The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Photons and why they're so hard to explain  (Read 30834 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« on: 03/12/2007 23:43:04 »
The other day I was doing something quite mundane, maybe frying an egg or something, I don’t recall exactly what it was. But then it suddenly occurred to me the precision with which science is able to explain almost every phenomena in such excruciating detail that everything, from the  trajectory of a drop of sputtering oil to the fertilization of an orchid, can be seen as a series of minutely connected events. It is truly amazing if you think about it, superstition, which played such an important role throughout human history, has been almost overwhelmed by such detailed knowledge. The very fact that such knowledge can exist is almost superstitious in itself. Why don’t unexplained things exist, it seems almost a paradox in itself. Why do events have such perfect explanations ?

 Yet when it comes to the photon, and forget for the moment the difference between the macro and the micro world and stick to available solutions. Why did Physicists choose a model of the photon in which it was neither a particle nor a wave? I can understand if physicists said that the photon is a synthesis between a wave and a particle. But this is expressly what it is understood  what it is not meant to be.

My question is, leaving aside for the moment the question of the maths behind the decision which is shaky to say the least, what gives the physicist the right to arbitrarily  choose between two alternatives and then to maintain in the face of evidence to the contrary, showing that his theory is full of holes, that his decision was irrevocably right! Surely the rest of humanity, the artists and the philosophers and the so called rational man should have some say in the matter too?


« Last Edit: 08/12/2007 12:26:36 by chris »


 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #1 on: 04/12/2007 04:03:43 »
But do they do the experiments?
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #2 on: 04/12/2007 14:07:13 »
The other day I was doing something quite mundane, maybe frying an egg or something, I don’t recall exactly what it was. But then it suddenly occurred to me the precision with which science is able to explain almost every phenomena in such excruciating detail that everything, from the  trajectory of a drop of sputtering oil to the fertilization of an orchid, can be seen as a series of minutely connected events. It is truly amazing if you think about it, superstition, which played such an important role throughout human history, has been almost overwhelmed by such detailed knowledge. The very fact that such knowledge can exist is almost superstitious in itself. Why don’t unexplained things exist, it seems almost a paradox in itself. Why do events have such perfect explanations ?

 Yet when it comes to the photon, and forget for the moment the difference between the macro and the micro world and stick to available solutions. Why did Physicists choose a model of the photon in which it was neither a particle nor a wave? I can understand if physicists said that the photon is a synthesis between a wave and a particle. But this is expressly what it is understood  what it is not meant to be.

My question is, leaving aside for the moment the question of the maths behind the decision which is shaky to say the least, what gives the physicist the right to arbitrarily  choose between two alternatives and then to maintain in the face of evidence to the contrary, showing that his theory is full of holes, that his decision was irrevocably right! Surely the rest of humanity, the artists and the philosophers and the so called rational man should have some say in the matter too?
I think your principal mistake is to think that a "photon" have to be "something" precisely defined, at least because it has a simple name. Physicists give it such a simple name because it would be more long to talk about "quantum of energy in the electromagnetic field" every time.
1.Does this definition mean there is "something" which propagates from source to detector?
2.If your answer is "yes" then can you tell me of what and how this "something" is made? Don't ask me or yourself this question, ask it to some very expert physicist, then bring here the answer and we will discuss it.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #3 on: 04/12/2007 17:54:31 »
Surely the rest of humanity, the artists and the philosophers and the so called rational man should have some say in the matter too?

Would you hire artists and philosophers with no training to draw up blueprints for building your car?  It would probably be a very interesting design, but it would also fall apart on the highway.  For the same reason, you need to make sure the models of light hold up on the highway of reality.  The photon is currently the best fundamental model of light.
 

Offline techmind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Un-obfuscated
    • View Profile
    • techmind.org
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #4 on: 04/12/2007 22:56:14 »
If you can come up with a more satisfactory model which precisely matches all existing experimental results at least as well as the currently-accepted theory (fudge, if you insist), then go ahead...

