PART  5 of the Photon Particle Exists...
(Interesting Phenomena)

   (Polarization, Compton Effect, an Einstein "Relativity Formula", DeBroglie Waves)

   A few words about Light Polarization:

   In my previous "simple photon examples", we discussed only those photons that made many short "up and down" excursions during their long "forward" trips. I believe that such photons may be termed "vertically polarized photons".  And if a light beam contains exclusively that "style of traveling photons", we may say that the light beam is of "Vertically Polarized Light".

   However, if a Photon takes short excursions, say, to its left side and then to its right side (not up and down), then we say that we have "Horizontally Polarized Light".

   And suppose we have a beam of light with some vertically polarized photons and some horizontally polarized photons, and some others that "wiggle" as follows: In a 45 deg. plane (half way between vertical and horizontal).  Or in the many other "planes" imaginable.  Then, we have a "Mixture of Polarized Light".

   And suppose that we have a pair of photons travelling like two deep-water swimmers, closely, side by side, in the same lane.  But suppose one is lagging behind the other by "a head's length".  And that the one in front is making "up and down" excursions, while the "lagging one" is making "left side and right side" excursions.  I guess we then have so-called "Circularly Polarized Light", or something like that.  ((With apologies that I am no expert on this.  Of course, the readers are encouraged, as usual, to read any other materials on this (or any other topic I present), which they think might be helpful.))

Further Understanding the Photon by Comparing it to the Proton or Electron, etc.

   (Optional:  Regarding the subject of the small mass of an electron, and the greater mass of a proton, etc.; one may see my website article or published paper on "Particle Mass Ratios and Similar Geometric Volume Ratios".)

    As advocated in my first web article, I believe the following: An aether is made up of ultra small mist-like entities of various size, having ultra high velocities, and varying in speed and direction. They are merging, splitting, deforming, reforming and even often deflected to form vortices with angular momentum. Thus, I argue that there arises, what we can call an "average" aether "mistlet" with an "average" discrete energy.  The energy, of that ultra fast mistlet, is very high, despite its small mass.  Thus, a sort of "equipartition of energy" arises between the average mistlet and an occasional greater mass conglomerate: the elementary particle, which is  "slowly" spinning. (That spinning is approximately at the speed of light).  There is a balance of pressures between the many low-mass aether "mistlets" and the spinning elementary particle's great mass.  

Note:  A few of the remarks below may involve some speculation.

   Thus, I believe that the major differences, between the photon and elementary particles (such as the proton or electron) are these: All, or most, of an elementary particle consists of a ring-like, or sphere-like, circular symmetry and structure.  (I say that, even though I don't know all the details.)   By means of its spinning, the elementary particle "hosts" a large minimum "quantum" of energy, as it is required to do, (without any significant "time out").  This is like a ring, spinning rapidly on a person's finger, but not moving in the direction of the finger!  The spinning (of the elementary particle's great mass) enhances its capability to remain stable.  The elementary particle also has great amounts of aethereal energy arrayed around it, storing a steady " ½ mc² " of "potential" energy.  That aether also acts, together with the elementary particle's spinning inertial mass, to enhance the elementary particle's stability. It prevents the ring from "spinning apart".

   Thus, the elementary particle's equilibrium's was initially "designed" for (and defined for) "translational motion equal to zero", with respect to the aether.  (That is like a spinning ring around one's finger, but without movement along the finger.)  Unlike the photon, that spinning ring has yet an "unused" freedom of travel (i.e., along the length of the finger and onward).  The elementary particle will strongly tend to maintain conservation of certain characteristics with respect to the aether.   All of the above combination of factors makes the elementary particle more stable than the "delicate" photon.  By contrast, the photon, (although also "designed" to conserve some things), is NOT designed to conserve any significant minimum quantum of energy, and it does NOT "host" such! 

(As the photon proceeds forward at "c", it cyclically exchanges half of its total energy with the aether.)  

The "Compton Effect" (a few comments on the subject):

After a high-energy photon "hits" an electron and sends it traveling, we observe the following:

   After the "hit", when the electron is stopped and examined, the electron "Is As It Was Originally"! By contrast, the deflected photon (even if its direction is restored by a later collision) has lost much of its mass, energy, and frequency and will "Never likely be the same"!

   ((That is because the photon, (per the previous paragraphs), was both designed differently from the elementary particle, and put in motions differently with respect to aether, with that different design!  We will next derive a formula for an elementary particle's mass increase which differs from that of the photon's!))

