[PmbPhy]

Can you confirm c is the same for everyone under GR and SR relatively speaking. I am not aware of any experiments indicating c is variable in a gravitational field.

Experiments in the 1960's by Irwin Shapiro confirmed what Einstein predicted, i.e. that c is variable in a non-inertial frame, i.e. a gravitational field.

[pensador (OP)]

Can you confirm c is the same for everyone under GR and SR relatively speaking. I am not aware of any experiments indicating c is variable in a gravitational field.

Experiments in the 1960's by Irwin Shapiro confirmed what Einstein predicted, i.e. that c is variable in a non-inertial frame, i.e. a gravitational field.

Thanks I never thought of it this way.

http://physicsdetective.com/the-speed-of-light/     Rulers are shrunk by gravity, clocks are slowed by gravity, c= 2.98x10^8 m/s  measured by rulers and clocks that have shrunk and slowed.


Would I be correct in thinking c is still measured as constant, wherever it is measured, because the ruler has shrunk and time as slowed? light is actually slower as it moves away from a gravitational source. Does this also mean light is faster than c as it moves towards a gravitational source, if this is so what happens at event horizons of BH's, do things suddenly disapear as they enter a BH or does time slow, and rulers shrink meaning they are stuck in the horizon??

[PmbPhy]

Thanks I never thought of it this way.

The derivation is on my website at http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/gr/c_in_gfield.htm
The paper I mentioned is Fourth Test of General Relativity[/b] by Irwin S, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 13, No. 26, Dec 28, 1964

The author writes

Because , according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational along its path, ...

You might be able to find that paper online at https://booksc.xyz/

Would I be correct in thinking c is still measured as constant, wherever it is measured, because the ruler has shrunk and time as slowed?

No. That's only the why it happens.

Does this also mean light is faster than c as it moves towards a gravitational source, ..

No.

if this is so what happens at event horizons of BH's, do things suddenly disapear as they enter a BH or does time slow, and rulers shrink meaning they are stuck in the horizon??

Those are the reasons behind why light never reaches event horizon.

I urge you to get a GR book and study this phenomena. My website will give you a place to  start. I'm  always here of course.

[pensador (OP)]

I understand bosons have spin 0,1,2 whilst fermions have spin 1/2,3/2 etc

Numerous models of photons exist, are there any preferred models?

Photons have spin 1, am I correct in thinking the spin of a photon is related to its angular momentum, and wave shape? ie polarization. Can the photon be modelled as a flat disc, if not why not ?
When a photon is generated by an atom changing energy levels an electron moves to a different energy level, by either absorbing or emitting energy in the form of a photon. Is it possible a photon consists of 2 virtual particles with opposite charges, spinning around each other? 

In the absence of answers is the following plausible?
 
Similarities between virtual particles/photons and photons exist, both have momentum neither have mass, both are excitations of the field that fills space. Both can carry forces. If they are travelling at c neither will experience time. According to the HUP this EM field can suddenly convert part of itself into a particle - antiparticle pair with up or down spin( something in the z direction up or down). We can have electrons with both up and down spin, and positrons with both up and down spin etc

The creation of a pair ensures the conservation of physical quantities such as momentum, charge, and also angular momentum, etc. In quantum mechanics, angular momentum comes from the spin of particles. So if one virtual particle has a certain spin, its antiparticle pair will have the opposite spin. Does this mean in terms of charge, this would be a positron with up spin and electron with down spin and vice versa??

For a boson to have spin 0 it might be a simple case of a virtual particle pairs with up and down spin. To achieve spin 1 for a photon could this be achieved from virtual particle pairs both with up spin? ie If they are up and down the result is 0 and if they are up-up or down-down the result is 1. If they are both up and down the result is 0 and if they are up-up or down-down the result is 1.

My photon picture at the moment is a virtual particle pair inside a pilot wave from bohemian theory. Is this plausible ?

