At the end of the previous post it was explained why does a photon’s path bend.
That was not just one of the possible explanations, but it is the only explanation. Rational, reasonable, non-abstract, true explanation.
That was the core explanation. What was left to be explained is:
Why do higher-energy-photons turn more than the lower energy photons?
This
question was already treated in “The gem (4)”, where the gravitational
deflection of light was explained, but it was in the context of the gravitation
(increase of photon’s energy, and decrease of its velocity as it approaches the
gravitation source) and Snell’s law. The Snell’s law does not take into account
the influence of photon’s energy – it takes into account only the external
factor: the change of the refraction index of the medium through which
photons propagate. The change of the refraction index is, actually
(essentially), the change of essential properties of space: 
and 
.
If and change,
then – according to the Maxwell’s equation for velocity of EM waves – the
change of velocity occurs. Change of velocity is acceleration. The photon’s
mass is non-inertial mass, but still, it is the mass, and if that mass is in
the circumstances in which exists acceleration, the force 
would arise.
Acceleration 
is external factor. For each and every
photon, the circumstances are the same, that is, the acceleration is the same. The
– so to say – internal factor, is the photon’s energy, that is, the photon’s
non-inertial mass 
. Greater the
mass (energy) of a photon, greater the force , greater the photon’s path deflection.
There is also the kinematic part of explanation of the fact that higher-energy-photons (that is, shorter-length-photons) turn more than lower-energy-photons (longer-length-photons).
Mathematically,
the turn of some length 
for some angle 
is the turn-length 
would be the length of a photon.
would be the turning length: 
is external factor – it is the consequence of the
change of and of space (i.e. in the gravitational field; also, near the surface of some optical prism).
So, during
some short time 
, for all photons has to be the same.
Since
then, for
the longer photons, is smaller
than for shorter photons, that is, the lower-energy-photons turn less than higher-energy-photons.
The last paragraph in the previous post was:
“A photon is elementary mode of existence, whose motion is the simplest mode of motion: the straight-line-motion. The higher modes of existence are formed by the photons whose motion is the higher mode of motion: circular motion. How can that be?
Well, for that, we need two photons, which have sufficiently high energies, and which approach to each other along two parallel paths which are sufficiently and appropriately near to each other.
And, we
need that, when such two photons come sufficiently near to each other, they
cause the increase of and properties of space among these two photons.
In the next post, we will explore the validity (justifiability, reasonability) and consequences of this simple assumption.”
Well,
- We know, i.e., that the result of “annihilation” processes (electron--positron, proton--"anti"-proton, quark--"anti"-quark) are photons.
- Now (as it was explained in the previous and in this post) we also know why the photon’s path bends.
So, why not investigating the possibility that elementary particles are photons-whirls?
We know
that there where is matter (i.e.
within an optical prism), there the and have higher values than they have in
the free space. (The photons-whirls would be possible only if the confrontation
of two photons causes the and properties to increase. And, the increased
values of and within i.e. a prism would then be the
consequence of superposition of influences of photons-whirls on and )
Generally, people (even the scientists) “know” that one light beam goes through another “without any interference”. And they conclude: photons do not interact. Actually, there is interference (interaction), but it is so weak that it seems like there is no interference.
In order to have noticeable interference, the photons in each of the photon-beams have to have sufficiently high energies, and – when two beams confront each other – the confronting photons have to pass sufficiently near to each other.
Such an occasion is the special occasion:
The change of energy amount within some constrained spacetime domain, which occurs during confrontation of EM-energy-flows, is the most rapid change possible in nature.
The photons are elementary energy carriers. The most elementary situation, in which some elementary-size (photon-size) space-domain experiences the most rapid energy amount increase, would occur when two photons confront each other, that is, when two photons pass one through the other, and also when they pass very near to each other.
So, it is reasonable to
assume that such special occurrence has special consequence, namely, that such rapid
change causes the noticeable change of and of the
spacetime domain affected with that rapid change.
That situation could be visualized like this:
The photons approach to each other along two parallel lines, which are near to each other. Looking the picture from left to right, the picture shows three moments of approaching of photons – the last picture shows the moment when the photons are nearest to each other.
The picture is conceptual:
photons are
represented as they are represented for the visualization purpose – namely,
their shape is just conceptual; also, they could had been represented in the
way to overlap when they come to the position in which they are nearest to each
other; also, the foggy shape of the space area in which and have
increased values is conceptual.
The graphs
of and distributions among two photons show the view from the perspective which is
perpendicular to the parallel paths:
|\
| \
| \
| -----\------------
| \
\ |
\ ----|-------------
\ |
\ |
\|
Also, the
shape of normalized distributions of and is conceptual, but it is represented
as a smoothly continual bump because –
as it was explained in the previous post – fractures are not possible in
nature. But, even if we’d represent that distribution as a fractured line (line
composed of straight lines, i.e. _/\_ ), that would not affect the concept
validity.
Also, it
was assumed that the normalized distributions of and are exactly the same, which does not
necessarily has to be the case, but – most probably – they are the same.
Obviously,
the distributions of and are the functions of photons’ energies, and of
the distance among photons.
The higher the energies of photons, the higher the distribution-bump. So, the distribution is directly proportional to the energy of photons.
The nearer the photons are, the higher the distribution-bump. So, the distribution is reciprocally proportional to the distance among photons.
But, such dependence would mean that if the photons
collide directly, then the and of the space occupied with those
photons would have infinite values, and that, therefore, the photons would
stop.