"A Relativity Equation" and a helpful Analogy regarding "Elementary Particle Spin":
(The analogy, presented shortly, might also be close to physical reality in some ways.)

    Aether's interactions with a spinning material (i.e., elementary particle) is likely very complicated; but I think some necessary conditions for stability are as follows:

To maintain the stability of a spinning elementary particle; the same amount of  "spinning" material must pass a "non-spinning" position or "plane" per unit time, (i.e., that reference "plane" is not rotating, and is perpendicular to the spinning loop of material).   If the spin velocity slows down, the ring-like particle will "grab" as much extra mass from the emitter or aether as is needed to maintain its constant angular momentum, (i.e., its constant flow of mass).  Also, the Total "speed" of the ring's components must be maintained at "c". (i.e., An analogy is to suppose that one speedily pulls a spinning ring off one's finger.  Suppose the spinning speed decreases to almost nothing during that pulling. Then one can still maintained the same Total "speed" for the parts, by the new high forward speed's compensating for the slowed rotational speed.) 

   The experienced science reader may wish to skip down to "Thus, due to conservation." Let us imagine the following analogy: Six similar "cargo submarines" are in the middle of a deep, still lake.  They are chained together with six separate lengths of chain, each a tad longer than a submarine.  The 1^st chain connects the middle cunning tower of the 1^st submarine to the middle cunning tower of the 2^nd submarine.  And so on, as a circle begins to be formed. And finally, the middle cunning tower of the 6^th sub is chained to the middle cunning tower of the 1^st sub to complete the "deep" circle.  Each has a motor that keeps it going around in a large circle, along with the others, at the speed of light!  The circle extends deep under water, with just the tip of a short periscope of the one (temporarily) near the water's surface sticking out.  (That is just so that the reader and I can keep track of things.)  The "cargo subs", therefore, go around and around, like a rubber tire on an exercise bike.  As we look down on the periscope, we notice as each periscope momentarily "breaks" above the water's surface. We know that each sub is carrying an initial load of mass per time, passed that non-spinning surface point, ((the way a "Ferris wheel" seat might, with (so far) only the mass of its empty bucket)).

   Now suppose the circling submarines are coerced, by an indirect push, to have to convey themselves (and their rotating circle) up an estuary, (a deep, wide, estuary with negligible flow).  Suppose the "subs" first try to proceed up the estuary at only at 1/4^th the speed of light, but later increased their speeds to ½ "c", and finally to almost fully "c".  Of course the rotational speed of the submarines (armada ring) would be slowed to nearly a creep in the latter worst case, despite their trying to maintain some of their rotational speed by adjusting the aim of their boats and engines.

   Thus, due to conservation and stability requirements, each boat's Total speed must be maintained at "c", so the rotational speed of the submarines is slowed according to the equation:

                                              (V_{boat rotation})² = c² - (V_up-estuary)²

   Now we address "conserving angular momentum": We can also imagine that each submarine (greatly slowed in its rotation) would "wisely" increasing its mass load (analogy, grabbing up mass from the aether). Thus, the amount of mass passing the point (say, where the periscope "breaks water") per time would remain unchanged. Thus, to preserve "rotational angular momentum", as the armada goes up the estuary, the boats must take on more mass, according to the following equation:

                                            (m_k) =  (M_variable) (V_{boat rotational speed}) / (c)

    Note "m_k" is the amount of "original" rotating mass that passed our surface point per unit time, in the quiet lake, as our "sub armada" spun at "V_{boat rotational speed}" = c.  Thus, when "V_{boat rotational speed}" = c, the above equation tells us: "M_variable" simply equals "m_k". In that case, there is no need for the "subs" to take on more mass.

   ((But when the rotating "sub armada" proceeds up the estuary at such a high velocity that "V_{boat rotational speed}" slows down to "½ c", then the cargo subs must take on mass (i.e., double their mass to maintain their rotational angular momentum). And we see from our equation, that "M_variable" then does double to equal "2m_k".))  Let us substitute the terms for "V_{boat rotational speed}", found in the first equation, into the second equation. Then, applying the result of the analogy to spinning elementary particles, we obtain:

(m_{original ring mass})(c)={M_{slower spinning ring mass}}{square root of [(c² ) - (V_{ring's forward speed})²]}.

