Is there a model of photon structure?

[Gregorygregg1]

It has probably been proposed already, but might the dual nature of the photon be due to its structure?  If, for instance, the structure of a photon was much like a hydrogen atom, with a nucleus and an orbital?  Because of the speed limit, the orbit of the orbital would be compressed into the plane perpendicular to the photons direction of travel. Photons with higher energy would not then travel faster, but transfer the energy to the orbital, resulting in a shorter, higher frequency wavelength.  The upper limit for light energy then becomes the speed of light squared. Could structure account for the the wave/partial duality?

[Lincoln]

Yes to the first question and no to the last.

The structure of the photon is not only proposed, it is measured. Some fraction of the time the photon acts like the pointlike-particle described in elementary treatments. However, there are fractions of the time in which the photon acts as if it contains a quark/antiquark pair (or lepton/antilepton pair). For those moments when the photon consists of two (or even three) constituents, this can be calculated quasi-analytically, using perturbative techniques. For the moments when the structure of the photon is more complex, it is impossible (pragmatically, not in principle) to calculate the photon structure in that regime. For those moments, physicists substitute the structure of particles like the rho, omega or phi...all mesons with quantum numbers similar to the photon.

You should not think of the photon as being identical to a meson...this is a common misconception. If it were identical to a meson, it would have the meson's mass (and consequent velocity). However this is well understood by physicists and you can handle that.

These ideas have been verified in photon/photon collisions at the LEP accelerator.

In short, the photon structure is reasonably well understood, however the existence of photon structure is quite unrelated to your train of thought.

[Gregorygregg1]

Lincoln,
It sounds like this version of the photon is suffering from a terminal case of the uncertainty principle. it doesn't make sense that the photon's existence could be broken into periods when it behaves one way, and periods when it behaves another. Photons behave in a consistent way. I suggest that quasi-analytical calculations are only quasi-correct. It seems to me that using the LEP to determine photon structure is fraught with problems because in an accelerator you sustain near field effects, and far field is what photons are all about. You are obviously far more informed on the topic than am I, but the model you describe is too complex to be correct.

[Lincoln]

And yet correct it is. The model of relevance (quantum electrodynamics) is the singularly most accurate model ever devised, making testable (and verified) predictions that exceed an accuracy of parts per billion.

The quasi-analytic calculations are, in fact, only quasi-correct. However the remaining bits that are as-yet incalculable can be (and have been) shown to have a smaller effect than the parts per billion level.

As it happens, as my Ph.D. thesis work, I focused exclusively on photon structure for some years. Detector limitations resulted in a slightly different thesis topic, but I was immersed in the body of knowledge and the subsequent years have not substantially changed our understanding.

The fraction of the time the photon spends in a hadronic (i.e. quark-containing) state, the calculations are less precise due to the nature of the strong force. However this is a detail, reflecting inadequate mathematical imagination and isn't in principle much different than the electrodynamic structure (which, as I have mentioned is the most precise calculation/measurement ever achieved by mankind).

Believe me or don't; it's all the same to me. But that's what a careful review of the theoretical and experimental state of affairs will reveal.

[Gregorygregg1]

Forgive my ignorance, I was under the impression that the photon was considered an elementary particle and not generally thought to have structure. My suggestion was a proposal that this view might be questioned on the basis of the particle/wave phenomenon. Had I known that the photon had been pinned down and dissected, I might instead have asked how the parts of the dissected photon account for this phenomenon.
I appreciate your indulgence.

[Lincoln]

Photons >>are<< elementary particles. Absolutely true.

They also have a structure. Also absolutely true.

Confusing? Yup. But that is the quantum realm for you.

An electron is also an elementary particle. But said electron is surrounded by a virtual cloud of photons. These photons can also temporarily split into electron/positron pairs. Thus a real "bare" electron consists of a core and a cloud. How this is handled is quasi-arbitrary. One imposes arbitrary cutoffs and says "this is this and that is that." As a simple analogy, suppose some phenomenon consists of several conceptual components, denoted A, B, C, D, E, F & G. Thus you can write

Phenomenon = A x B x C x D x E x F x G

But, when one calculates things, you might associate similar phenomena and say:

Phenomenon = [A x B] x C x [D x E x F x G] = 1 x 2 x 3

But this isn't a unique choice. You could as easily chosen to do

Phenomenon = A x B x [C x D x E x F x G] = I x II x III

One must guard against any discussion that focuses on the categories 1, 2 or 3 (or I, II, or III), as one must consider the entire phenomenon and keep in mind that once you put parentheses around a subset of the phenomenon you are necessarily exluding some other part of the phenomenon. Further, the parentheses can be arbitrary. Only by understanding everything can one talk about a specific category.

