What does Miles intend by the classification photon vs anti-photon?

Hi,

I just created an account to ask this question, after having a discussion on cutting's comment section. Searching the following page for user haggisnneeps will highlight the discussion I had with him and Graham. Further down the page (search for "off topic"), I tried to get Miles attention by posting the following image, but he hasn't responded so far, and now the comments have gone onto the next page.

cuttingthroughthefog . com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-35/#comments

(I can't post the hyperlink because I'm a new user here.)

In any case, my drawing shows that there are two ways of classifying photons into photons (+ve) and anti-photons (-ve). I've called these two methods of classification absolute and relative.

In the depiction of the absolute classification, the faint direction arrows represent the fact that the direction of the photon doesn't have to be at right angles to the plane that intersects the photon's equator - both photons and anti-photons can take any 2D angle relative to their equator plane. The direction arrows with asterisks show that any photon travelling parallel to its own equator plane is left unclassified.



In the depiction of the relative classification, the reference plane line implies a (cosmic) 2D plane. Again, I've tried to show that the photons can take a range of 2D angles to the reference plane and still be classified. Also again, I've shown that photons travelling parallel to the reference plane are left unclassified.

I was under the impression that Miles intends the absolute method of classification, but the users I conversed with seemed to be under the impression that Miles intends the relative method. Maybe the answer is in one of Miles papers, but I haven't been able to find it. If Miles does intend the relative method, then this raises the question of which plane Miles is using as his reference.

This question might not seem obviously important at first glance, but due to Miles claim that the local ratio of photons to anti-photons is asymmetrical, the very meaning of the ratio of photons to anti-photons depends on which classification method is used, and in the case of relative classification, on which plane is used as the reference.

A consequence of the above is that there are two hypothetical devices that would classify photons. The ratio reading given by the absolute photon-classifier wouldn't change depending on the orientation of the device, whereas the reading given by the relative photon-classifier would change depending on its orientation.

What does Miles intend by the classification photon vs anti-photon?

Hi Etc. Of course you’d have to ask him, I think I can make a fair guess. Classification of photon vs anti-photon is intended to focus one’s attention on photon collisions, such as in charge recycling. I’ll elaborate.

A photon has mass, radius and spin. A photon travels through space with both linear and angular momentum and energy. Photons come in a wide range of sizes, including stacked-spins. In general, we can simply discuss photons without having to address anti-photons. Photons and anti-photons are all charge.

An absolute or relative classification intended to describe a photon’s directions of spin and movement as you’ve provided is perfectly reasonable. I see that all the photons you included have their spin axis in line with the photon’s forward direction, such that the photon will spiral clockwise or anticlockwise through space. I don’t believe that’s always true. As you’ve mentioned, photons can also spin like a top. The coherence of photons’ direction of forward motion and spins depends on the matter through which the photons are recycling/emitted. I suppose the spiral case is the most general. Suffice to say, any individual photon on your diagram colliding either directly head-to-head, obliquely, or glancing edge-to-edge with another photon of the same spin and opposite forward direction would describe a proper photon/anti-photon collision. The photon pairs you’ve included as unclassified won’t collide, but as near misses they are part of the discussion.

One needs to consider each case of photon/anti-photon collision in order to properly understand how photons can recycle through a charged particle, such as an electron, proton or nucleus. Absolute and relative frames are ok for diagrams, charge recycling usually involve two-way photon/anti-photon charge flow (photons entering from one pole anti-photons entering from the other pole). The photon/anti-photon interactions (collisions) result in direct pole to pole charge flow as well as curved photon/anti-photon pole to equator charge flow.

Hope that helps.
.

Hi Etc, I think the problem you have here is that you want a single photon to be either a photon or an anti-photon, and it will be that way forever (or at least until some collision, maybe), but that isn't how it works. Being a photon or an anti-photon is not something that a photon is, it is something that it appears to be. Since it is based on appearance, it relies on a viewer, and it will only appear that way to that viewer. At the exact same instance, it could appear as the opposite type of photon to a different viewer.

