Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: McQueen on 29/09/2005 22:52:16
-
There exist today , two main theories on the propagation of light . The first is that proposed by Maxwell , which is that light is the result of interacting magnetic and electric fields which constantly renew each other and the other is the QED ( Quantum Electrodynamic Theory ) which states that light propagates through the interaction of photons with Quantum entangled pairs. Thus an electron as it travels interacts with an electron � positron pair which undergoes annihilation giving rise to two new photons of the same value as the original photon. The first theory has been disproved by Max Planck , since this was the theory that had led to the ultra violet catastrophe. The second theory sounds at least to me , a bit too bizarre to be true. This leaves room to put forward my theory on the propagation of light , which I have called variously the �aumic� theory and the �Gestalt Theory �. In order to understand �gestalt theory �you will have to go into a park or a garden on a sunny day. The garden should normally be full of colours. What you are in actual fact seeing is the result of electrons vibrating at Terahertz frequencies or 100,000,000,000,000 times a second. Thus all the colours we see oranges , purples , blues , yellows , pinks etc., are the result of electrons rapidly absorbing and emitting photons under excitation from the sun�s rays . Previously we were wont to believe that photon emission was a leisurely affair , the photon would absorb , take its time emit, and then stick around for a while maybe repeat the process , maybe not. Not so , electron emission and absorption can go on continuously for minutes , hours , days , years , centuries , millennia. You don�t agree ? How are atomic spectra lines formed ? Using probability theory , it is probable since the electrons are vibrating ( emitting photons ) which such extreme rapidity , that there is a favoured direction of emission. If you add to this probability , the Gestalt Theory view , that the virtual photons of the virtual photon field , align themselves in the direction of propagation of real energetic photons , this premise ( at least according to this theory ) becomes a certainty. Having made this premise , it is possible now to follow the course of a single line of photons emitted by a single electron. At a distance of one metre from the source ( electron) there is a single long line of evenly spaced photons , at two metres the lead photon begins to interact with the virtual photons of the field and three virtual photons adjacent to the lead photon are �promoted� to real photons. Simultaneously with this the photons immediately behind the �promoted virtual photons� are also �promoted� , the energy of the real photons being displaced sideways to achieve this , while the displaced energy is instantantaneously replaced by the photons immediately behind the displaced photon. Thus at two metres what had been a single line of photons , is now four lines of photons , although proportionately shorter than the original single line of photons. At three metres five more virtual photons are promoted and what had been four lines of photons is now nine lines of photons , proportionately shorter and so on. At five metres you would have twenty five lines of photons and at eight metres , sixty-four and so on. It should be noted that the number of photons is conserved , in keeping with the law of the conservation of energy , they are only re-distributed in a different formation. It should be noted that only photons in the leading edge interact with �virtual � photons. This is borne out by the fact that intensity remains in the same proportion to distance regardless of time. By this stage ( if you have read so far ) many people are commenting about what an absurd theory this is , because obviously there is going to come a time when the photon formation collapses , whereas everyone knows that light lasts forever. I admit that , according to this theory , light does not last forever , eventually the photon formation breaks up , but thankfully the light does not die , it just fades away and the real photons become �virtual� photons. But how could this be you say , haven�t we just read that light can travel for billions of light years ?
-
On the Propagation of Light ( Part Two)
The example we looked at in the preceding section dealt with the general way in which light propagates. There are two more factors of significance. The first is the duration or time for which the output ( photon emission ) is maintained , the second deals with the number of electrons emitting photons. Taking the first instance , suppose that the electron was emitting for one second , then the emitted photons would travel for approx a thousand kilometers and at the end of that time spread out over an area of one metre. If the electron emits for one minute the photons would travel for seven thousand five hundred kilometers and spread out over an area of about seven and a half square metres and so on. The second factor involves the number of electrons involved in the emission process. Normally when we have a source of light , electrons will be emitting in every possible direction , but since there are so many photons being emitted ( in the region of 10 ^^ 20 per second from a 40 Watt bulb , when dealing with visible light) , that a good amount of the light ends up traveling in the same direction. When this happens and a lot of photons are traveling in the same direction together, there is less scope for interaction with the “virtual” photon field , which means that the light can propagate for much further. It is because of this ‘shielding ‘ from the virtual photon field , that lasers can propagate for such huge distances without drastic losses in intensity. Once they do begin to interact with the virtual photon field , they rapidly degenerate . ( If this were not the case we would be using lasers for deep space communications ) . So , the point is that given enough power and time light can propagate for enormous distances. If you are not convinced , that’s too bad , but remember that it is using this same inverse square law that the Voyager craft is communicating with earth from a distance of more than six billion kilometers. The manner of propagation outlined above means that literally countless frequencies can propagate together , while at the same time retaining their individual eigen energies. The different frequencies can travel together giving rise to new frequencies , always keeping their individual energies intact . White light for instance is a mixture of several different frequencies , yet each individual frequency of light is retained intact and can be separated. Gestalt or Aumic theory enables the photon to retain its individual energies , to travel at the speed of light , to intermingle with other photons giving rise to new frequencies , to be mass less , to have the properties of both a wave and a particle , to follow the inverse square law of intensity and so on. At the moment we have no understanding of light at all , proof of this is the Hubble just sitting there without tabulating even the simplest data. From how far can a 1 watt bulb be detected if it shines for one second , for two seconds etc.,to at what distance is it no longer possible to detect the light and so on.
-
McQ,
thanks for posting this, it’s interesting and thought provoking. Your aumic/gestalt theory sounds like it might be plausible … but I must admit that I’m still a little confused as to what exactly the theory IS.
My view is that for a theory to be meaningful – to be really worthwhile – it needs to be consistent with known experimental results and it also needs to be able to predict new results.