It gets tricky when you come to single-photon double-slit interference experiments(!) ...
Be careful though, because some oft-quoted results turn out only to be gedanken (thought) experiments - so check your sources carefully.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
and note that electrons as well as photons have this strange "wave-particle duality"
« Last Edit: 04/12/2007 23:06:41 by techmind »
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #5 on: 04/12/2007 23:59:19 »
Quote
Would you hire artists and philosophers with no training to draw up blueprints for building your car?  It would probably be a very interesting design, but it would also fall apart on the highway.

That is precisely the point, neither would I hire a spiritualist or psychic for the same job. It is this very point that I am arguing about. When solutions do exist   that are within the realm of the natural, why go into the supernatural to explain the behaviour of matter. For instance light is supposed to disassociate or disembody itself when it is traveling from one place to another. To me this sounds like a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo concocted by a witch doctor. This is not the only example of venturing into the supernatural, I can quote at least five or six examples to illustrate the point.

Quote

 
If you can come up with a more satisfactory model which precisely matches all existing experimental results at least as well as the currently-accepted theory (fudge, if you insist), then go ahead...

Believe me I was not the one to come up with this theory. This was the theory that existed before these particular weird aspects of QM came along to explain things. Only now it looks as if it can be be and is being substantiated by new discoveries.  Keep an open mind!

« Last Edit: 05/12/2007 00:11:32 by McQueen »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #6 on: 05/12/2007 18:09:38 »
I would recommend a reading of two of the greats in the philosophy of science Karl Popper [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper]  (falsifiability being cornerstone, never absolute proof) and then Thomas Kuhn [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn] who talks at length about inherent conservatism of scientific opinion (received wisdom) which is only advanced through great changes - paradigm shifts.  Popper ehlps understand the true scientific mindset and Kuhn then sets about destroying it.

Matthew
 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #7 on: 05/12/2007 23:18:46 »
Quote
To me this sounds like a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo concocted by a witch doctor. This is not the only example of venturing into the supernatural, I can quote at least five or six examples to illustrate the point.
It is the supernatural, if, by that, you mean something outside the experience of  Natural Scientists up to the point the idea developed. It is just one of those things  which are not explicable using the cosy, familiar ideas of the classical Physicist.
Physics is not the only area where this happens. Look at Maths; every few years there is an entirely new bit of maths which comes out, needing a new way of looking at things. Are imaginary numbers supernatural? They may have been regarded that way by  the establishment of the time but now?
Also, perhaps you could quote a couple of your five or six examples.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #8 on: 06/12/2007 01:22:29 »
Quote
It is the supernatural

Why ????   When supernatural phenomena clearly do not exist in the world we live in. Why opt for a supernatural solution when a perfectly natural solution exists? That is precisely the point of this post. Look at your argument familiar, cosy are these the terms that physicists normally use. Can you imagine describing Newton’s Laws of motion in terms of ‘cosy’ and 'familiar'. I am telling you the whole idea of introducing the supernatural into physics is utterly absurd.  The most absurd aspect of this situation is that physicists are not even willing to discuss anything new. It is as if what they had to say was in the form of a caveat .
Let us look at whjat you had to say more closely!
Quote
It is the supernatural, if, by that, you mean something outside the experience of  Natural Scientists up to the point the idea developed. It is just one of those things  which are not explicable using the cosy, familiar ideas of the classical Physicist.
'..............something outside the experience of Natural Scientists upto the point the idea developed."
Sp suddenly because an idea 'develops' we have supernatural phenomena? Come on give me a break. I am sure that millions upon millions of people would love to have Harry Potter kind of scenarios in their everday lives, but that does not mean it is going to happen!

« Last Edit: 06/12/2007 01:26:26 by McQueen »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #9 on: 06/12/2007 01:47:10 »
The most absurd aspect of this situation is that physicists are not even willing to discuss anything new.

