The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: light as two particles?  (Read 5928 times)

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« on: 28/02/2010 05:42:11 »
light, for all we claim to know about it, remains somewhat a mystery to us on the whole. it displays properties of both a particle and a wave, as we all know. based on prior human misconceptions of math and science I'd say there's a strong chance we've gotten a good many things wrong over the years. so, new hypotheses must be generated no matter what, in order for any sort of progress to exist. I sat down one day and tried to come up with an alternative theory for the nature of light and this is what I came up with:

light is in fact TWO very different particles.

in very much the same way as we detect orbiting bodies around distant stars (that is to say, witnessing a "wobble" associated with the star or other massive cosmic body)
in my mind...

light is in fact comprised of a very, very, very small particle orbiting a very, very small particle. this would account for the particle-like behavior as well as the wave-like behavior, as a profile view of such a system would indeed yield the wave pattern we're all accustomed to. we have only been able to define the rapidly wobbling larger particle, and have been unable to conceive of the infinitesimally tiny orbiting particle because we have no proof. instead, we have deemed each individual ('bundle of energy') system 'the photon' and left it at that. saying it has 'no mass' is essentially synonymous to 'we can't detect nor account nor prove a mass... yet".

if the orbit of the smaller particle is consistently perpendicular to the direction of travel of the larger particle, this theory need not violate our current notion that nothing exceeds the speed of light (assuming that conception is true).

feel free to shoot this theory down with whatever ammunition you've got, as that is the very reason it has been provided.

i also urge you to mess around with the figures related to this nutso theory, because its fun. try calculating the masses and distances apart of such particles based on known wavelengths of light!

and, if you've ever sat down and tried to conceive light for yourself, please share your ideas!

p.s. sorry for putting this in the wrong forum. someone didn't do their research... :(

Thanks, but this sounds like a new theory, so we'll put it in that forum.

Mod


« Last Edit: 28/02/2010 05:50:07 by grahamsteen »


 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #1 on: 28/02/2010 07:30:04 »
Another way you could account for the wave-particle duality is to consider the repercussions from photons not existing in time. This would imply that all photons are the same entity, since they all share the same (non)time-slice. They would produce an interference pattern when fired individually through two slits because they all go through at the same time, from their perspective. You could say they interfere with themselves. We experience them as occurring at different times because we have mass, and exist in time.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #2 on: 28/02/2010 10:33:18 »
Interesting idea.
How come they all travel at the same speed?
 

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #3 on: 28/02/2010 15:28:37 »
Another way you could account for the wave-particle duality is to consider the repercussions from photons not existing in time. This would imply that all photons are the same entity, since they all share the same (non)time-slice. They would produce an interference pattern when fired individually through two slits because they all go through at the same time, from their perspective. You could say they interfere with themselves. We experience them as occurring at different times because we have mass, and exist in time.

wouldn't the fact that you can slow light down put a hole in this theory? for instance, in water, light only travels at 214,137,470 m/s compared to its normal 299,792,458 m/s we use for describing it in a vacuum. light does in fact travel at varied speeds, and therefore must exist in time in order to account for this difference (i've lost .00001sec because of that damn water, says the photon trying to reach its ultimate destination). if half the light from a star has to travel through a nebula and the other half has only the relative vacuum of space to contend with, the latter half wins. there's no catching up unless you allow for light to travel faster than c.

Interesting idea.
How come they all travel at the same speed?

i think the speed at which they travel is a consequence of the medium they travel through, not anything inherent in the particles themselves.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #4 on: 28/02/2010 15:53:38 »
Howe do they know to travel at c in a vacuum?
 

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #5 on: 28/02/2010 16:12:16 »
i would argue that there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, and that for something as infinitesimally small as a light particle even a relative vacuum is deceptively un-empty. what we would call a vacuum simply has a refractive index so close to one that we can't fathom it. but it's not really one.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #6 on: 28/02/2010 17:09:30 »
The space between the molecules is a vacuum. How do they know how fast to cross those gaps?
 

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #7 on: 28/02/2010 18:32:57 »
The space between the molecules is a vacuum. How do they know how fast to cross those gaps?

because they have momentum. and, they are acted upon by everything they've ever passed through, like so many tiny little hands pushing them along at the near-constant velocity c. the universe being deceptively full, after all. so while "normal" particles are slowed by their interactions with other forms of matter, (friction) light is unique in its ability to be pushed along in this manner, maintaining its consistent velocity.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #8 on: 28/02/2010 18:53:36 »
So, just as they leave one particle to cross the gap to the next they speed up, because they have momentum.
That sounds wrong to me.
 

