Polarizers in Sequence

http://milesmathis.com/polariz.pdf
NEW PAPER, added 4/25/18, Polarizers in Sequence. I pull apart another Youtube video for my readers, showing the layers of misdirection we continue to get from mainstream physics.
—
I think the solution could be simpler. The first 0 degrees polarizer has an output that is blocked by the 90 degrees polarizer. If we add a 45 degrees polarizer between them, that output is than re-polarized into another output that is not blocked by the 90 degrees polarizer.

I don’t see why we need spin ups and spin downs.

Here's a quote that may have slipped by you all:

Miles Mathis wrote:Because our initial set wasn't actually X or Y. It was X and Y and all values in between. Incoherent light can be
spinning at any angle to the axis. It can also be spinning in Z, but since we are letting Z be the direction of linear motion, we ignore it. Interaction on Z would require a photon hit dead center, and due to the real size of the photon, the odds of that are approaching zero. So we only have to track X and Y in the math.

This tells us that particles can have a spin axis that does not match the linear velocity axis. Miles has generally talked about particles with matching spin and linear velocity axes. I have long thought, and said on this site, that I can't see any reason to limit it to that and now we have confirmation of it.

Of course, it creates strange spin paths that don't seem very plausible and I have used the restriction to explain some things but I suppose we have to find other reasons for any correlation between these axes.

Perhaps these "strange spin paths" are part of the reason some photons tend to "clump" or travel together, such as neutrinos, and perhaps it's telling us there are more and less stable motions of photons? Some might have a less stable motion, and thus perhaps are more susceptible to up- or down-spinning, redirection, and general instability in their inertia?

I too can't think of any reason why a photon's linear vector wouldn't or couldn't be independent of its spins. Doesn't mean much, it just seems to me that all vectors would be valid. A photon's stacked spins cause any recursion, not its linear velocity?

My main reason for the spin axis and the velocity axis being the same is that the main velocities (linear and top spin level) are orthogonal to each other and their motions do not share any dimensions. Either of the other 2 dimensions and they interfere with each other. This means that the total linear velocity increases and decreases over extremely short time intervals. Not a paradox, but certainly something that I would like to avoid if at all possible.

You may be right, Jared. It may just mean that some photons are inherently less stable, if that is the right word for it. Neutrinos, which are groups of photons (or is it electrons?) huddled together is a good example. I have often thought that they must have different top level spins in order to huddle, but hadn't put it together like you just did.

Is that to say, Nevyn, that our initial "particle" with A1 spin is kind of drilling through space? And subsequent stacked spins are, in a manner of speaking, corkscrewing through space as they move, linearly? I'm kind of visualizing that, but have to diagram it too. In my previous sims the linear velocity was arbitrarily chosen on the X+ axis, simply because it was easier to animate. But should it be moving on the Y+ axis instead, since that A1 initial spin is a Y-axis spin? (in my diagrams)

Of course, that Y-axis or A1 axis is completely owned by that particular photon in Local Space. It owns that axis, so to speak, independent of any other particles or frames reference in World Space or any other space.

Nevyn wrote:My main reason for the spin axis and the velocity axis being the same is that the main velocities (linear and top spin level) are orthogonal to each other and their motions do not share any dimensions. Either of the other 2 dimensions and they interfere with each other. This means that the total linear velocity increases and decreases over extremely short time intervals. Not a paradox, but certainly something that I would like to avoid if at all possible.

There’s no problem actually. You pointed to this interference and I think it can probably cancel any linear velocity increases and decreases. At the end though, this changes the imaginary shape of the spin if the particle were stationary.

Someone quoted a private conversation with Mathis, and he said that the resulting spin motion is smooth and not jerky.

Anyway, can someone post a paper where Mathis talks about motion and outer spin having the same direction/axis?

In most previous papers, Miles has usually talked about photons being left or right or CW or CCW spinners. The only way I can make sense of that is if the top spin is around the linear velocity vector and you are looking along that vector. That is, the photon is moving straight at you and the top level spin is acting like a clock from your perspective.

Here is a recent quote from the Matter From Light paper:

http://milesmathis.com/limat.pdf

Miles Mathis wrote:I will then be told my spin equations and diagrams don't follow Newton's Third Law. If both particles are being spun up, for instance, there is no equal and opposite reaction.  The equal and opposite reaction to a spin up is a spin down.  But that is simply to misunderstand the Third Law.  The Third Law does not imply that energy cannot increase in a given event or a given locality.  The Third Law simply says that in any and all events there is an equal and opposite reaction.  In all my spin transfers, the Law is upheld.  The opposite reaction to a spin-up is not a spin-down, as you see if you actually draw the spinning particles with their arrows.   For instance, if a left-spin meets a right spin head-on, they cancel.  In that cancellation, the left spin loses an equal amount to the right spin, confirming the Third Law.   And yet they were both spun down.

There are many others. Anywhere he talks about anti-photons. While he never rules out other combinations of spin and velocity axes, he only ever talked about CW and CCW.