Physicists are perfectly willing to discuss new ideas, and they're also willing to accept that old ideas aren't 100% accurate as well.  If you want to get a new theory accepted, you need to make sure it matches all current results, and then use it to predict some things that other models can't.  If you simply want to discredit the photon model of light, then you need to actually give some proof.  You claim that the theory is "full of holes," but you have yet to actually describe any problems with it aside from your objection that you think it's "supernatural."
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #10 on: 06/12/2007 01:58:55 »
Quote
You claim that the theory is "full of holes," but you have yet to actually describe any problems with it aside from your objection that you think it's "supernatural."
This is really phenomenal, You are so wrapped up in mathematics that you can't seem to see the forest for the trees!  Wake up and smell the coffee! Look an object cannot disembody itself, if you want clarification on what this means. An object starts of at point A it then dismbodies itself,(i.e., exists in all places between point A and point B) until it finally re-manifests itself at point B. Apart from disembodiment, an object cannot be in two places at the same time! An object cannot possess two separate identities at the same time. If an object does posses any of these attributes it is supernatural. OK. So that is the definition of supernatural, what is there for me to describe.

Furthermore this is extremely important to everyone, not just some tacky physical point. Look around you. everything that you see is conveyed to the senses by photons!
So how it happens is  important, not only to physicists but to everyone else.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2007 02:01:13 by McQueen »
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #11 on: 06/12/2007 03:05:43 »
Everyone seems to be saying, ‘OK so you don’t like our theory:  Give us an alternate Theory.’
Conveniently forgetting that I did put forward an alternate theory
A new Classical Physics .

This might sound hard to believe but I  purposely said something absurd in that thread, just to see what the reaction would be.  What I said contradicted the neutrality of the photon. (i.e., I said that electromagnetic waves would be affected by an electric field or a magnetic field.) I made this statement just in order to see what the reaction would be. The reaction was predictable there was almost a consensus that the whole theory was ridiculous and that it should be buried in the New Theory section of this Forum. Why did I make the statement, when I knew that it was false, well physicists make the most ridiculous statements, supported as I have said before by the most shaky of mathematical foundations, and for the most part go unchallenged. I just wanted to see whether a normal reaction could be elicited when I made an unfounded and blatantly false statement!

But think about it, the neutrality of the photon is one of its fundamental properties, would I overlook such an important aspect of it? You can see from web-site that I had in fact addressed this aspect first . What is interesting however, is that,. The other nine corresponding properties of the photon that my theory explains perfectly, were completely ignored.

The Gestalt Theory of Light and related phenomena, does explain almost every property of the photon:

(1)   It explains wave-particle duality.
(2)   It explains why such huge variations in photon wave-length and energies are possible.
(3)   It explains how a tiny particle like an electron can emit  huge wave-lengths of 1Km or more.
(4)   It explains why photons travel at the speed of light . It even explains why the speed of light is constant.
(5)   It explains the neutrality of the photon.
(6)   It explains how the photon retains its energy intact until it is absorbed.
(7)   It explains, in a workable manner and for the first time, the difference between radio frequencies and optical frequencies, while still maintaining the same basic identity for the photon.
(8)   It explains how photons of different energies are formed.

And the wonderful thing about all this is that it does so, without recourse to anything supernatural, and is based on hypotheses formulated by  Classical physicists. Gestalt Theory is simple to understand, there are no complicated concepts. Anyone can understand it and say, as lightarrow did, Hey! This is wrong!

So there you have it. I say something ridiculous and it is immediately pounced on and disposed of with despatch.
 
You say something ridiculous, like light is both a wave and a particle or that light undergoes disembodiment as it travels from point A to point B and everyone applauds, because it is supposedly    supported by mathematics which is in reality just a mumbo-jumbo of abstractions and in the end explains nothing.