Photons are considered elementary particles inasmuch as they do not have persistent constituents. All constituents are ephemeral virtual particles which come into existence but briefly and then mutually annihilate. The existence of this virtual cloud has been experimentally established, but this is a phenomenon that is non-existent in the classical realm.

Contrast this with a proton, which has both an ephemeral and persistent set of constituents. The existence of persistent constituents that separates particles into composite and fudamental categories.

If this all seems to be a barrier to the discussion, well...it is. However, it's not a malicious barrier, nor is it hopelessly impenetrable. It just reminds us that simplifications can frequently lead to misleading thinking. There is no shame in being lead astray on one's thoughts...this whole subject is complex and subtle and often requires a few years of graduate study to appreciate.

Depending on your motivation, we could discuss a more modern understanding of how quantum field theory handles this. However even this will eventually stumble because of inadequate math mastery. Analogies and pictures can take you only so far.

While that summarizes the status, I return to the electron briefly to remind you of a phenomenon called "the anomalous magnetic moment." If the electron is a pointlike charged particle with spin (1/2), it should have a specific magnetic moment. However measurements have proven that the predicted naive magnetic moment is incorrect by about 0.1%. This could indicate electron structure and it does, to a degree. It reflects this ephemeral and virtual cloud of particles surrounding the electron. Because these virtual particles exist only briefly, we conceptually subsume them in a different bit of the equation, rather than calling them structure. When we do this, we can measure the 0.1% to parts per billion (and calculate it as well). Given this precision, we clearly know what we're doing.

Wave and particle phenomena are more subtle than you're thinking.

P.S. There is no need to apologize. This stuff is mind-bending and I didn't even study it until my third year of graduate school (in physics) and it was years later before I finally "got it." (And I don't claim to understand all of the nuances as well as a theorist who has concentrated more on the mathematical frailties of the model.)

[DragonFly]

Thanks for the info, Lincoln.

I would suggest, perhaps rather logically and philosophically, and a bit scientifically, that the photon has neutral charge precisely because it consists of a primal (elementary) wave and its opposing primal wave, 180 degrees out of phase, this canceling the mass effects of the opposite wave lengths and the charge effects of the opposing wave amplitudes, but somehow leaving the energy effect of the wave frequencies, with the positive and negative charge aspects thus either gone or able to live in peace. A photon, then, as neutral, represents all of totality (the two opposing primal waves that sum to nothing), while a matter particle, since charged, represents only half of totality.

Of course, there is only one way to make electrons, protons, and photons (and their antiparticles), which gives us a deep insight into the method of existence from nothing (perhaps via a cosine equation) at the ultimate level.

My great insight was to wonder why there can be only two stable charged matter particles in free space and only one stable energy particle, and no other arrangements possible. Adding this to the fact that nature contains a zero-sum balance of opposites gave me the TOE, as well as noting that there is literally nothing to make anything of. . Roger Ellman had it, too, but he has the math for it, and I didn’t.

The photon is, though, still longer than it is tall, with a narrow width, since it, in the right orientation, can make it though a polarizing crystal lattice. As it is asymmetrical, being longer, it might be acted on unevenly by gravity, making it an unstable relativistic system, causing, perhaps every two million years, it to emit a decay photon in the microwave range, but this is all just conjecture. Some might use it as an alternative method for the CMBR creation and/or some of the red shift (due to decay).

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Lincoln,

It would seem natural that if a photon has structure.. then a photon must have a structural change made to it when it becomes polarized. What would the structural difference be of two std light photons, where one is in it's natural state and the other has been polarized?