[alancalverd]

No. You have said that virtual particles are massless, but the e-p pair derived from a photon has mass of 2m_e., so all you have done is make your model more complicated than reality. That is the job of religion and philosophy, not science!

[pensador (OP)]

No. You have said that virtual particles are massless, but the e-p pair derived from a photon has mass of 2m_e., so all you have done is make your model more complicated than reality. That is the job of religion and philosophy, not science!

My initial response to this post involved 2 syllables involving the letters BS, however being an open minded person I would be amused to know how you think religion is involved in the very basic question what is a photon.

Religion "In the beginning there was light", does not include virtual particles. Could everything in the universe be based on virtual particles which appear real ?

HUP "in the beginning there was virtual particles" does not include gravity.

Entanglement " in the beginning all things were connected(singularity) and still are today" Lacks how many dimensions are required, with various string theories having up to 26 dimensions, it is a hard instrument to understand

Virtual particles/photons have inertia and no mass, would you agree photons have inertia and no mass also??

Electrons lose inertia as they change orbitals, would you agree that inertia/energy is conserved ?
What have a photon and virtual particle in common? could it be inertia?

The big difference between a virtual photons and real photons is life time. When travelling at c time does not exist. IE Muon life time is increased drammaticaly when in free fall, not experiencing gravity as a force creating weight.  .   

The BIG difference appears to be a virtual photon/particle is not on shell, ie has random values(not stable), whereas a photon originates from the shell of an  atom (or mollusc ? ) has velocity c and inertia. A virtual photon appears local with little or no velocity.

How is this complicated?

[alancalverd]

I would be amused to know how you think religion is involved in the very basic question what is a photon.

It isn't. Religion is the business of making the obvious obscure and the simple, complicated. Usually by introducing binary or triune mysteries.

A photon is what we use to model some of the phenomena  associated with electromagnetic radiation. Its properties are all, only and exactly those we have observed that can be modelled by a massless particle travelling at the observed speed of light in vacuo.

[yor_on]

https://www.livescience.com/19268-quantum-double-slit-experiment-largest-molecules.html

" Researchers have sent molecules containing either 58 or 114 atoms through the so-called "double-slit experiment," showing that they cause an interference pattern that can only be explained if the particles act like waves of water, rather than tiny marbles."

[pensador (OP)]

I would be amused to know how you think religion is involved in the very basic question what is a photon.

It isn't. Religion is the business of making the obvious obscure and the simple, complicated. Usually by introducing binary or triune mysteries.

Completely ducking the question, is not an answer 

Yes I agree "
A photon is what we use to model some of the phenomena  associated with electromagnetic radiation. Its properties are all, only and exactly those we have observed that can be modelled by a massless particle travelling at the observed speed of light in vacuo."

A Photon is also considered an independent particle, such as a gamma ray a very high energy photon. Gamma rays unlike radio waves do not spread their energy out as they pass through space.

As electrons on shell change energy levels their momentum is converted into a photon, or maybe transferred to virtual photons(which is in close proximity to shell), which head of at c (not experiencing time), when it impacts something its momentum is absorbed by what it hits, if it has the correct energy level. Virtual photons transfer magnetic energy, electro static field energy and the like. Photons transfer momentum.
Would you agree the differences between photons transferring magnetic energy, electrostatic energy, and momentum is likely the shape of the field.

[pensador (OP)]

https://www.livescience.com/19268-quantum-double-slit-experiment-largest-molecules.html

" Researchers have sent molecules containing either 58 or 114 atoms through the so-called "double-slit experiment," showing that they cause an interference pattern that can only be explained if the particles act like waves of water, rather than tiny marbles."

Firing a single particle at multiple locations at different times, on identical experiments can when the results are all brought together reproduce the double slit experiment, which can be explained by wave particle duality, or by bohemian theory and pilot waves. 