« Last Edit: 06/12/2007 03:15:03 by McQueen »
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #12 on: 06/12/2007 10:53:31 »
Quote
You claim that the theory is "full of holes," but you have yet to actually describe any problems with it aside from your objection that you think it's "supernatural."
This is really phenomenal, You are so wrapped up in mathematics that you can't seem to see the forest for the trees!  Wake up and smell the coffee! Look an object cannot disembody itself, if you want clarification on what this means. An object starts of at point A it then dismbodies itself,(i.e., exists in all places between point A and point B) until it finally re-manifests itself at point B. Apart from disembodiment, an object cannot be in two places at the same time! An object cannot possess two separate identities at the same time. If an object does posses any of these attributes it is supernatural. OK. So that is the definition of supernatural, what is there for me to describe.
Do you remember when I wrote that a photon is not an object?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #13 on: 06/12/2007 12:00:12 »
I was trying to stimulate this interchange in an earlier thread but, maybe the ideas will come out here. My view:
Photons are not little bullets. All they are is small portions of energy. If you don't allow for something like a photon then atoms just wouldn't work as they do.  If you didn't postulate photons, you'd have to go for something similar.
At times, the way that they interact with matter  can be treated 'as if' they were  little bullets but no one says they actually are.
The 'size of a photon' only relates to the region of space where it is most probable to have an effect. The shape of that region seems to be best described in terms of waves.
An atom is small compared with  optical wavelengths so the emitted photon has an influence (radiation pattern, in antenna terms) which covers a huge solid angle. Because of the dipole-like nature of the electron's so-called orbit, the field is not omnidirectional, more doughnut shaped.
The photon has a life which is limited by how long the actual emission  and absorption take and the time to travel from one atom to the other.  Its size just relates to this time and c - but there is no point in trying to nail it down because Heisenberg gets in the way. No worries, though.
Whilst the  photon energy is spreading out into space, it is 'up for grabs' by any atom in an appropriate state. There is a bit of 'quantum magic', if you like, which says that, once the photon has been absorbed by an atom over here (or even just started to be absorbed), all its energy is committed and an atom 'over there' can't have it. That implies some communication, in an instant, as the photon's energy collapses everywhere else. Quantum entanglement isn't an unreasonable idea and has been shown to occur  in many events. It's a new idea, of course, but it's not just 'mumbo jumbo'. You can't make a computer with mumbo jumbo - there has to be some reliable science to produce the  technology at work in a quantum computer.

So, the photon doesn't have to be an object and it doesn't actually have to be a wave. It is just a 'construct' which can be used to explain a very common phenomenon. School and TV Science is no help at all, if you want to understand this whole business; it just clouds the issue and needs to be un-learned by students who want to progress.
This area of Physics is fascinating to lay people but the level of comprehension needed to 'get it' is along the lines of Integral Calculus. However, very few lay people feel inclined to take Calculus on board just because it sounds fascinating, so there are many fewer mis-conceptions about Maths than about Physics. How many popular broadcasters would have the nerve to stand in front of  TV camera and spout bollocks about Maths in the way that they do about Science?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #14 on: 06/12/2007 12:11:21 »
I am still having a problem explaining, satisfactorily, the interaction of a (conducting) reflecting surface with a beam of light  and using the photon idea.
There is an implication that, although the fields associated with photons don't  actually affect each other (superposition rules) the interference / diffraction patterns determine the most likely direction in which most of the reflected photons will interact with a target object lies along the 'conventional' reflected beam.
I suppose, in fact, it is similar to the two slit interference problem and best dealt with using wave theory.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #15 on: 06/12/2007 12:28:40 »
I was trying to stimulate this interchange in an earlier thread but, maybe the ideas will come out here. My view:
Photons are not little bullets. All they are is small portions of energy.
Yes and, furthermore, it's even tricky to prove that this "quantized energy" propagates from source to detector; some thinks this quantization of energy happens only when the wave interacts with the detector (or with matter in general).
Quote
An atom is small compared with  optical wavelengths so the emitted photon has an influence (radiation pattern, in antenna terms) which covers a huge solid angle. Because of the dipole-like nature of the electron's so-called orbit, the field is not omnidirectional, more doughnut shaped.
AFAIK, it's worse than that: you can't predict where, in all the solid angle, the photon will be emitted. I can be wrong however.

