light and redshift question...

[SRH]

Hi guys,
I've been brainstorming and would like feedback from the experts here...


I'm trying to come up with a thesis that light is a particle and that frequency is the speed of the rotation of the particle.

I've heard of "tired light" which has to do with the speed of light slowing down over time/distance.
This is likely incorrect - the speed of light is always constant in a vacuum.

But is it possible that even though the speed of light doesn't change over time/distance, that the speed of rotation slows down over time?
That is, light from distant space is redshifted, because as the light particle propagates forward, it loses some rotational velocity?

A metaphor would be that a pitcher throw a curveball in space and that over light years, the curveball becomes slightly less of a curveball and slightly more like a knuckleball.

(Obviously, I'm also trying to come up with a scenario that the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate.)


Thank you very much!

[Tensor]

I'm trying to come up with a thesis that light is a particle and that frequency is the speed of the rotation of the particle.


But is it possible that even though the speed of light doesn't change over time/distance, that the speed of rotation slows down over time?
That is, light from distant space is redshifted, because as the light particle propagates forward, it loses some rotational velocity?

There are a few problems with this. One, spin isn't really a rotation. It's a quantum mechanical property that is kinda, sorta,like what we think of spin. Similar to calling the property that gluons have color. A better label would be intrinsic angular momentum. Two, since it's a quantum mechanical property, it always comes in discrete units. You can't have partial units, like you would have if rotational speed was slowing down. Three, measurements indicate that spin is not related to a photon's frequency. Four, if a photons spin can slow down, why won't other particle's spin slow down? Also, particles have two states of spin, spin up, and spin down. Basically the particles are "spinning" in opposite directions. How do you account for the different spin directions? It appears to me that you will have to rewrite all of quantum field theory to accomplish what you want to do.

[SRH]

There are a few problems with this. One, spin isn't really a rotation. It's a quantum mechanical property that is kinda, sorta,like what we think of spin. Similar to calling the property that gluons have color. A better label would be intrinsic angular momentum. Two, since it's a quantum mechanical property, it always comes in discrete units. You can't have partial units, like you would have if rotational speed was slowing down. Three, measurements indicate that spin is not related to a photon's frequency. Four, if a photons spin can slow down, why won't other particle's spin slow down? Also, particles have two states of spin, spin up, and spin down. Basically the particles are "spinning" in opposite directions. How do you account for the different spin directions? It appears to me that you will have to rewrite all of quantum field theory to accomplish what you want to do.

Thanks for your responses...I appreciate it. This theory is obviously in the very-early brainstorming stage, so I apologize for not being to have a complete model already worked out.

"since it's a quantum mechanical property, it always comes in discrete units. You can't have partial units, like you would have if rotational speed was slowing down."
I am thinking that as the rotational speed slows down, the wavelength increases. The EM spectrum is continuous, it is not discreet.

"measurements indicate that spin is not related to a photon's frequency"
thanks for this...do you have a source?

"if a photons spin can slow down, why won't other particle's spin slow down"
I would think that they would as well. Could you please point me to evidence that a particle's rotational speed is constant for infinite time?

"particles have two states of spin, spin up, and spin down. Basically the particles are "spinning" in opposite directions. How do you account for the different spin directions?"
Perhaps the two spin directions are the 2 possible directions that a sphere can rotate...clockwise and counterclockwise.

"It appears to me that you will have to rewrite all of quantum field theory to accomplish what you want to do"
Agreed...an extremely low-probability event. But it is possible that someone, someday will be able to come up with a working TOE.

[Tensor]

Thanks for your responses...I appreciate it. This theory is obviously in the very-early brainstorming stage, so I apologize for not being to have a complete model already worked out.

"since it's a quantum mechanical property, it always comes in discrete units. You can't have partial units, like you would have if rotational speed was slowing down."

I am thinking that as the rotational speed slows down, the wavelength increases. The EM spectrum is continuous, it is not discreet.

Yes, and spin is not part of the EM spectrum. Wavelength is not a QM concept. The energy at a particular wavelength requires using Planck's constant, a discrete unit.

"measurements indicate that spin is not related to a photon's frequency"

thanks for this...do you have a source?

Photons are vector bosons. All vector bosons have a spin of 1. All photons do not have the same frequency. Any measurement of a photons frequency will assume the spin, it's not even mentioned, usually, in the papers. The Higg's boson that has been in the news lately is a scalar boson, and thus has a spin of 0. It's a basic part of particle physics and any article on the standard model will indicate the spin of photons.

"if a photons spin can slow down, why won't other particle's spin slow down"

I would think that they would as well. Could you please point me to evidence that a particle's rotational speed is constant for infinite time?

First off, it's not a rotational speed. Get that out of your head. The concept of spin, as used in QM and the concept of spin, as we know it in the macro world, are not the same. Second, think of it as one of the basic properties of a particle. Such as mass and charge. Those properties don't change either. It's part of the basic theory. There are two states for spin, spin up or spin down. But, the value is the same. The value depends on the type of particle. Fermions have half integer spins. Bosons have whole integer spins. Spin also is integrated into the concept of Paulis exclusion principle. Two particles having the same quantum states cannot be in the same location. If spin could vary, there could be a multitude of spin states, allowing a multitude of particles in the same location. The idea of the Pauli exclusion principle is what accounts for electron and neutron degeneracy, which is behind white dwarfs and neutron stars. Any basic article on Quantum Mechanics or Spin or Spin statistics will get you many references to such experiments.