For now, I do not have the solution for this. I can
only guess. I do not think that the photons can stop, that is, I do not think
that and can have infinite values. So, what exactly happens in the case of direct collision
of photons, remains an open question. Perhaps, the increase of and requires rotational momentum, that
is, perhaps the increase happens only when photons pass near to each other, … .
But, that what is for sure, is that in the case of
the two-photons-whirl, the
singularity 
cannot
occur, namely, the distance 
is not 0 (cannot
be 0).
On the right-side of the picture (which shows the moment when photons are nearest to each other), highlighted (with the green color) is the part where the velocity distribution
is approximately linear. The equation of that approximation would be
that is,
, (
is the place where the dashed green line
crosses the violet line.)
which is, obviously, the equation of the simplest circular motion
, 
The
distribution of allowed velocity (velocity imposed by the distribution of and properties of space) does not have to be linear in order that the two-photons
whirl occurs: it is enough that it is sufficiently linear within the effective
cross section of a photon.
So, these are the assumed conditions created by the confrontation of the two photons, and, if these photons have appropriately short lengths, they could form the steady whirl.
The question is: how stable this whirl can be?
But, even before we investigate that, we can explain how and why the mass of the two-photons-whirl has to have the new property: the inertia.
Quantitatively, the mass of the two-photons-whirl is equal to the sum of proto-inertial masses of the photons which form the whirl.
The two-photons-whirl mass has the spin, that is, it whirls, it rotates. (So, this is the natural, reasonable, real spin, not some QM abstraction).
The two-photons-whirl as a whole may have any velocity from the range
All in all, we can conclude that the two-photons-whirl is the new way of energy packaging, the higher mode of existence with regard to single photon, and which would manifest the classical inertia if it would be stable (if it would not change its mass) during interaction with other entities.
Since I do not know the inner details of a photon, I can only implicitly prove that the two-photons-whirl can be very stable entity.
So, let us investigate what would be the shape of some spatially constrained energy whirl.
We will idealize this: we will assume that the distribution of energy along the whirling radius is continual. So, the distribution shape – which we will derive using the basic laws of physics – should be considered as envelope of some real (made of photons) energy whirl.
is the radial-coordinate, originating in the center of the energy
whirl, that is, is the distance from the
energy-whirl’s center. Along each infinitesimal segment 
of the energy distribution along ,
there exist an infinitesimal change of energy 
.
So, there exist the change of energy, along : 
.
The ratio is the force.
Also, at
each point along the radial coordinate ,
there is an amount of energy 
.
For each
observed value of , both and have
a certain value, and that value does not change along the circle whose radius
is that observed value of .
The basic kinematics-laws of circular motion are:
, 
, 
So, at a
given place, determined with , we have: , , 
The only
reasonable (physically justified, imposed by the basic physics laws and
principles) way to relate, , of
our energy whirl is:
Going away
from the center, the change is
negative (that is, going away from the center, energy decreases), and the
change is postive (the distance increases). Hence, the ratio is negative.
Since all
of the values on the right hand side of the equation are inherently positive,
there has to be the minus sign in front of .
From the last equation follows:
For
circular motion, we have also that 
,
that is, instead of 
we can put 
, so we get:
So, we have started from general assumption that we have a spatially localized energy whirl, and that its energy distribution is continual, and – using the elementary laws of nature – we have got, unambiguously, the Gaussian distribution, that is, the distribution which is the synonym of stability.
By the way, this derivation of Gaussian is the most fundamental way of its derivation. Here, it was derived as the fundamental distinctness, as the fundamental orderliness, as the fundamental regularity, as the fundamental archetype of forming in the energy-spacetime continuum. All other existing derivations of the Gaussian are based on statistics, probability, multiplicity, chaos, where Gaussian emerges as universal envelope (i.e., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#History)
So, that what I actually propose is that the electrons, positrons, quarks and “anti”-quarks are the two-photons-whirls.
What about their charge?
Well, first have a look in The gem (7) (the part about the photon’s potential for charge)
Then read the document
and look at the picture 2 in that document.
Also, see this document (and also the picture 2 in it)
http://apl.aip.org/resource/1/applab/v87/i26/p261110_s1?isAuthorized=no
(unfortunately, this document is not freely available – but, essentially, its content is similar to the content of the previous document)
The pictures #2 in both documents, show the electric field of the standing light-waves. These waves consist of photons. Meaning: the source of these electric fields are not the charges. These electric fields are the result of superposition of elementary electric fields of the photons.
So, there is absolutely no reason to reject the possibility that the fundamental constituents of matter – electrons, quarks (and their “anti”-twins: positrons, “anti”-quarks) – are the two-photons-whirls.
On the contrary: there are all good reasons to pursue and investigate this concept.
Actually, we can only wonder how among so many ideas, concepts, …
i.e.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4178/20130926/new-state-matter-created-fusing-photons.htm
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/sep/26/physicists-create-molecules-of-light
http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/18/review-of-the-higgs-to-2-photon-data/
nobody did explore the quite reasonable concept of two-photons-whirls. Perhaps, because it was too simple, too reasonable?
I
have also the answer to this, and (as I already mentioned in The gem (7)
regarding the scientifically unjustifiable exclusion of and from the
most-fundamental-phenomena-set) that will be explained in my new threads in
Psychology-section. These future texts are something which is much more
important than TOE. But, in order to be resistant to any attempt of demagogic relativization, these texts must be written only after the TOE.
And how powerful is the two-photons-whirl concept in providing easy, reasonable, comprehensible explanations of the physics phenomena, will be clearly demonstrated in the next post.