I was just playing with my latest simulation (#9, for reference, and you guys have already seen it) in Maya to see how things would look at that Z1 spin and completely agree, Nevyn. The top-level spin should be orthogonal to the linear velocity. In my latest animations attempting to show wavelength/frequency, I screwed that up, having my Z1 stacked spin group moving along the X+ axis, instead of the Z+ or Z- (either would be valid, it seems). So perhaps that's why things looked so wonky as well?



As another example, for the proton to have "holes" in its N and S poles for incoming charge potentials, its N/S axis would have to also be perpendicular to that top-level spin path, call it Z6 or whatever that ended up being. The b-photon in the proton visits the center of all stacked spins there LESS often than it's located in the periphery or outer regions of that top spin, giving us the potential we need to repel most photons from the sides and allow most in from top and bottom? Does that make sense? Not talking about linear movement there so much as how/why the proton has these potentials...

Jared Magneson wrote:Is that to say, Nevyn, that our initial "particle" with A1 spin is kind of drilling through space? And subsequent stacked spins are, in a manner of speaking, corkscrewing through space as they move, linearly?

Yes, that is how I have envisaged it and have also implemented it in SpinSim. In my original desktop version of SpinSim, you could specify the velocity direction in any way you wanted. When I implemented the web version, I limited the linear velocity to follow the top spin level axis because Miles had only described such motions.

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm kind of visualizing that, but have to diagram it too. In my previous sims the linear velocity was arbitrarily chosen on the X+ axis, simply because it was easier to animate. But should it be moving on the Y+ axis instead, since that A1 initial spin is a Y-axis spin? (in my diagrams)

The axial spin is a little different and I'm not sure what to do with it, to be honest. I think the best way to handle this situation is to discuss the possible collisions and what motion they would impart. It is easy to just give it some vectors and see where things move, but reality is more complex than that and it must use collisions to cause motion.

We start with a BPhoton and give it an axial spin around the Y axis. Now we can look at how another BPhoton could collide with it and what the outcomes are.

1) Y Collision
If the collider is moving in the Y dimension then when the particles collide they will do so along that dimension. Assuming a direct hit then our particle will gain a linear velocity along the Y dimension. This creates a corkscrew path, although it is only an axial spin so it won't look like one.

2) X or Z Collision
These are basically the same with only the dimensions changing. In fact, we can extend this to the whole XZ plane. In this scenario the collider is moving along the X dimension, say, and when it strikes our particle it will encounter the spin of that particle. The motion of that spin is in the XZ plane so it will affect the collision. However, it will only affect it in the XZ plane, so it will just add or remove some angle from the resulting velocity vector. The particle will gain a linear velocity mostly inline with the X dimension but with some along the Z as well. Whether that Z component is + or - depends on the spins of the particles. If the 2 particles offset each others spin then there will not be any Z component.

So, after all that, I think the axial spin can have a linear velocity in any direction, or close to any, there may be some combinations that are not allowed and some that will create a new spin level or even remove the axial spin but these tend to be edge hits rather than the more direct ones I am using here.

Why does an end-over-end spin change any of this? I'm not really sure. It seems like it should be different but I can't articulate any decent thoughts to back it up. Maybe it is because the spin radius is larger which straightens out the motion of the spin level. At some spin radius, or straightness of its curve, it changes the collisions and affects what linear velocities are possible.

Maybe I'm just trying to justify my assumptions because it looks better.

With respect to the poles, definitely. A top level Z spin create N/S poles on the Z axis. That is, you have to be looking along the Z axis to see the through-charge holes.

Those poles are one reason for a linear velocity to be aligned to the top spin axis because that center hole provides no resistance from the ambient field. It would take a decent sized particle for that to take effect though. Maybe photons, or at least the smaller ones, can have any linear velocity but the larger ones are limited to the top spin axis. Maybe this is related to the size where a particle becomes charged.

.
Ok, guys, I read the Polarizer paper a few hours ago and waited till then before reading this thread. I’ll try to contribute. Ten responses eh? Ok, one person at a time.

Ciaolo wrote. I think the solution could be simpler. The first 0 degrees polarizer has an output that is blocked by the 90 degrees polarizer. If we add a 45 degrees polarizer between them, that output is than re-polarized into another output that is not blocked by the 90 degrees polarizer.

I don’t see why we need spin ups and spin downs.

Airman. Thanks for posting.

Your descriptions of zero, 45 and 90 degree polarizer interactions sounds good to me. Spin ups and spin downs are normal. The way I understand it, photons incoming to a polarizer must be redirected via spin downs and spin ups into coherent polarizer emissions. "Re-polarizing the output" is accomplished by spin downs and spin ups.

Ciaolo wrote.

Nevyn wrote:My main reason for the spin axis and the velocity axis being the same is that the main velocities (linear and top spin level) are orthogonal to each other and their motions do not share any dimensions. Either of the other 2 dimensions and they interfere with each other. This means that the total linear velocity increases and decreases over extremely short time intervals. Not a paradox, but certainly something that I would like to avoid if at all possible.

There’s no problem actually. You pointed to this interference and I think it can probably cancel any linear velocity increases and decreases. At the end though, this changes the imaginary shape of the spin if the particle were stationary.