Also, is there a structural difference between two slightly different wavelengths of light? What controls the frequency of permutation shifts in the structure of a photon and how much structural difference is there between Photons at widely different ranges in the spectrum, say from deep infra-red to gamma? Sorry, but Photons are very interesting to me. Does your book get into that.. if so.. I haven't got that far yet.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[Lincoln]

Polarization is mostly an effect of lots of photons, not individual ones. Photons are essentially identical and a linear polarizer just filters out some of them. I'd have to think a little more about circularly-polarized light.

Keep in mind that a photon of length will have a different wavelength in a different reference frame. That's the basis of the Doppler shift. I guess it depends on what exactly you're talking about when you want to know about differing structures. But keep in mind that two people will disagree about the wavelength/frequency of the photon and they'll be talking about the same exact photon. Thus only relativistic effects are what can be considered...not fundamental structure differences.

And no, none of this is in either of my books. It's too technical for a popularization and too specialized to be commercially viable.

[Gregorygregg1]

. Thus only relativistic effects are what can be considered...not fundamental structure differences.

Speaking of relativistic effects, not only the wavelength of the photon, the distance to the aperture, and the scattering effects of the atmosphere need to be taken into account. There is also the intrinsic capacity of the brain receiving the information.

[Lincoln]

SCF members are all supergeniuses. So this isn't a restriction.

[Faradave]

I very much enjoyed reading the above posts. I don’t often see discussion of the structure of photons.

...inadequate math mastery. Analogies and pictures can take you only so far.

Lincoln's got me pegged. I would certainly benefit by knowing more math, but I wouldn’t trade any analogies and pictures for it. I think we still have far to go there. I’ll gladly demonstrate, as pertains to this topic, to anyone who can imagine a deck of cards and a sharp metal pin.

Say you have the ace of spades and you carefully push the pin up through it. Now imagine the ace represents a segment of Edwin Abbott’s Flatland, inhabited by two-dimensional creatures. You and I see the whole metal pin but the Flatlanders encounter only a metal dot, a particle. Flatlanders can’t perceive anything outside their 2D space.
Now imagine that, one by one, you push the rest of the cards onto the pin while you point it at an angle from perpendicular, say 45°. No band aids, so far? Good!

We might consider each card a different segment of Flatland, each encountering its own metal particle. Instead, consider that each card up in the deck represents the same Flatland segment but at the next sequential moment in time. In that case, a Flatlander would find the metal particle to be moving from its original position over time.

You may have guessed that I didn’t choose the 45° pin angle at random. It corresponds to the angle given a light-like interval in Minkowski space. There, time is the vertical coordinate and space is horizontal, depicted as a flat 3-plane, which fits our card analogy.[1] For convenience, the y- and z-axes are often ignored for a conventional side view called a Minkowski diagram (M2) as below.[2]

We are taught that light is a particle (a photon), typically proceeding from emitting to absorbing electron. My analogy shows that it is equivalent to consider light to be a ray-like object between the two electrons in spacetime. One might object, noting that light is massless, thus not at all like a metal pin. That's easily resolved. Imagine you hold the deck of cards firmly, grip the pinhead and slide the pin out!

You now have a “pinhole” through spacetime, a massless tunnel connecting the electrons. What diameter is the pinhole? Well, how thick is a light-like interval in M2? Call it zero diameter. That’s still big enough for “point particles” like electrons. More importantly, how long is the pinhole through spacetime?

That answer to that is well known, though not often visually depicted. The length of a light-like interval by definition and according to the interval formula is zero![3] So, when my analogy considers light as a pinhole through spacetime, it sees a pinhole to be a photo-induced wormhole through which particle-like interactions (e.g. photoelectric effect) occur by remote contact. There may be many lightyears of spatial separation from our perspective, but none from the invariant, interval perspective.

The archaic notion that "contact" is zero space and zero time between particles is also purely Newtonian. I think it's important that we consider modernizing it to be zero spacetime between particles. This interpretation of the a light-like interval has been available to us for a century, through math (the interval formula). But without analogies and pictures, even very bright people won’t see the light. ;o)

1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram
3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

[Lincoln]

You had me to the last paragraph. The light-like interval isn't a zero spacetime interval. It is a zero space interval. However, the duration is still non-zero due to transit in time. That is, if I understood you. The text of the last paragrah is somewhat ambiguous whether you mean the time-like path or the contact to have zero spacetime interval.