  We have now derived the equation for "mass increases" for a typical case, at least.  And the result is similar to that of "Einstein's special relativity theory".  I wish to make another comment about my first equation.  That equation involved the "slowed rotational speed of the 'armada' due to its increased 'translational' speed up the estuary".  (A "clock-like" speed "c" was decreased when the clock-like structure went forward at "v".)  It might be relevant to the following "notation" found in some physics textbooks:

[time interval delta t*] = {square root of [(1 ) - (v ² / c ²)] } [time interval delta t] .

 Optional:  In atomic physics applications, this typical problem may arises:  Suppose that a "big" nucleus, with a "so-called normal rest mass" of  m_i  decays yielding only two helium nuclei, each with a "so-called normal rest mass" of m_h .  But the helium nuclei are speeding away from the sight, (due to the conversion of spinning kinetic energy into forward kinetic energy, and/or other factors). We note a difference in mass between ½ m_i and m_h , and we denote that difference, "Diff (½ m_i - m_h )".  In my opinion, because of the conservation of mass (as the "rest mass" became travelling masses), we have here:

    Diff (½ m_i - m_h )  + ( m_h ) =  (½ m_i ) =  [[fast forward flying "new m_h,fattened"]].

   (Pardon the "language", to be explained shortly.)  Applying the equations in the last few paragraphs, and rearranging terms for future convenience, we have:

   Diff (½ m_i - m_h ) =  [[(m_h)(c) / {square root of [(c² ) - (V_{forward speed})²]} ]] - ( m_h ).

   Essentially, that "very strange looking" equation just says this: 

Each of the two standard elementary masses being created, (m_h), "grabbed" away from the "emitter" a certain amount of mass in excess of  m_h's, own "normal" mass.  Therefore, each "m_h" must fly through space with that "certain amount" of mass (in excess of m_h's, own "normal" mass).

   Thus, "m_h" will haul away that (otherwise) less stable mass at a forward speed chosen as follows: So that m_h's own rotational speed is slowed, such that "conservation of angular momentum principles" will necessitate in  (m_h) "grabbing" that needed amount of "less stable" mass aboard!  Therefore, to use the slang, each normally standard helium nucleus flies through space with the required amount of "fattening", ("having taken on some extra mass").  (Pardon me, that nature's hand and "aether's actions" are quicker than my eye, mind, and explanation.)

   Depending on the elements involved, values for "m_i" and "m_h" can be found in an atomic physics book.  The term, "Diff (½ m_i - m_h )", can then be calculated.  By substituting that and other known values (except unknown "V_{forward speed}") into the above equation, we can then calculate  "V_{forward speed}".  Such, I think, are the procedures for the above, and why I generally avoid calculations and articles of this type.

   I believe that the analogies given, in the last few pages, applies to at least the spinning elementary particle (although I have not considered all cases).  I believe that it does NOT apply to the photon (because a photon's motions, shape, and equilibrium with the aether are different; and therefore making its response to change also different)! 

Addressing DeBroglie's "Matter Waves” (revised 8-15-2006, for clarity):

   There exists this experimental fact: Molecules and elementary particles, when moving forward at high velocities, also exhibit some ‘wave-like characteristics’.  For example, fast moving electrons ‘bounce’ off nickel crystals as if they had a frequency or a wavelength given by an approximate formula: Wavelength = h/mv.

   I do not now have a short comprehensive treatment for ‘DeBroglie Matter Waves’ that would add much to those already in textbooks or in more elaborate highly mathematical papers and special books.^16-17 Thus, I will only offer a few brief thoughts. 

   ((I think that a forward traveling photon (along with its aether) relates, in its own way, to the aether vortices in its vicinity (whether the photon makes many little wiggles or a few big wiggles).)) 

    A ring-like elementary particle (along with its aether) also relates to the aether vortices that it passes, in its own way, after that particle system begins its forward motion through the aether in a rather straight line.  ((An elementary particle is generally regarded as having the same constant angular momentum (spin value) about its own axis, whether traveling forward along that vector, or not traveling.  I have previously treated the non-traveling angular momentum (spin) case; and I regard that ‘spin vector’ as differently directed, and independently of, a new ‘angular momentum’ vector-consideration that arises when a particle commences forward travel.  The latter causes the DeBroglie phenomenon or ‘dance’ to arise, and that is our main subject here.