"It appears to me that you will have to rewrite all of quantum field theory to accomplish what you want to do"

Agreed...an extremely low-probability event. But it is possible that someone, someday will be able to come up with a working TOE.

What you don't realize(a lot of people don't get this), is that any TOE, will still have to explain current observations.

[utesfan100]

Hi guys,
I've been brainstorming and would like feedback from the experts here...


I'm trying to come up with a thesis that light is a particle and that frequency is the speed of the rotation of the particle.

It is unlikely that modeling the photon on a mechanical planar rotation will work. The frequency is caused by the simple harmonic motion caused by the exchange of energy between the electric and magnetic fields.

Mathematically, these equations are very similar to the equations of angular momentum.

One could envision this being caused by a massless rotating dipole charge, but then wave properties like diffraction becomes difficult to explain. Also, since the center of the dipole is moving at c, the charges composing the dipole would need to move faster than c when passing the dipole center. (Alternatively photons would need to travel at less than c, with the dipole charges moving at c, which is not observed)

Photons have an additional property known as "spin" which is a discrete intrinsic angular momentum distinct from the classical notion of a rotating mass. Spin is independent of frequency, and I don't see why it has been brought into this conversation.

I've heard of "tired light" which has to do with the speed of light slowing down over time/distance.
This is likely incorrect - the speed of light is always constant in a vacuum.

But is it possible that even though the speed of light doesn't change over time/distance, that the speed of rotation slows down over time?
That is, light from distant space is redshifted, because as the light particle propagates forward, it loses some rotational velocity?

The idea of tired light is not that light slows down, but rather that it loses energy the further it travels. Lower energy equates to a lower frequency.

Tired light would directly address Hubble's Law, with redshift being proportional to the distance traveled.

If tired light exists, however, we should be able to measure the effect based on the distances within the Milky Way Galaxy. Experiments have constrained this effect within the Milky Way to far below what is implied by Hubble's Law.

To advance a theory based on tired light one would need a model explaining why it is not observed within our galaxy.

One could argue that the cosmological constant of GR produces an effect similar to tired light caused by the expansion of the universe. This is not observed in gravitationally bound structures, such as our Galaxy, but only where the Hubble flow is dominant. This is the mainstream interpretation of the red shift observed for distant objects.

I too would prefer a model where the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. Physicists would likely call such a model a flat universe. I must admit some partiality towards the model by Icarus2, though this work needs to be shown to be in agreement with GR to the parametrized post-Newtonian formalism to become viable.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...f-Hubble-s-Law

[SRH]

Thanks utesfan100 and everybody else!
There is definitely a lot here to think about and learn about!

For now, I would like to ask about:
"since the center of the dipole is moving at c, the charges composing the dipole would need to move faster than c when passing the dipole center. (Alternatively photons would need to travel at less than c, with the dipole charges moving at c, which is not observed)"


Hypothetically (I am asking and not advocating),
if a light corpuscle was spherical (not a dipole), with a diameter of 1 planck length, then the sides of the sphere would still be part of the same planck-unit since there is no distance smaller than a planck length, correct?

Alternatively, (and hypothetically), if we redefine c as the speed of the point-center of a light corpuscle and say that no particle or object can travel faster than c, then all of the laws of physics would still hold, yet would allow for the sides of the corpuscle to travel faster or slower than c as they rotate around the point-center. No?

[utesfan100]

Thanks utesfan100 and everybody else!
There is definitely a lot here to think about and learn about!

For now, I would like to ask about:
"since the center of the dipole is moving at c, the charges composing the dipole would need to move faster than c when passing the dipole center. (Alternatively photons would need to travel at less than c, with the dipole charges moving at c, which is not observed)"


Hypothetically (I am asking and not advocating),
if a light corpuscle was spherical (not a dipole), with a diameter of 1 planck length, then the sides of the sphere would still be part of the same planck-unit since there is no distance smaller than a planck length, correct?

Alternatively, (and hypothetically), if we redefine c as the speed of the point-center of a light corpuscle and say that no particle or object can travel faster than c, then all of the laws of physics would still hold, yet would allow for the sides of the corpuscle to travel faster or slower than c as they rotate around the point-center. No?

I thing the concept of a sphere breaks down at plank length. At this scale the uncertainty in velocity and rotation becomes relativistic, and the orientation would be unmeasurable.

It seems hard to recover a frequency much different from the plank time from such an object.

[Grey]

Hypothetically (I am asking and not advocating),
if a light corpuscle was spherical (not a dipole), with a diameter of 1 planck length, then the sides of the sphere would still be part of the same planck-unit since there is no distance smaller than a planck length, correct?

I'd take issue with this. We don't really know that there's no distance shorter than the Planck length. All we really know is that when you get down to a scale of about the Planck length, we can be confident that our current understanding of physics is insufficient to be able to describe what's going on.