Further, the rest of your text, which I think I understand, isn't new to scientists. You correctly cite Minkowski and it is his formulation a century ago that made your points for you. I certainly concur that this formulation is by far the best way to study special relativity.

[Faradave]

Hello Lincoln,

Thanks for your fascinating contributions above. I look forward to re-reading them (again).

The light-like interval isn't a zero spacetime interval. It is a zero space interval.

I'm a layman, prone to error, but please reconsider the magnitude of light-like intervals.

"In a light-like interval, the spatial distance between two events is exactly balanced by the time between the two events. The events define a squared spacetime interval of zero... Light-like intervals are also known as 'null' intervals."[1]

"Where light goes from a given point is always separated from it by a zero interval, as we see from [the interval equation]."[2] (emphasis added to both quotes)

1] (see "Light-like interval") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
2] (see chapter on Space-Time) The Feynman Lectures on Physics, published in many forms.

The text of the last paragraph is somewhat ambiguous whether you mean the time-like path or the contact to have zero spacetime interval.

What's confusing is the simplicity of it! I'm saying that light exhibits its particle aspect because the emitting and absorbing particles bump!

The light-like interval, as I understand it, indicates zero separation of events experiencing electric interaction. I consider this a hidden locality, where energy transfers by "remote contact". I believe light-like intervals represent the simplest type of wormhole, which I call a "pinhole". While a pinhole has zero size in spacetime, its components (space and time) may have arbitrary length, so long as they are equal (because the interval formula opposes these quantities, i² = s² - t²).

[Lincoln]

We are just having vocabulary issues it seems. You are using terms from different sources than I was using. We'll work that out.

Keep in mind in with your bumping scenario that the two particles are separated by an observable distance in their own frame. Your theory must work in all frames or it's wrong. There are no preferred frames.

[Faradave]

...the two particles are separated by an observable distance in their own frame. Your theory must work in all frames or it's wrong. There are no preferred frames.

I agree.

But the light-like interval is both zero and invariant. It is the interaction path. It has the property that, regardless of spatial separation (which indeed, varies with reference frame), it is always summed with an equal and opposite temporal component.

The math is there, giving us zero interval separation. But our minds resist picturing what that means. There are a lot more ways to "bump" in 4D than we are accustomed to picturing in 3D. But the only way that matters is across light-like intervals. It is the only way contact actually occurs. That is, zero intervals encompass both classical (spatial component = 0) and remote (spatial component > 0) contact.

[Faradave]

...the two particles [light emitter and absorber] are separated by an observable distance in their own frame.

To be clear, I am suggesting that a photon and a pinhole (photo-induced wormhole) are the same structure. A photon is seen as a particle moving in space (and time) which vary with reference frame. A pinhole is remote contact through spacetime.

This highlights a deficiency in Minkowski diagrams.* It depicts an interval as a hypotenuse having a Pythagorean relation (a sum) to the square of its space and time components. As you know, an interval is, in fact, their difference.

The collaboration between Maxwell (a math guy) and Faraday (a picture guy, my role model) was remarkably fruitful. One thing both types agree on is the need to verify theory by experiment. What exhilaration Maxwell must have felt, when he realized that his calculated propagation speed for EM waves matched the measured speed of light!

In adopting the role of Faraday, I assert that light-like interaction operates via remote contact. If pinholes are the spacetime equivalent to moving photons, an experiment is required to demonstrate this undeniably. Fortunately, such an experiment is currently nearing completion, in duplicate, at CERN.**

I realize there are thousands working at CERN, but you may be aware the ALPHA[1] and ATRAP[2] teams are competing to be the first to isolate and spectrally characterize anti-hydrogen (anti-H). Despite the great challenge of producing and isolating ultra-cold (stationary) anti-H, many would yawn at the widely held expectation that anti-H will exactly match the spectrum of normal H.

"...antihydrogen atoms should have many of the characteristics regular hydrogen atoms have; i.e., they should have the same mass, magnetic moment, and transition frequencies"[3]

It is from just such circumstances that the greatest surprises arise!

I can think of no way to prove remote contact occurs between emitting and absorbing electrons. However, if the pair is an electron and a positron (of anti-H), pinhole theory predicts spooky annihilation at a distance. I doubt anyone would yawn at that!

