom, and (2) the electron and proton move
(approximately) in a circlular path while also perfoming helical
motions;

it's all quite mind boggling to conceive it in the mind, and even
harder to get a physical drawing of it; i have used MAPLE quite a lot,
but i am looking for better graphical techniques to produce publishable
diagrams (help anyone?)

i guess the above belong to your 'family' of helical paths

cheers tony

[Y.Porat]

tony fleming wrote:
> Y, (btw what is your first name) there is a really basic dynamic
> picture associated with SFT. the overall physics of the attraction or
> repulsion (in hydrogen atom) can be viewed as many many photon-electron
> or photon-proton collisions; just like a gas hitting a wall, but these
> collisions are less random than a gas hitting a wall and creating a
> force; they appear to cause the electron to move in a 'circle' but i
> think this is just an approximation to a quite random jiggling motion.
>
> i think this 'mechanical' ( i call it dynamical) view of
> electromagnetics is what maxwell and einstein were looking for.
>
> the repulsion is caused by the motions either hitting front on, or
> looping around 'behind' each other. there appears to be a synchronous
> frequency than can be associated with these electron-photon collision
> that make both (1) the photons spiral while also performing smaller
> helical motions as they transit (bothways) between the proton and the
> electron in the hydrogen atom, and (2) the electron and proton move
> (approximately) in a circlular path while also perfoming helical
> motions;
>
> it's all quite mind boggling

let me enter just at this point while you define it as
mind boggling!!

exactly as you say
i could use much more blunt words but lets skip it
it is shear nonsense
it is a false trial to 'rape' a photon that moves in a straight line
to move another way
May be those guys already heared the blunt criticism about
th conventional nonsense nd trued to fix it by
*impossible jun glaring*
no way!
the photon is a dead animal by arrival and by definition
to be any attraction agent
i just wonder how that nonsense started and who ls 'responsible for
that huge nonsense that was sticking to intelligent people for so long
may be the fact that while you detach a plug from voltage
you see a spark ?? may be
but it is as i said nonsense
a mediator that moves in straight line can do only repulsion!!
so after a long agonizing thinking i got to the Circlon
is was relay difficult to get to it because it is against
Newtons first law
so the most difficult part of it was to release myself from that
law and realize that newton lived a long time ago
all the microcosm was unknown to him
so he could not imagine that
*there might be an exception to his first Law
so i call it an expansion of that first law
yet once you accept it
but once you accept that *[postulate*
a new world is opened before you
while the Circlon can be used as a force creator
but at the same time as a particle producer (builder)
.
you can see it in my site: (no animation the animation is left to your
imagination)

it is
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html

a home made site of an ignorant about site building
including a spelling mistake of Paulling
instead of Pauling
that i dont know how to fix it.....

anyway if it is important to you
my private name is Yehiel (a rare Biblical name
may be fits because i am as well 'rare.......)

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------

[Potte]

Pls. explain in detail this "we take the fields BETWEEN CENTERES
OF MOTION". Centres of Motion of what? How does it differ to QFT which
you says is between the point charge. Bjoern also is confused what you
mean. When describing things. Note people don't have the same mind
process as you.. and they can't automatically read your mind.. so
explain clearly. Don't make vagueness to avoid clear scrutiny or
defense by complexity and ambiguity. Compare what Dirac said to
your own model. Remember Dirac also quantize the field.

Potte

[Autymn D. C.]

wierdo -> weirdo
nauseum -> nauseam

[Autymn D. C.]

shear -> sheer

Wrong, Porat, repulsion is done with negative mass.

[Y.Porat]

Negative mass Eh???

how about negative brain of yours ??

keep well
Y.Porat
--------------------------

[Autymn D. C.]

I did say that my mind falls up.

-Aut

[Y.Porat]

hey clown
do you think people have some extra time for your nonsense??

you are obfuscating the whole thread

so i hereby call other members to bypass the cook

Y.porat
--------------------------

[tony fleming]

don't forget, i say things that bjeorn hasn't thought about!! And in
his defence not many have; i used dirac as an example for bjeorn so he
could understand the differences because I know he understands QFT, but
he has no idea about SFT, although I sense he is beginning to wake up
to its reality as a valid method of physical analysis; i hope you now
have some trust in the self-field theory and I sense you DO, hence your
question; SFT is based on discrete photon energies which come from the
eigenvalue solutions of the matrix obtained directly from maxwell's
equations into which we have substituted the correct spinorial field
functions; so SFT is saying something really interesting and novel
about the way physical systems 'play out' their mathematics. In SFT
combinations of eigensolutions are real, physical solutions and not
just mathematical excercises. This is why I call the fields spinors, or
should I say physical spinors; this same terminology in QFT is used as
a rather abstruse mathematical unit entity (by dirac and others),
whereas SFT spinors are just rotating vectors which occur in nature, in
fact they occur throughout nature, such as seen with the DNA, in solar
systems, etc, so they form what numerical analysts would call valid
'shape functions'. I have suggested to bjeorn he learn such
numerical techniques as FDM and FEM so he can see the interesting
synergy between SFT and QFT.