I agree with the rest of your post.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #16 on: 06/12/2007 12:32:20 »
I am still having a problem explaining, satisfactorily, the interaction of a (conducting) reflecting surface with a beam of light  and using the photon idea.
There is an implication that, although the fields associated with photons don't  actually affect each other (superposition rules) the interference / diffraction patterns determine the most likely direction in which most of the reflected photons will interact with a target object lies along the 'conventional' reflected beam.
I suppose, in fact, it is similar to the two slit interference problem and best dealt with using wave theory.
It's right. You find every possible path and then you sum the amplitudes. Then you square the final amplitude to find the probability. That's essentially the same as the two-slits experiment.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #17 on: 06/12/2007 12:45:07 »
Quote
you can't predict where, in all the solid angle, the photon will be emitted
You were quick!
My point is that you have no idea at all - it's undetermined until something, somewhere,  resonates with the field and then grabs all the energy.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #18 on: 06/12/2007 12:47:48 »
Quote
It's right. You find every possible path and then you sum the amplitudes
Yes - but you are using the classical (Huygens) approach.  (BTW, you add the phasors not the amplitudes!) It works perfectly but I was trying to think in terms of one photon and where it would be most likely to end up. I guess that's a nonsense question, really - falling into the same trap that I was complaining about!
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #19 on: 07/12/2007 07:03:31 »
Do you remember when I wrote that a photon is not an object?

   Would you mind if I rephrased your question to read : “Do you remember when I wrote that I think that a photon is not an object." The reason I say this is that as Einstein so succinctly put it. All physical theories are a free creation of the human mind. There is no guarantee that this is how nature really is. The theory stands or falls on its ability to predict a series of events.

As I understand, traditional wisdom states that  waves are a form of matter as are particles, so how you can arrive at the conclusion that photons are not objects,  I cannot immediately see. What I do understand is that my model of the photon as outlined in Gestalt theory, does stand up to the closest scrutiny and does offer a solution for a photon’s behaviour and attributes within the framework of nature and without resorting to any anomalous concepts.

Whilst the  photon energy is spreading out into space, it is 'up for grabs' by any atom in an appropriate state. There is a bit of 'quantum magic', if you like, which says that, once the photon has been absorbed by an atom over here (or even just started to be absorbed), all its energy is committed and an atom 'over there' can't have it. That implies some communication, in an instant, as the photon's energy collapses everywhere else. Quantum entanglement isn't an unreasonable idea and has been shown to occur  in many events.

Let us consider your statement and see how well it holds water! OK so you have a photon and it’s energy is spreading out into space.  Reason tells us that  it is dissipating its energy as it does this, am I  right?  This is similar to a wave spreading out in a pond as it travels further and further from the source, its energy gets dissipated. But then you rationalize this by saying that all of the photon’s energy is ‘up for grabs’ and is transferred to the first atom it comes into contact with. A difficult concept to come to grips with and it might work if you are dealing with nano distances. But consider that photons have been detected which have traveled billions of kilometers, and aside from a slight red-shift they have conserved their energy (identity) over this tremendous distance.  Now what according to you happens to this energy,  I’ll quote you if I may ‘………. The photon’s energy is spreading out into space!” The exclamation mark is mine.  So stripped of your comments about the lack of ability in a layman to understand these concepts and a need to understand Calculus in order to comprehend, what do you really have?  OK you are going to come back by saying that while it is traveling the photon  takes the form of a wave, then how on earth does it retain it energy intact? You tell me.

By contrast Gestalt theory is able to explain how a photon can travel these vast distances and still retain its identity. There is nothing complicated in the theory. It is something that works.  It  explains all the properties of a photon without any contradictions.

P.S Predictably Light arrow agrees with everything you have to say !
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #20 on: 07/12/2007 08:11:23 »
Quote
It's right. You find every possible path and then you sum the amplitudes
Yes - but you are using the classical (Huygens) approach.  (BTW, you add the phasors not the amplitudes!) It works perfectly but I was trying to think in terms of one photon and where it would be most likely to end up. I guess that's a nonsense question, really - falling into the same trap that I was complaining about!
Actually, I had in mind the way Feynman makes the computation with a particle's wavefunction in the book "QED".
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #21 on: 07/12/2007 08:16:18 »
Do you remember when I wrote that a photon is not an object?