Remote contact would result in unexpected loss of positrons from the anti-H sample, coincident with illumination and accompanied by matching 511 KeV/c² gamma emissions (γ) from the sample and from the distant laser!

This would at once, document the ubiquitous existence of wormholes and fundamentally alter our understanding of the structure of light.

*Admittedly, I can't do any better, nor have I seen other spacetime diagrams that succeed in this.
**The investigators however, give no indication they are aware of this potential outcome.
1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145426.htm
2] http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/res ... AP-en.html
3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

[Faradave]

Since the ALPHA and ATRAP teams are not looking for pinholes specifically, they can’t be expected to implement gamma detection about the illuminating laser as I depicted above. So, we are left to wonder, how unexpected loss of positrons from the anti-hydrogen sample (by remote annihilation) may be reported.

Positronium (Ps) is arguably the closest substance to anti-H yet studied.[1] One might refer to it as “the zeroth element”, as that is its atomic number. Ps is an electron and a positron (an anti-electron) orbiting their center of mass. There is no conventional nucleus. However, there are energy levels associated with the orbits and, despite a very short half life, (125-142 picoseconds, Ps self annihilates), these have been found consistent with prediction (Schrödinger’s equation).

Here is a tantalizing quotes from a study of Ps.
“The group reported in Physical Review Letters that atoms of a bizarre, short-lived substance called positronium annihilate themselves significantly faster than the theory of quantum electrodynamics predicts, and hence, there may be something seriously wrong with the theory. According to Dr. Arthur Rich, a member of the group, ''even a difference half as small would be cause for alarm.”[2]

Here is another from a Ps study done years later.
“Mills and his colleagues found a higher decay rate with the denser pulses - clear evidence, they say, of frequent positronium collisions, an important step toward making molecules. They were surprised, however, that the decay rate was four times as high as expected based on the simplest understanding of the collisions.”[3] (all emphasis added)

I would consider it a confirmation to find similar statements in the ALPHA and ATRAP reports. That is, mention of unexpectedly high loss of anti-H positrons, especially if coincident with illumination.

1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium
2] http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/07/scien ... tml?src=pm
3] http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st16

[Faradave]

Not to overdo my response to this comment but it’s an important one and worth considering again from a different perspective.

two particles [light emitter and absorber] are separated by an observable distance in their own frame. Your [pinhole] theory must work in all frames or it's wrong.

Say there were two towns A and B separated by a tall mountain. The residents are related and so, visit each other often. Over time several different routes were established for this purpose. Hikers had a path with nice views and shady rest stops. Bikers rode a winding route that was easy on the tires. Shepherds took a way through meadows and near brooks. Cars had a road which was longest but not too steep.

With progress, eventually the railroad came. This required a tunnel straight through the mountain. It took some energy to build, but it was by far, the shortest path from A to B. Before this, the shape of the mountain prevented anyone realizing just how close A and B actually were!

Such a shortcut as the tunnel, though fixed in length, represents a different advantage depending on the perspective of which other path it compares to. The length of the traditional paths are varied but the length of the tunnel is invariant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let’s work back from a presumed wormhole. I like to classify wormholes by their openings. The “pinhole” aspect of a photon, for example, has a zero dimensional (0D) opening. These are vaguely similar to those conjectured in John Wheeler’s “quantum foam”[1]. But his aren’t construed to be light.

If you are a fan of the original Star Trek series, you will fondly recall these short YouTube clips of the "Gateway"[2] and the "Atavachron"[2], spacetime portals with 2D openings. And some might consider black hole event horizons to represent 3D wormhole entrances.

Regardless of opening, neither type of wormhole requires any length at all. They represent shortcuts through spacetime, bypassing spatial length. However, the advantage of such a shortcut depends on the state of the one using it. Someone slowly stepping through a portal would derive more advantage than someone speeding through on a motorcycle. There would be even less advantage for a passenger flying through in a rocket and so on, as the velocity of the entrant increases.

This is because the spatial path of a moving object decreases relativistically with speed.* The greater the speed of an object the shorter its path from event A to event B in spacetime (and the less time is experienced in getting there). Thus, high speed objects have less to gain by using a wormhole. Light, because it experiences zero path (in zero time), is already a wormhole (a pinhole) and would find no use in passing through another.