    A forward traveling elementary particle passes new aether vortices to its sides (and above and below it—and these are perpendicular to the vortices it was exposed to in its prior non-traveling position).  Thus, such elementary particle & its aether may ‘define’ a new angular momentum "h", associated with its new forward travel.  (That newly-developed angular momentum can ‘cross-interact’ with the aether vortices' angular momentums, "h", which that forward traveling particle passes.  So it seems logical that a second independent radial dimension becomes relevant and merits attention.)  ((Of course, a fast forward traveling neutron mass will have a greater forward momentum than a fast forward traveling electron (of less mass). And each has more forward momentum than it would have if it were traveling more slowly.))

   When an elementary particle is accelerated forward, its mass increases; its rotational (spinning) speed decreases; and its associated centrifugal-related force decreases.  Some aether energy is therefore ‘freed’ and likely shifts forward.  And that initiates a new modified ‘elementary particle system’ with a ‘DeBroglie dance’ thus associated with it.  (Maybe the spinning ring-shaped particle also begins a ‘contracting and expanding’ cycling, in addition to the new aether’s action around it?)  Incidentally, let us think of the additional netted mass (m_n), which is hauled aboard when a system commences forward travel, as also adding an (m_n)(c²) worth of energy to the system.  ((Half that energy is due to the added kinetic energy of that new (m_n) aboard; and the other half is due to an anti-shock ‘aether spring’ absorbing some energy to gently bring that (m_n) aboard.)) 

Optional speculation:  It also seems logically arguable that no particles should travel in a perfectly straight line, because that might lead to a concept of momentary infinite collision forces with other straight-line moving incompressible matter. Thus, we should not be surprised that “nature’s aether, etc., builds at least a very slight wiggle or curve into otherwise straight-line particle flight”; a topic I address further in other articles.

   It is beyond the scope of this article to attempt to speculate further about ethereal or ring motions associated with the DeBroglie subject.  ((Of course, there are more detailed models by others worth considering; some that even envision detailed dimensional physical changes and maintaining the spinning speeds^{17. 5}.  And, in fact, my above referenced ‘anti-shock spring’ may not have an anti-shock aspect.))  But I think there is added energy absorbed by the system’s aether when the system’s mass is increased, and that that aether remains a very important ‘actor’!

Miscellaneous: 

    I have read that.the higher the speed at which the "beta particle" was emitted, the more its spin axis (or polarization) is aligned with its forward velocity.¹⁸   (A "beta particle" is an electron or "positron".)

   I am not sure of the emitter and details of the underlined above.  We may note, however, that many elementary particles apparently don't have their spin well aligned with their forward velocity, and that my modeling has involved some over-simplification.

 We can imagine a "projection" of some spin axis (or circle) against a plane perpendicular to an axis moving directly forward.  We can imagine that, in places, the radius of the projected spin is smaller, but the speed "c" maintained.  Presumably, if the real and projected spin speed were suddenly decreased by half, the real and projected mass would still have to double to maintain the (real and projected) spin angular momentum.

   Reader may go directly to my "Summary and Conclusions", (and skip my below "optional" and miscellaneous comments), or skip to the end of the article.

   I have presented some analogies in my article.  To apply the likes of them to still more complicated material entities is beyond the scope of this article, (even if I could present it in a "compelling" simple way).  Again, it is important to remember that our above theory (involving elementary particles) is based on "a minimum energy hosting requirement", a "conservation of average 'spin' angular momentum for the spinning structure", and also the "conservation of the 'resultant' (Total) speed of its parts"!

   Optional:  It is admirable that Einstein derived his special relativity equations in a way that he felt justified in advocating their application so very broadly.  And that broad advocacy (or something very close to its equivalence) seems to have been justified, based on later experimentally verified results.  Of course, others felt too, even before 1905, that various characteristics of matter or its dimensions changed greatly as speeds approached "c".  Thus some similar "relativity-like terms" began to appear for some things, even before 1905.  It is beyond the scope of this article to address that further.

   (Few people realize that Einstein spoke more and more of a need for an aether to support his own theories, as he got older.  However, his was a more abstract aether, without simple mass behavior.)

Optional Miscellaneous Comments:

   ((Although it may seem a "chicken first or eggs first" issue; I think that the protons of the universe (which formed and were "hit" to begin their spinning) were the main contributor of the strong vortices that then developed in the universal aether.))

   (Maybe the only very low energy minimum, which the photon needs to maintain, is just having a thick enough travelling mass to avoid being permanently broken up by the aether "mistlets" or dissolved into it.)

    A few other comments may be added here, at a later time.

        Intro/Part 1| Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Conclusions | References | Illustrations | |Home

(Readers’ comments always welcome)
For my Email and address, see my Homepage