Someone quoted a private conversation with Mathis, and he said that the resulting spin motion is smooth and not jerky.

Anyway, can someone post a paper where Mathis talks about motion and outer spin having the same direction/axis?

Airman. I agree there’s no “problem” if the photon spin axis isn’t in the direction of its linear velocity. It doesn’t change the fact that very few collisions transfer energy perfectly. In e=mc^2, the energy outcome, mc^2 is a limit only head-on collisions can achieve. Every collision must be considered on a case by case basis, there are an awful lot of different cases. “Imaginary shape” might evoke some discussion. I hope you don’t mind my saying, you’re writing has clearly improved.

I see Nevyn has answered you request for a paper source. Here’s the private conversation - actually a Jared relayed Miles quote - you requested.

Re: Photon Sinewave Travel
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t301p25-photon-sinewave-travel#3422 by Jared Magneson Thu Mar 29, 2018 at 7:26 pm

Miles wrote:Yeah, that doesn't look right to me. No matter how many collisions it encounters, the final motion should be completely cyclical, never appearing random at all. The way you have it in the beginning, it is really too small for me to tell what is going on.

That's all I've got for now, good night all.
.

.
Nevyn wrote. Here's a quote that may have slipped by you all:

Miles wrote. Incoherent light can be spinning at any angle to the axis. It can also be spinning in Z, but since we are letting Z be the direction of linear motion, we ignore it. Interaction on Z would require a photon hit dead center, and due to the real size of the photon, the odds of that are approaching zero. So we only have to track X and Y in the math.

This tells us that particles can have a spin axis that does not match the linear velocity axis. Miles has generally talked about particles with matching spin and linear velocity axes. I have long thought, and said on this site, that I can't see any reason to limit it to that and now we have confirmation of it.

Of course, it creates strange spin paths that don't seem very plausible and I have used the restriction to explain some things but I suppose we have to find other reasons for any correlation between these axes.

Airman. Thanks for the spoiler. Agreed, incoherent light can be spinning at any angle with respect to its forward direction of travel. Let’s formally define a coherent photon as a photon which is traveling in the direction of its spin axis.

My analogy to Lloyd of a photon as perfectly thrown spiral football – Jared referred to it as drilling - applies only to a coherently emitted photon, appropriate for discussing say the pre-magnetic field of an atomic object. It’s been my assumption that the strongest magnetic fields are made by materials that emit the highest numbers – as a percentage - of coherent photon emissions. I’ll have you know, no brag, when I throw a football, it is definitely not coherent.

The point is, not all photons emitted by any given object are coherent. Most atomic matter emits non-coherent b-photons as well as non-coherent IR or visible photons - the proof of that fact is that most objects emit very weak, if any, magnetic fields. During the day, additional solar photons and resulting higher energies create far more collisions which make any coherent field present appear less coherent. That’s the environment we’ve placed these polarizers in.

Special cases aside, photons generally de-cohere in any collision, and there’s no mechanism that we’re aware of that could turn the photon’s forward direction and re-cohere it except for another well placed collision such as we might find in a polarizer.

I agree, non-coherent photons are messy, tend to complicate things, and make accurate simulations more difficult.  

For the record, the belief I’ve stated is that only large sublight speed photons can turn to align their spin axis into the direction of incoming photons.

Nevyn wrote. Why does an end-over-end spin change any of this? I'm not really sure. It seems like it should be different but I can't articulate any decent thoughts to back it up. Maybe it is because the spin radius is larger which straightens out the motion of the spin level. At some spin radius, or straightness of its curve, it changes the collisions and affects what linear velocities are possible.

Airman. I not sure I understand. There may be a light speed limit that somehow turns the photon’s topspin orthogonal to the direction of forward motion. In that case, wouldn’t all distant objects appear increasingly magnetic? As far as I know, that’s not what we see. I’ve tried interpreting the creation of each new end-over-end spin as the result of meeting the c limit, but then again when we look at objects, we usually view non-coherent and non-magnetic photons.  

Describing higher spin level particles as the gyrations of a single b-photon seems implausible to me – such as, how are a b-photon's inner spins protected? There must be some radius expanding mechanism that we haven’t identified. I'll repeat my belief that charge photons accompany high spin b-photons, cycling charge photons are protecting those inner spins.
 
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Jared wrote. Perhaps these "strange spin paths" are part of the reason some photons tend to "clump" or travel together, such as neutrinos, and perhaps it's telling us there are more and less stable motions of photons? Some might have a less stable motion, and thus perhaps are more susceptible to up- or down-spinning, redirection, and general instability in their inertia?

Airman. Hey Jared, I hope you don't mind that I've only included that one comment. I see Nevyn’s answered your questions better than I can. I usually agree with most of your observations and comments. I think I've made my objections clear, such as I don't agree with clumping, gyrating b-photons. Stable and unstable photons will force me to think more about the subject; otherwise, I don’t see any bones to pick with you (insert smiley skull).

Thanks for the discussion and enthusiasm.
.