Which is the easiest to visualize a pilot wave surrounding a photon from bohemian theory, or wave particle duality whereby a wave collapses to become a particle.

ie a pilot wave encompassing a particle and interacting with the slits is easier to visualize than some wave that  passes through both slits before impacting something and having instantaneous wave collapse to become a particle.

Edit Nice link by the way, there is less mystery to the explanation using pilot waves surrounding single packets of energy/photons.

[alancalverd]

There is no discontinuity in the self-interference of electromagnetic radiation. x-rays diffract in exactly the same way as radio waves and visible light. There is no inherent difference between x- and γ-radiation apart from their source but at very short wavelengths it's difficult (nay impossible) to find a diffraction grating of commensurate dimensions, so the self-interference phenomenon is not practically demonstrable and we only use the particle model.

The problem here is the loose use of "explain" when you mean "model". Religion offers all sorts of explanations but none with the demonstrably predictive value of a scientific model. Pilot waves do not predict the photoelectric effect or the black body spectrum, and are not consistent with the fact that "old" photons (from distant stars) behave in exactly the same way as "new" ones from a local source.

[pensador (OP)]

An outstanding question I have is. Can a photon be represented as two virtual particles with appropriate spins ? (surrounded by a pilot wave). 

[pensador (OP)]

There is no discontinuity in the self-interference of electromagnetic radiation. x-rays diffract in exactly the same way as radio waves and visible light. There is no inherent difference between x- and γ-radiation apart from their source but at very short wavelengths it's difficult (nay impossible) to find a diffraction grating of commensurate dimensions, so the self-interference phenomenon is not practically demonstrable and we only use the particle model.

Pilot waves do not predict the photoelectric effect or the black body spectrum, and are not consistent with the fact that "old" photons (from distant stars) behave in exactly the same way as "new" ones from a local source.

Yes electromagnetic waves and photons exhibit fringing effects especially around  corners.

Photons manintain there strength regardless of distance travelled. Radio waves do not, they get weaker.

Radio waves are generated via electric currents moving along radio masts, and creating a distortion in the electric field around around the mast which radiates away at c, dispersing as it moves.

The photo electric effect and Black body radiation  is not based on wave particle duality, what is your point here ?

[alancalverd]

Can a photon bre representged as two vitrual particles and a pilot wave? Not usefully.

Just to go back to the buckyball. It has two layers of structure: the atoms themselves and the spatial relationship between the atoms, so there must be at least two distinct pilot waves that determine the position of any one atom in space. As you say,  you can get quite large molecules to self-interfere, but if their trajectory is defined by two pilot waves, you would expect the output to be all sorts of subspecies and isomers of the original molecule depending on the interference between the two pilot waves.

You need to decide what you mean by "strength". The intensity of a light field decreases with 1/r²
 at distance r from a point source, as does the intensity of a radio signal. It just happens that for very weak signals we can detect individual light or x-ray photons, but the individual photon energy of radio signals is too low to be detected.

[pensador (OP)]

Can a photon bre representged as two vitrual particles and a pilot wave? Not usefully.

Just to go back to the buckyball. It has two layers of structure: the atoms themselves and the spatial relationship between the atoms, so there must be at least two distinct pilot waves that determine the position of any one atom in space. As you say,  you can get quite large molecules to self-interfere, but if their trajectory is defined by two pilot waves, you would expect the output to be all sorts of subspecies and isomers of the original molecule depending on the interference between the two pilot waves.

If I can find the link which put the idea into my skull, ref photons having a pair of virtual particles with appropriate spin, creating a photon, I will post it, at the moment I cant find it?

I think most of the above is not strictly correct. If you have the time here is a short critic of bohemian and quantum mechanics. It discusses both interpreatations

. As you are aware there are many other interpretations. But for visualizing a photon I think pilot waves work. I do note the pilot wave described in this link is different to the description of pilot waves linked to earlier. However the picture is not difficult to understand.