*Path length of a moving object (l’), in terms of the length observed at rest (l) is given by:
l’ = l√(1-v²), where speed (v) is given as the fractional speed of light (e.g. 0.5c). Similarly, time aged by a moving object (t’) is: t’ = t√(1-v²).

1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuzHPchg0Pc
3] http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/ ... l/paihwnh8
____________________________
Touch the stars, pinholes are ours!

[Faradave]

It would be most helpful in determining the structure of a photon, if an observer could do what Einstein imagined as a teenager, to pull up alongside one and take a look. This, as he found out, is doubly complicated.

First, since any detector (observer) has a rest mass, it is subject to increase that mass relativistically with speed.* This mass grows without bound as it approaches lightspeed (c) and so, no observer can ever ride along beside a photon.

Second, since massless photons already travel at speed c, it would be nice to ask a photon to look at itself and tell us what it sees. But even if a photon could talk, there are those who would say its statements would be invalid. According to the second postulate of special relativity (SR)**, light travels at speed c in every valid, inertial (non-accelerating) reference frame (i.e. c = c’). Thus, “Frame c” (the rest frame of a photon) may be considered invalid because said photon would be at rest, instead of at speed c.

There’s a way around that. Make no mistake, Frame c, associated with our photon is inertial, as it is not accelerating. But instead of invalidating Frame c (because its photon is at rest), we should invalidate its photon. How can we invalidate a photon? Determine that it’s not really there. Frame c is then valid because all other light in the frame still travels at speed c.

In the last post, I noted that according to SR, the path length of any particle contracts according to its speed.*** The limit as particle speed increases to speed c is zero path length. This is true increasing from zero speed AND decreasing from imagined superluminal speeds. So, zero path length is a continuous, two-sided limit. I believe this is what Lincoln was referring to (above) when he said “The light-like interval … is a zero space interval.” But I would have used the term “spatial path length” instead of “interval”, which is reserved to indicate spacetime. Technically though, Lincoln is correct, thinking from a photon’s perspective (Frame c).

In Frame c, there is no spatial separation between emitting and absorbing electrons and thus no room for a photon of any structure. Similarly, the photon sees no time elapse on the journey. That is, photons don’t age. Zero time is spent by a “photon” in traversing its path of zero length.

This is another way of saying what I have said above. An exchange of orbital transition energy between particles, which we refer to as a photon, is equivalent to remote contact by those particles, through a pinhole (photo-induced wormhole).

Lincoln also made the important point, “Your [pinhole] theory must work in all frames or it's wrong.” This is made true by the second postulate (c = c’). Because observers in all frames agree that light travels at speed c, they will all find that the limit of a photon’s path length is zero.

If a photon could talk, it would say it’s not there!

*The mass of a moving object (m’), in terms of its mass observed at rest (m) is given by:
m’ = m / √(1-v²), where speed (v) is given as the fractional lightspeed (e.g. 0.5c).
**The first postulate of SR is that the laws of physics hold in every inertial reference frame.
***Path length of a moving object (l’), in terms of the length observed at rest (l) is given by:
l’ = l√(1-v²). Similarly, time aged by a moving object (t’) is: t’ = t√(1-v²).
_____________________________
Touch the stars! Pinholes are ours!

[Gregorygregg1]

So, the force that light exerts on an object, solar wind for example, is not applied by the photon itself (it's particle nature), but by direct contact with the sun through the photon pinhole. Is that correct?
This explanation excites my neurons greatly.
pardon me while I ponder.

[Faradave]

direct contact with the sun through the…pinhole. Is that correct?

Pretty much, yes. I consider a pinhole to be the spacetime “alter ego” to a photon. I see a “photon” as a point both in space AND in spacetime. I find the non-zero line lengths depicted of light-like intervals in Minkowski diagrams to be visually misleading in that these intervals are defined as representing zero separation.

Pardon me while I ponder.

Two points to keep in your pondering:
1. I cited an experiment (above) which should demonstrate “remote contact” if it exists. If no excess loss of positrons occurs on illumination of anti-hydrogen, pinhole theory goes to the trash heap!
2. While pinhole theory makes a nifty explanation of the particle aspects of light (exemplified by the photoelectric effect)[1], one hopes it would also comment on the wave aspects of light (exemplified by Young’s two-slit experiment).[2] I hope to offer this in my thread, Time to turn things around?[3]

Thanks for starting such an interesting topic!