Looking at the hydrogen atom, another most interesting fact of the SFT
solution (and there are many) is that it appears that the electron
energies (there are four components of electron energy - electric
kinetic energy, magnetic kinetic energy, electric potential energy and
magnetic potential energy) act as the 'source terms' or RHS for the
photons if we assume the photons are the moving particles. Again, we
see the photon energies (again for the 'ordinary' photon there are
four components of photon energy - 'electric' kinetic energy,
'magnetic' kinetic energy, 'electric' potential energy and
'magnetic' potential energy-the fields are at a smaller domain than
EM fields and are not the same fields)

ok, because of the fact that these are SELF_FIELDS, then we by
necessity have periodic motions; in other words no nett radiation which
demands periodicity in time AND space, and hence we get the same groups
occurring as in QED and QCD.

i'm not trying to use vagueness to avoid clear scrutiny; i do think
that these NEW concepts are going to take time to be understood by many
at first; remember eddington's comment about general relativity in 1915
(from memory): when asked by a journalist about this new new theory
called general relativity that was only understood by three or so
scientists, he paused for a while and replied that he couldn't think
who the third was! i think the same applies to self-field theory
although i do think that by coming to science from the bottom up is
going to help.science has for too long been an ivy-league closed shop
affair.

anyway enough of the chat, you want to know WHY centre-of-motion
fields? and WHAT are they? well i think they'll require their own
thread but i'll try to answer you as briefly as i can without omitting
any major details. so here goes.

since coulomb's day, we have all learnt to measure electric fields
between charge-points. his wonderful experiments were done at the
macroscopic level and he like many others of his age knew little about
other domains of scale, including the microscopic, such as the cell,
and the DNA (now you may think this a strange thing to say but it IS
relevant-DNA and all of nature make use of physical spinors to achieve
equilibrium).

I think this is enough for today my writing finger is a bit tired so
grill me more, so you and others can learn the ropes of SFT.

[tony fleming]

[tony fleming]

sorry didn't finish the para about the eigensolutions of SFT......

Looking at the hydrogen atom, another most interesting fact of the SFT
solution (and there are many) is that it appears that the electron
energies (there are four components of electron energy - electric
kinetic energy, magnetic kinetic energy, electric potential energy and
magnetic potential energy) act as the 'source terms' or RHS for the
photons if we assume the photons are the moving particles. Again, we
see the photon energies (again for the 'ordinary' photon there are
four components of photon energy - 'electric' kinetic energy,
'magnetic' kinetic energy, 'electric' potential energy and
'magnetic' potential energy-the fields are at a smaller domain than

EM fields and are not the same fields) act as the 'source terms' or RHS
for the
electrons if we assume the electrons are the moving particles.

so what we see is a system of equations that has two RHS's depending on
which particle (photon or electron) is choosen; now this IS strange to
have two interfacing source terms that can both consist of variables or
be constants depending on our point of view

[Y.Porat]

a quote from you
'now this IS strange to

have two interfacing source terms that can both consist of variables or

be constants depending on our point of view '

end of quote:

now dont you see that you are dealing with a fairy tail??

a photon that moved naturally in a straight line
is only a Little by product of the real story!!

while as for the 'real story no one have even come *close* to it !!th
mathematical mumbling will not lead you anywhere
there is a need for a *physics revolutionary insight*!1

dont you realize that you are stuck in the mud??

yet how is it possible while the assertive parrots are all around??

how long it will take to 'intelligent people' to realize it ??!!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------

[tony fleming]

Dear Yeikel (hope that's right-my memory aint the best-and i hope the
use of your familial first name is ok by you?- i am a great grandson of
a london jew btw-so shalom)

my commentary as to STRANGE is that the physics is showing us a new
mathematical reality, how we should interptret what we previously
considered just maths excercises when we studied eigensolutions; we
would run through these eigensoluitions and just say all these were
valid solutions; but inside the atom, all these solutions occur
TOGETHER in reality!! amazing!! don't you see?

[tony fleming]

sorry Yehiel, buggered your name up

cheers Tony

[tony fleming]

dislexai -> dislexia

[tony fleming]

pednat -> ??

[Y.Porat]

not pedant!!

an incurable nagger!!
she is a woman did you know that ??
what could you expect from a 'woman scientist' ??(except madam Curie
she certainly was different...)

they dont have the proportion sense about what is more important
and what is less important
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------

[Y.Porat]

occure together in reality ???'

dont i see ???
no i dont see
i just see how far is that mathematical IMAGE of reality
dont you see that this is only a poor image of reality
and while you speak about
'inside the Atom'
do you have any idea about facts about how far in the periodic table
that mathematics could go ??
too little !! far from complete
and it will never be completed on the existing paradigm!!
because there are some false *physics assumptions * assumptions in
it
that no mathematics can save you from that
the output you get is an inevitable result of the input you do
and if the input is wrong th output has no chance.
so the real advance is actually very poor
2 did it ever occurred to you that advance in Atomic and nuc
knowledge
can be done without any calculus ???
if not
there is some news to you!!
(may be you saw my site ?? ......)

ATB
yehiel Porat
-------------

[tony fleming]

now, now Yehiel, you're being politically incorrect!! LOL, after all my
wife is a woman, sir!! (LMAO)

[Y.Porat]

Sorry sorry!!!

if you insist i take back all my mistake insinuations .......

PS dont be too afraid of your wife
they are not so awesome as it looks like .....
ohh sory again
the same for man
so how is it now ??? (:-)

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------

[Autymn D. C.]

did it ever occurred -> did it ever occur
Porat's still an illiterate fool.