[alancalverd]

Radio waves are generated via electric currents moving along radio masts, and creating a distortion in the electric field around around the mast which radiates away at c, dispersing as it moves.

No, not an electric field, but a selfpropagating electromagnetic wave as described by Maxwell.

[yor_on]

No. there is no 'pilot wave' involved in it.
You don't get HUP, do you?

[pensador (OP)]

Radio waves are generated via electric currents moving along radio masts, and creating a distortion in the electric field around around the mast which radiates away at c, dispersing as it moves.

No, not an electric field, but a selfpropagating electromagnetic wave as described by Maxwell.

WTF radio waves are generated by electicity in radio masts, and satellite dishes etc, which are explained by Maxwells electromagnetic equations. #

Photons are generated by electrons changing energy levels in atoms.

[pensador (OP)]

You need to decide what you mean by "strength". The intensity of a light field decreases with 1/r2 at distance r from a point source, as does the intensity of a radio signal. It just happens that for very weak signals we can detect individual light or x-ray photons, but the individual photon energy of radio signals is too low to be detected.

This is not the case for single photons.

Photons can be created from virtual particles as shown in this experiment Dynamic Casimir effect https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html.

No, not an electric field, but a selfpropagating electromagnetic wave as described by Maxwell.

Here is a paper based around Maxwells equations and photons, explaining the double slit effect WITHOUT the requirement of wave particle duality http://www.jpier.org/PIERL/pierl01/14.07111101.pdf Some might find it interesting.

I still havent found the actual link to the model of the photon I was thinking of which defines the photons spin and momentum in terms of two virtual particles

However ref virtual particles representing photons most forces are considered to be due to virtual particles

"Some field interactions which may be seen in terms of virtual particles are:
The Coulomb force (static electric force) between electric charges. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse square law for electric force. Since the photon has no mass, the coulomb potential has an infinite range.
The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space, this exchange results in the inverse cube law for magnetic force. Since the photon has no mass, the magnetic potential has an infinite range.
Electromagnetic induction. This phenomenon transfers energy to and from a magnetic coil via a changing (electro)magnetic field.
The strong nuclear force between quarks is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.
The weak nuclear force—it is the result of exchange by virtual W and Z bosons.
The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or excited nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation.
The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
The van der Waals force, which is partly due to the Casimir effect between two atoms.
Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).
Lamb shift of positions of atomic levels.
The Impedance of free space, which defines the ratio between the electric field strength | E | and the magnetic field strength | H |: Z0 = | E | / | H |.[8]
Much of the so-called near-field of radio antennas, where the magnetic and electric effects of the changing current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitive charge may be (and usually are) important contributors to the total EM field close to the source, but both of which effects are dipole effects that decay with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of "conventional" electromagnetic waves that are "far" from the source. ["Far" in terms of ratio of antenna length or diameter, to wavelength]. These far-field waves, for which E is (in the limit of long distance) equal to cB, are composed of actual photons. Actual and virtual photons are mixed near an antenna, with the virtual photons responsible only for the "extra" magnetic-inductive and transient electric-dipole effects, which cause any imbalance between E and cB. As distance from the antenna grows, the near-field effects (as dipole fields) die out more quickly, and only the "radiative" effects that are due to actual photons remain as important effects. Although virtual effects extend to infinity, they drop off in field strength as 1/r2 rather than the field of EM waves composed of actual photons, which drop 1/r (the powers, respectively, decrease as 1/r4 and 1/r2). See near and far field for a more detailed discussion. See near field communication for practical communications applications of near fields." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

[yor_on]

I started to read the paper you linked flummoxed. Got stuck on "  At any instant moment its energy, momentum and spin angular momentum keep conservation. Its wavelike property originates from the periodicity of its helically rotating motion, instead of its wave spreading all over the place "

What do they mean by spin here? If you translated a electrons spin into classical spin it would spin faster than light speed in a vacuum?