1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
3] viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23434
_____________________________
Touch the stars! Pinholes are ours!

[Faradave]

When I say a Minkowski diagram (M2) is visually misleading, here’s what I mean. To get the units on the x-axis and the time axis to agree, it often goes unstated that speed c is used as a proportionality constant on the time axis (which is thus, really ct rather than just t). That’s why light-like intervals have a 45° angle. One light year on the x-axis corresponds to one year on the ct-axis.[1]


However, it also often goes without saying that either the ct-axis (typically) or the x-axis (less commonly) gets multiplied by i = √(-1). That gets the math correct on interval lengths, reflecting what is believed to be some underlying hyperbolic geometry*. So, instead of a vertical ct axis, it's effectively ict.

What happens to spacetime intervals when we change the vertical axis from ct to ict? Nothing visually, but a great deal mathematically. For any diagonal in M2, what appears to us as a Pythagorean hypotenuse (the root of the SUM of squared sides), is actually, by the interval formula, the root of the DIFFERENCE of squared sides because of squaring the i term.

interval length = √(x² + (ict)²) = √(x² - (ct)²)

Light-like intervals are defined as those for which the interval length is zero.

*I have disputed that characterization elsewhere [2] but it doesn’t change the interval formula.
1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram
2] http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=640081

[Faradave]

While I spent considerable time discussing pinholes above, they have a cousin which I had only noted elsewhere. Here is an excerpt from my very first thread in the Physics Forums (post #34 June 16, 2010), which quickly lead to my very first temporary ban (alas, now permanent):
"...consider the pairing behavior of electrons. There are orbital filling, covalent bonds, ionic bonds even the Cooper pairs in metallic superconductors to illustrate the tendency that electrons pair in space for various lengths of time. To the extent that Einstein attributed dimensionality to time, there may also be a tendency that electrons pair in time over various distances in space. While I explain light as pinholes with slope c. The 'quantum non-local connection' of the EPR paradox seems to offer us a spinhole (SPatial INterconnecting wormHOLE), with slope zero to explain entanglement. So, it’s not just outsiders who envision the utility of a "tiny wormholes" model. As I recall, John Wheeler’s quantum foam is also filled with them."

Similarly, here’s an excerpt from one of five such posts I made in the Amazon Forums (Sept 11, 2010):
"Pinholes are wormholes through spacetime, so tiny that no mass can pass but energy can by tangential contact. They are as common as photons but too small and insubstantial for us to detect (they're just holes after all). But pinholes are part of what Einstein was searching for when he was referring to quantum non-local connections (EPR paradox). In that case specifically, he referred famously to quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance" which in Phyxed is another variety of tiny wormhole I refer to as "spinholes" (SPatial INterconnecting wormHOLES) which, unlike pinholes, pierce only space (giving instantaneous coordination), not spacetime."

I invite you to compare the above with this excerpt from a Science Daily news clip of two days ago (Dec. 3, 2013):
" 'Spooky Action' Builds a Wormhole Between 'Entangled' Quantum Particles
Quantum entanglement, a perplexing phenomenon of quantum mechanics that Albert Einstein once referred to as 'spooky action at a distance,' could be even spookier than Einstein perceived.
Physicists at the University of Washington and Stony Brook University in New York believe the phenomenon might be intrinsically linked with wormholes, hypothetical features of space-time that in popular science fiction can provide a much-faster-than-light shortcut from one part of the universe to another.
But here's the catch: One couldn't actually travel, or even communicate, through these wormholes, said Andreas Karch, a UW physics professor."

And here’s the abstract from the original article (Nov. 20, 2013):
"We construct the holographic dual of two colored quasiparticles in maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory entangled in a color singlet Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) pair. In the holographic dual, the entanglement is encoded in a geometry of a nontraversable wormhole on the world sheet of the flux tube connecting the pair. This gives a simple example supporting the recent claim by Maldacena and Susskind that EPR pairs and nontraversable wormholes are equivalent descriptions of the same physics."
Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 211602 (2013) [5 pages]

I’m not expecting to be reinstated at PF anytime soon. (I’m happy right here at SCF, thank you very much.) My point is that, while Phyxed (physics-fixed, better than real) is developed largely from pictures and analogies (as M. Faraday used), the model is nonetheless capable of arriving at conclusions similar to those of conventional physicists, occasionally, well in advance.

[Faradave]

I forgot the link to the Science Daily news clip above. Too late to edit it in.

[Faradave]

Today's news indicates that MIT string theorists want in on the concept:

"Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks -- the building blocks of matter -- simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair."

Interesting that between pinholes and spinholes, the latter are actually the more difficult to conceptualize, let alone prove. Yet that is the path that conventional physics is taking!

[Faradave]

Re: Time Trek



Uhura: “Captin, I’m worried! It’s quiet...too quiet. This disputed sector is usually filled with subspace chatter. Yet now, nothing?”

Sulu: “There’s something... I can’t quite make it out. It appears to be an unveiling. I’ll try to put it on screen.”

Kirk: “Could it be a Romulan warbird decloaking?”

Checkov: “Eet’s much, much bigger dan dat! I’ve never seen any ting like it.”

Spock: “Sensors indicate, it’s ... everywhere. Fascinating!”

McCoy: “Jim! Don't listen to that green blooded geek! Get us out of here, before it’s too late!”

Spock: “Need I remind you, it is our mission to explore the unknown. To go where no...”

Scotty (on intercom): “As I see it captain, you’ve got two choices. We can try and back out of here, tip toeing our path on low impulse power. Or, we can plunge headlong into whatever this new reality is at maximum warp! I’m transferring control to your console.

Kirk: “Thanks for making it easy for me, Scotty.”

Spock: “Be aware that maximum warp risks severe spatio-temporal disruption. The decision is yours.”

Maximum Warp --- Low Impulse

.

[Faradave]

For completeness, I note that by my reckoning, interconnecting wormholes may be considered to come in three varieties, summarized here from the at rest particle perspective when applicable.

Spinholes coordinate: (spatial-interconnecting wormhole) If you can imagine that quantum spin normally has a temporal axis (my “chronaxial spin”), this is a fragile, off-axis variation where the entangled particles instead share a spatial axis and nothing more. Nothing can travel instantaneously, so neither matter, energy or information flows between particles. (No violation of speed c.) Nonetheless, their shared total spin state is simultaneously coordinated, even at potentially great spatial distances. The spinhole is itself he axis of rotation. There should be predictable changes in some of the properties of entangled particles, such as an electron’s field morphology. However, the fragility of a spinhole connection is such that to measure the property would break the entanglement.
[Spacetime connection requirement: t = 0]

Pinholes communicate: (photo-induced wormholes) These represent a “remote contact” interpretation of the zero separation which defines a “lightlike” interval. They fulfill a geometric requirement that an event in 4D has infinitely more potential contact pathways than a location in 3D. Such contact mediates force (all forces are lightlike), obviating the need for massless force carriers (photons, gluons, gravitons) & virtual W and Z bosons. Though mass cannot traverse a pinhole, tangential contact may be sufficient to result in “spooky annihilation at a distance” when occurring between conjugate particles. Such an occurrence as described above and more simply, by illuminating a positron beam, would be definitive.
[Spacetime connection requirement: t = s, i.e. s -t = 0]

Tinholes translate: (temporal-interconnecting wormholes) There are two good reasons why I haven’t brought these up before (and you know I don’t hold much back). First, there is already a perfectly good name for these - “particle timelines”. Second, they don’t seem like wormholes to us. The way it works, each wormhole variety sees the other two as wormholes but not itself. Pinholes and spinholes see timelines as obscure, alternate pathways from one event to another. And who’s to argue with their perspective. The vast majority of connectedness between events in 4D is provided by pinholes and spinholes, not timelines.

“Tin” conveys a sense of mass. Tinholes, being time-like, permit transit of information, energy and mass, in contrast to pinholes and spinholes.
[Spacetime connection requirement: s = t = 0]

Spinholes communicate, pinholes communicate, tinholes translate. Tinholes however, are only wormholes from the perspective of spinholes and pinholes.

[Faradave]

Last post, last sentence should read:

Spinholes coordinate, pinholes communicate, tinholes translate. Tinholes however, are only wormholes from the perspective of spinholes and pinholes.