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #9 on: 28/02/2010 19:59:22 »
well i thought of it like this:

with light more or less as a nano-nano filament of matter laced with energy. that is a gross oversimplification, but i attempted to illustrate the two particle idea in the diagram above. a stream of such particles has a mass at the core, perhaps particles lined up bumper to bumper.

edit: so light never encounters a 'vacuum' because it carries its own mass, and is pushed by the particles behind it all the way from the light source. kind of like thermite has its own oxygen source so it burns underwater. thermite reaction is to vacuum as light is to vacuum. it just works!
« Last Edit: 28/02/2010 20:02:23 by grahamsteen »
 

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #10 on: 01/03/2010 00:30:27 »
So, just as they leave one particle to cross the gap to the next they speed up, because they have momentum.
That sounds wrong to me.

and, i never said this. i said they knew how fast to go because they were carrying momentum, and never mentioned a speeding up of any kind. i hate what the idea of a vacuum has done to everyone!
 

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #11 on: 01/03/2010 05:03:33 »
and I get it, i'll come back with math eventually, just you wait. make that very eventually. no more of these silly words.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #12 on: 01/03/2010 15:48:31 »
And if we assume this particle to travel at 'c' in a vacuum Grahamsteen?
I'm assuming that you mean the 'orbital' this particle does to be perpendicular to the 'photons' direction if so?

Do you define a momentum to them both?
If so, won't you get a 'corkscrew effect' to that?
And also, if you look at the particle traveling 'straight' it will do so at 'c' and if we define that as the fastest velocity anything can have, the outer 'orbiting' particle will have to travel a longer distance to be in 'sync' with the straight one.

That can mean one of two things, either the 'orbiting one' travels faster than light, or the one taking the straightest line is traveling slower than 'c' to allow the other one to 'catch up'? And if it isn't perpendicular it has to do much the same, doesn't it?
« Last Edit: 01/03/2010 15:58:19 by yor_on »
 

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #13 on: 02/03/2010 00:01:40 »
i've assumed the center particle to be, as yet, undetectable and the orbiting particle to be what we now call the photon. the second is massless, while the center has mass.

i knew this theory would come apart eventually, but what the hell, i'll see if i can try and explain the allegations away one more time. 'tis fun.

hmm...

well, l i'm assuming that only the center particle has momentum, and travels at c. the 'outer' particle's only frame of reference is the inner particle. to it, the only motion present is in the orbiting. thus, there is no corkscrewing effect on the inner particle, just the outer.

 

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #14 on: 02/03/2010 01:14:20 »
just so i'm making a complete fool of myself (gotta giv'er):

if the center mass in this theory was comprised of a sort of antimatter, couldn't matter/antimatter annihilation on a small scale explain the energy light imparts on matter?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #15 on: 02/03/2010 10:02:04 »
Matter/antimatter annihilations do leave photons after themselves. Are you then suggesting that there are 'photons', and then there are, 'photons' :) Not bad, If we now throw in some branes and Gauge theory in it we have ourselves a concept, in 'n dimensional space' of course..

If you consider the orbiting particle in time it will have a corkscrewing motion moving through space around your straight particle. That's what I meant by a longer journey.
 

Offline grahamsteen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #16 on: 02/03/2010 16:42:53 »
well i suppose at this point claiming that it doesn't matter that the orbital has a longer journey isn't too far fetched. though it does spit in the face of some really smart people. an alternative to the 'photon' and 'photon' mess could be to substitute antimatter for dark matter. what's the reason we're missing some of our universe? it's caught up at the moment, transporting light AND, some weird gravity. at the same time.

i do like the dual photon thought though, in larger annihilations the photons given off are the leftovers. in small, single photon annihilations, there are no leftovers, just a loss of energy in the collision and subsequent reflection. or total absorption.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
light as two particles?
« Reply #17 on: 02/03/2010 18:07:19 »
Well, if ever photons is shown to travel slower in a vacuum than 'c' :) then you can state. "What was it I said.." after all, there are some other people saying that it is a possibility too.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

light as two particles?
« Reply #17 on: 02/03/2010 18:07:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length