   Would you mind if I rephrased your question to read : “Do you remember when I wrote that I think that a photon is not an object." The reason I say this is that as Einstein so succinctly put it. All physical theories are a free creation of the human mind. There is no guarantee that this is how nature really is. The theory stands or falls on its ability to predict a series of events.
Ok. So, if it's an object, can you tell me, for example, its dimensions?
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #22 on: 07/12/2007 18:55:50 »
I'll admit that physicists are conservative.  We don't like changing our models until we have to.  However, if a theory is incomplete (and yes, we know that the current models which predict the photon are incomplete, at the very least since they can't explain gravity), we are willing to accept new theories.  These new theories do have to match with known experimental evidence however, and usually have to predict new testable results.  Special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory are all examples of radical new theories that came about in the past 100 years or so because physicists realized their theories needed to change.

Your problem isn't so much with physicists not accepting new theories, but with physicists not accepting your theory.  Of course they don't, since the theory you proposed neither makes testable predictions nor agrees with prior observations.  Either your theory has flaws in it, or you're purposely proposing a flawed theory, as you claim "just to see what the reaction would be."  Even if you do have a perfect theory in your back pocket, physicists won't take your theory seriously if you keep purposely making up wrong theories just to see what happens. 
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #23 on: 07/12/2007 19:19:41 »
Ok. So, if it's an object, can you tell me, for example, its dimensions?

Let us take stock of what we know. The electron is a charged particle. So it is probable that what the electron is emitting or absorbing when it wants to lose or gain energy is electrical energy. We assume that when it has extra energy which it wishes to lose, the electron fires of a very rapid series of pulses of electrical energy, with the first such pulses being stronger and successive pulses of energy being weaker, giving a polarity to the whole structure of pulses of electrical energy being emitted or absorbed.  This basically is the structure of what we think of as photons.
The thing to remember here is that even though the  classical diameter of the electron is extremely small about 10^^-13 cms.   this firing off or absorbing of a series of electrical pulses is well within the electron’s capability.  The end result of the polaristion of the charged pulses emitted by the electron result in the forming of a type of  solenoidal field around the series of pulses.

This structure lends several attributes to the photon. The structure resembles that of an electrical capacitor, as such it is capable of retaining its energy almost indefinitely. Similarly this structure also contributes to the neutrality of the photon it is not affected by other forces but is a self contained unit. Here is the final picture of what a fully formed photon might look like.
Note also that the structure of the photon as described makes it easy to be both absorbed and emitted by the electron. This is the structure and sequence of events that go into the forming of a photon according to Gestalt Theory.
This structure also offers a very simple explanation of how an electron is able to emit the more than billions of frequencies associated with optical photons. It is just a simple variation in energy levels. So all that an electron need do to emit a photon of a different frequency or energy is to vary the amount of energy it is emitting!
A photon's frequency varies with is wavelength according to the relation f = hc/l. Isn't it simple to understand, doesn't it bring to mind Occam's razor? Look at QM by contrast!!

Gestalt theory offers a different explanation for the formation of radio frequency photons though the photon structure is absolutely the same as that for optical photons.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2007 21:03:13 by McQueen »
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #24 on: 07/12/2007 19:31:03 »
Your problem isn't so much with physicists not accepting new theories, but with physicists not accepting your theory.  Of course they don't, since the theory you proposed neither makes testable predictions nor agrees with prior observations.  Either your theory has flaws in it, or you're purposely proposing a flawed theory, as you claim "just to see what the reaction would be."  Even if you do have a perfect theory in your back pocket, physicists won't take your theory seriously if you keep purposely making up wrong theories just to see what happens.

The challenge is taken up, ask me any question and if the answer I give you is not more compact, more to the point and more reasonable than its QM counterpart. I will apologise. Ask a question show that you have an open mind!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Photons and why they're so hard to explain
« Reply #24 on: 07/12/2007 19:31:03 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums