Photon Currents and Dark Energy

[Albers]

Having not upset anyone yet, my other offering is a mathematical understanding of a Gaussian wave packet, i.e., a single frequency in the propagation direction, and exponential falloff in three dimensions. Simply making the statement that this may exist implies physics quite beyond the classical, but much may be said about what it necessarily implies. At the URL in my profile, Photon_Localization_and_Dark_Energy.

[Epsilon=One]

...my other offering is a mathematical understanding of a Gaussian wave packet, i.e., a single frequency in the propagation direction, and exponential falloff in three dimensions. Simply making the statement that this may exist implies physics quite beyond the classical, but much may be said about what it necessarily implies. At the URL in my profile, Photon_Localization_and_Dark_Energy.I agree that "much may be said" if such a wave packet exists. I am interested in what you think causes the "falloff."

You seem to be implying a fundamental manifestation. Does its "single frequency" have an absolute unit? Can you provide an internal geometric shape? Have you determined how your "wave packet" can morph to mass?

I like your thoughts concerning "dark" energy, resonance, and mass posted elsewhere.

Does your "wave packet" rationalize "half spin"?

I will be quite satisfied if you only pick one question to answer at this time.

[Albers]

I posit sideways and longitudinal falloff in an envelope of "many wavelenths", stated as a/k<<1. The 'a' is the inverse length scale of exp. falloff, and 'k' is the wave vector (inverse length) in propagation. When you arrange terms you can finally see that the current you solved for is expressible as something you can 'see': j= (-lambda^2 + rho/U) A . This is like a magnetic plow and broom. As the vector potential 'A' plows through (circular polarization) a locale, a bilateral current is manifested as the first term, and this is how we see the skin current in a superconductor. This is simply what the mathematics says, and what our physics must provide! A friend from another column called it the oompah loompah cloud. Nobody has even said whether or not quantum mechanics even acknowledges such a picture. Back to our story, the current collects (out of phase, like in a capacitor) and we have the usual continuity law between charge and current. The second term shows movement we would expect from "a charge in a potential". The total 'j' that we solved for is expressible as the above linear sum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There are maxima in the far-field envelope such that the overall aspect is like seeing the Golden Gate Bridge wrapped by Christo with meter-wide cloth.

[Albers]

If we shine our light on a wall of atoms and think of it as long, smooth roller waves evenly spread on a beach, we can say, given three-foot-high waves every ten seconds, there is "I" amount of energy per linear foot of beach, average over time. If we actually scale things to the energy in our fields and to the size of atoms, there are so many atoms that it would take something like millions of years for enough energy to fall on one atom to account for the absorption of a photon's worth of energy. Thus did classical theory founder on the rocks! The phenomenology was confusing, as the photoelectric effect shows at least three major pieces of physics at once, and in 1905 they were all new. There must be bunching of the waves so the field in the small is not long rollers, but lateral chop and different shape coming in. We figured that photons always had the same energy because the absorption was always so. This was a confusion, as it is only the bound state which has quantum levels of quantized difference. It is the atom, or electron which declares the unit of energy exchange, and not the field. The field must have it available, and that is all we know. Thus explaining bunching is all we have to do, really. Planck's constant is NOT A NATIVE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE RADIATION FIELD. IT IS ONLY DEFINED WHEN NATURE DEFINES A LENGTH. It is the selection rule by which units of angular momentum reflect the stable states of a spherical system; it is how a snake must catch its own tail to remain happily a snake.

[Albers]

I can answer another of your questions. No, the photon field doesn't give a damn about total packet size. Whatever it is, energy is angular momentum times omega, either locally as density or as packet totals. If you are proposing a local, linear response, you have done a far more radical thing than you suspected! THUS MY SIGNATURE. Here I have been ridiculed in other forums for not knowing the quantum mechanics. I don't, and am not ashamed because I have been busy four years doing this, and knew that for the most part I was only doing something parallel to QM in extending classical fields well into the semi-classical. I have come up with more than I ever dreamed. I conclude there are no purely transverse oscillations and that every E&M disturbance has such a reactive, limiting sheath. You must present to me the pictures of QM: just what are their fluctuations, and what of virtual particles? Would 'they' answer to my charge field with e+/- popping in and out? I don't need it, although it will be curious if we reach the same results. At higher energies I am sure we do not.

[Albers]

I just fixed an important mistake above ("omega"). There is present here a pure number ratio, namely a/k. It is probably the fine structure constant. It is more obvious here as a property of the 'vacuum' compared with my electron study. This will all make sense because the two problems are different phases of the phenomenon with differing currents.