What do I mean by viewer? Well, it means that you have to pick a reference frame. A place where you will view the situation. This is where you must view all things in the interaction from. You can not change your reference frame half way through a calculation. Since being a photon or an anti-photon only matters during a collision, we will pick the photons in collision as the reference frames. Yes, you can have multiple reference frames, but only one per calculation. However, we want to know what happens to both photons in the collision, so we calculate it from the perspective of each photon, giving us 2 reference frames.

Another thing to consider is that a photon would consider itself as a photon, and not an anti-photon. It can make this choice (and it could decide the other way around, but who wants to be an anti?) because it is arbitrary. Once the choice is made, though, then all other photons will be given a type based on that. From the perspective of that first photon, all others can now be given a type. That first photon sets the reference frame, and it also sets the equatorial plane, polar axes, etc. All other photons can have different equatorial planes and polar axes, but for this calculation, which is made from the perspective of that first photon, they will be relative to the reference frame.

So, in essence, everything is relative. There are no absolutes. There is no cosmic plane that all photons must adhere to. Each and everyone of them has its own coordinate system and when we want to do some math with them, we pick a reference frame and then define all of those coordinate systems relative to that frame.

It just gives us a starting position and something to reference everything else from. Imagine trying to give someone directions without a starting point. It just doesn't work. You have to know where to start before you can know where to go.

Thanks for these replies. I've noticed that both my diagrams are wrong because the +vs and -ves don't spin each other down.

I think Miles may intend a sort of hybrid of the two classifications. He chooses a reference plane, but then each photon or anti-photon classifies itself against this plane, which means that a photon is always a photon and and anti-photon is always an anti-photon. This does give an absolute classification independent of any other observer.

I think this explains why Miles uses the terms very concretely and why he thinks the local ratio in the solar system has very idiosyncratic effects, such as anti-photons from the Moon cooling the Earth. This doesn't make sense if an observer can change the ratio.

The odd thing is that as with my initial classifications, it's actually photons that spin down photons, and anti-photons that spin down anti-photons. There doesn't seem to be a method of classification that avoids this.

.
I agree, Miles has fixed the ratio and 'direction' of photons/antiphons with respect to the solar system. He’s observed that charge flow from the earth’s south pole to the northern hemisphere and north pole is twice as large as the charge flow from the north pole to the southern hemisphere and south pole. For convenience let the larger charge flow be called photons and the smaller flow be called the anti-photons. As such, I would say Miles frame of reference is the earth’s equatorial axis. We can be more precise using the sun’s equatorial plane.

The sun receives charge returning from the planets as well as charge from the center of our galaxy. The source of the 2:1 charge imbalance between photons and anti-photons is due to the sun’s direction of spin. Any charge field observer accounting for any individual charge field system within the solar system must begin with the sun’s spin and the charge it receives from the sun. The ‘idiosyncratic effects’ you mentioned are ultimately due to the sun’s spin and charge output. The observer may choose the reference direction, +/-, but the charge ratio emitted by the sun is a function its spin and is not arbitrary.  
.

So LTAM...has Miles mentioned any connection between +/- photon flows and magnetic reversals? If flows are disrupted then poles reverse?

Hi Cr6. Just between you and me, pushing myself to learn and participate in discussions, I'm often guilty of jumping to conclusions and writing with more conviction than I feel. I’m still far from understanding Miles’ latest papers dealing with Solar Cycles. Here’s the link his Pole Reversal paper from 1 Feb 2018.

194b. Pole Reversals as Proof of my Charge Field. http://milesmathis.com/pole.pdf I explain the pole reversal of the Earth using charge rather than core dynamo theory, solving many mysteries. 5pp.

Miles wrote. Pole reversals are caused by the fact that the entire Solar System is traveling at great velocity through the galaxy, orbiting the galactic core at a great distance.  As it does so, it passes through patches of different charge.  In some patches, photons predominate.  In others, antiphotons predominate.

Airman. As I understand it the amount of photons and antiphotons available to the solar system may vary sufficiently to change the solar system's magnetic poles, however that variation doesn’t immediately affect the spin mechanics of the charge received by the planets as a function of the sun’s spin.

And since I’m always on the lookout for flipping planets, here’s a good quote:

Miles wrote. The important thing to understand is that the Earth is always going to orient to the Sun and outer planets, so it will never flip in any way unless they do.  It may be that the entire Solar System flips relative to the galactic core, but the Earth will never flip relative to the Sun.  It simply can't, short of a major planetary collision.  The Earth can only respond to the greater charge fields around it.

.

Not sure of the source but they quote NASA (2013):

The Sun’s Magnetic Poles Have Flipped…Solar Max is Here!

Although this might sound alarming, there really is nothing to worry about!

It’s a normal part of the solar cycle – it heralds the second half of the solar cycle. Learn about why this happens.

polestages

Image showing the sun’s magnetic fields on Jan. 1, 1997, June 1, 2003, and Dec. 1, 2013. Green indicates postive polarity. Purple is negative.

At a Glance

The sun’s magnetic fields flip approximately every 11 years, defining the solar cycle

The switch happens around the peak of solar activity or the time we call solar maximum.
This reversal tells scientists that the second half of the solar cycle has begun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB17nhzVaSg

The flip will likely cause more space weather, including aurora

When did the magnetic poles flip in Solar Cycle 24?
Both poles have now flipped. The north pole changed its polarity from positive to negative and the south pole changed from negative to positive. Scientists believe the north pole finished the change in June 2012 and the south pole change happened in July 2013.

What causes the flip?

The sun’s magnetic field is generated by a complex process inside the sun called the solar dynamo. The magnetic field starts off as basically up and down, i.e. roughly straight lines between the north and south poles.

The sun is not solid so the equator rotates the fastest and as you move away from the equator, the sun rotates at slower and slower speeds. The sun takes about 25 days to make a complete rotation at the equator and about 35 days at the north or south pole.

The sun is made up of a type of material called plasma and plasmas are magnetic. This means the plasma drags the magnetic field with it over time as it is rotating. The field gets all twisted (like a twisted rubber band) and eventually floats to the visible surface of the sun (photosphere). The magnetic field comes through the photosphere in concentrated regions called sunspots.

https://www.thesuntoday.org/solar-facts/suns-magnetic-poles-flipped-solar-max-is-here/

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-suns-magnetic-field-is-about-to-flip/ 2013

Article on Earth's wondering poles:

https://earthsky.org/earth/magnetic-north-pole-shift-northern-lights

https://returntonow.net/2019/01/29/nasa-the-north-and-south-polls-might-be-about-to-flip-for-the-first-time-in-800000-years/

https://www.universetoday.com/143326/mercury-has-magnetic-poles-that-drift-like-earths/

Mercury has Magnetic Poles that Drift Like Earth’s




Earth’s magnetic poles drift over time. This is something that every airplane pilot or navigator knows. They have to account for it when they plan their flights.

They drift so much, in fact, that the magnetic poles are in different locations than the geographic poles, or the axis of Earth’s rotation. Today, Earth’s magnetic north pole is 965 kilometres (600 mi) away from its geographic pole. Now a new study says the same pole drifting is occurring on Mercury too.

Earth’s magnetic poles anchor our planet’s magnetosphere. The magnetosphere extends out into space around our planet, and protects us from the Sun’s radiation. The magnetosphere and its poles are artifacts of Earth’s molten core, and scientists think that Mercury has a molten core, too.

But what, exactly, makes the poles drift? The phenomenon is called polar drift, and on Earth it’s caused by variations in the flow of molten iron in the planet’s core. On Earth, the north magnetic pole drifts about 55 to 60 kilometers (34 to 37 miles) per year, The south magnetic pole drifts about 10 to 15 kilometers (six to nine miles) each year. The poles also flip, and that’s happened about 100 times in the planet’s history.

The study shows that the same polar drift is likely happening on Mercury, and that the story behind pole drift on that planet is more complicated than thought.

The Earth's magnetic poles drift around in relation to the geographic poles. The drift is caused by variations in the flow of the Earth's liquid core. Image Credit: By Cavit - Own workObserved pole positions taken from Newitt et al., "Location of the North Magnetic Pole in April 2007", Earth Planets Space, 61, 703–710, 2009Modelled pole positions taken from the National Geophysical Data Center, "Wandering of the Geomagnetic Poles"Map created with GMT, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46888403
The Earth’s magnetic poles drift around in relation to the geographic poles. The drift is caused by variations in the flow of the Earth’s liquid core. Image Credit: By Cavit – Own work Observed pole positions taken from Newitt et al., “Location of the North Magnetic Pole in April 2007”, Earth Planets Space, 61, 703–710, 2009 Modeled pole positions taken from the National Geophysical Data Center, “Wandering of the Geomagnetic Poles”Map created with GMT, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46888403
The new study is published in the American Geophysical Union’s Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets. It’s titled “Constraining the Early History of Mercury and its Core Dynamo by Studying the Crustal Magnetic Field.” The lead author is Joana S. Oliviera, an astrophysicist at the European Space Agency’s European Space Research and Technology Centre in Noordwijk.

The authors relied extensively on data gathered by NASA’s MESSENGER (MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging) spacecraft. It orbited Mercury from 2011 to 2015, and it was the first spacecraft to orbit the planet.


Illustration of MESSENGER in orbit around Mercury (NASA/JPL/APL)
One of MESSENGER’s instruments was a magnetometer that measured Mercury’s magnetic field in detail. The spacecraft’s elliptical orbit took it to within 200 km above the surface. MESSENGER acquired data showing weak magnetic anomalies in Mercury’s crustal surface associated with impact craters.

The authors assumed that these anomalies were due to iron in the impactors that created the craters. They also assumed that as this molten material cooled it was shaped by Mercury’s magnetic field.

Scientists know that as igneous rock cools, it preserves a record of the planet’s magnetic field at the time. As long as those rocks contained magnetic material, they will align with the planet’s field. It’s called “thermoremanent magnetization.” As different rock at different locations on Earth cooled at different times, it created a historical record of Earth’s drifting poles. This is how we know that Earth’s poles have flipped in the past, the last time almost 800,000 years ago.

They key to this is the thermoremanent magnetization. As lead author Oliviera said in a press release, “If we want to find clues from the past, doing a kind of archaeology of the magnetic field, then the rocks need to be thermoremanent magnetized.”

Scientists have been able to study Mercury’s magnetic field, but no rock samples have ever been collected. No spacecraft has ever landed on Mercury. To get around this, the authors of this study focused on five impact craters on the surface and on the magnetic data that MESSENGER collected when it got close to Mercury’s surface.

The authors of the paper focuses on five impact craters under MESSENGER's descent trajectory. They're circled in white in this image. Image Credit: AGU
The authors of the paper focuses on five impact craters under MESSENGER’s descent trajectory. They’re circled in white in this image. Image Credit: AGU
Five craters showed different magnetic signatures than MESSENGER measured throughout Mercury. These craters are ancient, between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years old. The researchers thought that they might hold clues to the position of Mercury’s ancient poles, and how they’ve changed over time.

“There are several evolution models of the planet, but no one has used the crustal magnetic field to obtain the planet’s evolution,” Oliveira said.

These impacts melted rock, and as the rock cooled it retained a record of the planet’s magnetic field. They used the magnetic data from those five impact craters to model Mercury’s magnetic field over time. From that, they were able to estimate the location of Mercury’s ancient magnetic poles, or “paleopoles.”

Their results were surprising, and point to Mercury’s complicated magnetic nature. They found that the ancient poles were far from the current south magnetic pole, and that they likely changed through time. That much they expected. But they also expected that the poles would cluster at two points that were close to Mercury’s rotational axis, much like Earth’s. But the poles were randomly distributed, and, shockingly, were all in the southern hemisphere of the planet.

Mercury's magnetic field is dipolar, like Earth's. It's powerful enough to slow down solar radiation and deflect it. But in the past, according to a new study, it may have been more complicated. Image Credit: Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5302198
Mercury’s magnetic field is dipolar, like Earth’s. It’s powerful enough to slow down solar radiation and deflect it. But in the past, according to a new study, it may have been more complicated. Image Credit: Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5302198
As the press release says, “The paleopoles do not align with Mercury’s current magnetic North pole or geographic South, indicating the planet’s dipolar magnetic field has moved.” This evidence supports the idea that Mercury’s magnetic history is much different than Earth’s. It also supports the idea that Mercury shifted along its axis. That’s called a true polar wander, when the geographic locations of the North and South Poles change.

While Earth has a dipolar magnetic field with a distinct northern pole and southern pole, Mercury is different. It currently has a dipolar-quadrupolar magnetic field with two poles and a shift in the magnetic equator. In ancient times, according to this study, it may have had the same field. Or, it may have had a multipolar field, with twisted magnetic “field lines like spaghetti” according to Oliviera.

Earth's Magnetic North Pole Continues Drifting, Crosses Prime Meridian

By Stephanie Pappas - Live Science Contributor December 16, 2019

Earth’s magnetic field protects us from the solar wind by deflecting the charged particles.
Earth’s magnetic field protects us from the solar wind by deflecting the charged particles.
(Image: Shutterstock)
Earth's magnetic north pole, which has been wandering faster than expected in recent years, has now crossed the prime meridian.

Magnetic north has been lurching away from its previous home in the Canadian Arctic toward Siberia at a rate of about 34 miles (55 kilometers) a year over the past two decades. The latest model of the Earth's magnetic field, released Dec. 10 by the National Centers for Environmental Information and the British Geological Survey, predicts that this movement will continue, though likely at a slower rate of 25 miles (40 km) each year.

This model is used to calibrate GPS and other navigation measurements.

Earth's magnetic field is produced by the churning of the planet's iron outer core, which produces a complex, but largely north-south magnetic field. For reasons not entirely understood but related to the planet's interior dynamics, the magnetic field is currently undergoing a period of weakening. That's why magnetic north is drifting.

As of February 2019, magnetic north was located at 86.54 N 170.88 E, within the Arctic Ocean, according to the NCEI. (Magnetic south similarly does not line up with geographic south; it was at at 64.13 S 136.02 E off the coast of Antarctica as of February 2019.)

Scientists release a new version of the World Magnetic Model every five years, so this 2020 update was expected. In February 2019, though, they had to release an update ahead of schedule due to the fast clip of magnetic north's movements. The 2020 model shows the "Blackout Zone" around magnetic north where compasses become unreliable and start to fail because of the proximity of true north. The new maps also show magnetic north east of the prime meridian, a boundary the pole crossed in September 2019, according to Newsweek. The prime, or Greenwich, meridian is the meridian that was set as the official marker of zero degrees, zero minutes and zero seconds in 1884;iIt runs through the Royal Observatory at Greenwich in England.

Related: What If Earth's Magnetic Poles Flip?

It's currently unclear whether Earth's magnetic poles are headed for a flip-flop — switching north and south — or whether the magnetic field will soon strengthen again. Both events have happened in Earth's history without any notable effect on biology. However, modern navigation systems rely on magnetic north and will have to be recalibrated as the poles continue to wander. Already, for example, airports have had to rename some of their runways, which have names based on compass directions.

https://www.livescience.com/earth-magnetic-north-passes-prime-meridian.html