Relativity, for example, was consistent with what had gone before (Newtonian mechanics) because at low speeds (i.e. low relative to the speed of light) it predicted the same results as Newton did. But it went further – Einstein’s general relativity equation explained the precession in the perihelion of Mercury (something that no previous theory could explain), and also went on to make new predictions (new experiments that could be used to verify the theory), such as the bending of light rays in the vicinity of the huge gravitational attraction of the Sun.
I don’t understand what aumic/gestalt theory predicts that other theories don’t. What experiments does it suggest that aren’t suggested by QED? And I’m talking about QUANTIFIABLE results/predictions here. (Maths is the language of science – does your theory have any mathematics behind it?)
To me, the best experiment for demonstrating quantum theory is the double-slit experiment (run with one electron/photon at a time going through the system, with/without detectors over the slits). QED predicts the results of this experiment perfectly – even if it can’t give an explanation of what’s actually happening! (Hence the various philosophical interpretations of Q theory – Copenhagen, hidden variables, many-worlds, etc.)
Does your theory give an explanation of what’s actually happening in this double-slit experiment? (If it does then I’m very interested.)
Also (finally), I’ve got 3 specific questions on your postings above:
1) What’s the difference between virtual and real photons? What different properties do they exhibit, such that it’s meaningful to talk about virtuals being “promoted” to real photons. (I know I’ve already asked this in a previous discussion, but I still don’t understand. Maybe I’m just being thick.)
2) When you talk about a single electron emitting a continuous stream of evenly spaced photons … don’t you accept the quantum view that electrons (in an atomic “shell”) can only emit (real) photons when they drop from one discrete energy level to another? (I thought there was plenty of experimental evidence for this view.)
3) Why do you need a mechanism to explain the inverse square law of intensity? Surely it’s just geometry!
(Say a light source emits 1000 photons. These photons travel out in the shape on an ever-increasing sphere. The intensity of the light is, basically, just the number of photons per unit area of that sphere. The surface area of a sphere is 4.pi.r^2, so the intensity varies as 1000 / 4.pi.r^2 – i.e. it’s inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. Simple.)
Thanks.
Solvay.
-
Paul
Gestalt Theory , as the name implies , is a theory that explains all related ( at least to do with electricity , light , magnetism , electromagnetism and gravity ) phenomenon in a single theory , each part of which cannot exist without the other , forming a single seamless whole. This is in marked contrast to the fractured aspect that physics presents today , with multiple explanations being given for identical phenomenon, take the propagation of electromagnetic radiation which is divided into optical and higher frequencies and lower frequencies, permanent magnetism and magnetism due to a current etc., Before I go further into my explanation , I think I should try to clear the rather hazy explanation I had given for the double slit experiment with single electrons and both slits open. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words so here goes. (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Fdlp_jms%2FDS.gif++&hash=72d073b5b8171d120f9da347861ff8d5) As can be seen ( hopefully , I’m not much of a hand at this ) the “virtual” photon field (aether) diffracts through both slits while the particle passes through only one slit and is registered on the screen in accordance with the interference of the “virtual” photon field (aether). In other words the particle follows the path where the photon field is most intense. (i.e., The net result will be to produce a mean distribution in a statistical ensemble of bodies , which favours the region where the “virtual” photon field is most intense. (i.e an interference pattern)). You can see why I favour this explanation over , explanations such as super luminal communication , where the particle somehow knows before hand whether both slits are open or if only one slit is open , and the alternative explanation , where particles having mass and dimensions ( such as the neutron ) are able to disassociate (i.e ., be in two places at once ) and somehow manage to pass through both slits at the same time. In fact , if viewed dispassionately , the Double Slit Experiment with single electrons proves conclusively the existence of an aether like substance , which might be the “virtual” photon field which I have postulated. As you know photons exist in trillions of frequencies and energies. I had stated earlier that the experiment known as the Lamb shift proves conclusively the phenomenon of the self interaction of electrons , wherein a “virtual” photon is emitted and immediately re-absorbed in such a short space of time( e.g., 10 ^^ -19 secs.) that the conservation laws are not violated. The other type of virtual photon is one with an extremely low energy , sometimes referred to as zero energy photons , which is not completely accurate , this type of “virtual “photon , is randomly oriented and is more or less stationary in space. “Virtual” photons of this type make up the “virtual” photon field , which takes the place of the aether in Gestalt theory. Because of their very low energies , no electron in any atom can absorb them so they can literally pass through matter as if it didn’t exist , in the presence of a real photon these “virtual “ photons align themselves in the direction of propagation of the real photon forming a line whose ends rest on infinity and the energy of the real photon is transmitted along this line of “virtual” photons. If you get back to me on your take on my explanation for the Double Slit Experiment with single electrons , I will then attempt to answer your other questions , since it would otherwise be a pointless exercise.
-
McQ,
many thanks for taking the time to engage me on this - it must be frustrating having to explain everything to me at least twice. (I admit I'm a bit slow on the uptake - yet too quick to look for holes in everyone's arguments.)
Just a couple of questions on the double-slit experiment:
1) You say that the virtual photon field won't interact with electrons, so it just passes through matter. So how/why does the field get altered by passing through the two slits in your diagram? Surely the presence of the slits shouldn't affect the field/aether?
2) When a photon (or electron) detector is placed over one (or both) of the slits, the photon (or electron) stops exhibiting an interference pattern. How does your theory explain this? (How/why is the field altered so drastically by the presence of the detector?)
Also, I've just thought of something - all matter above absolute zero emits photons - if something has a measurable temperature, then it's emitting thermal radiation (in the form of photons). These photons will of course be of very low energy (if the temperature is low - e.g. room temperature or less) so they won't be in the visible light spectrum. But can they still have an impact on your field/aether?
(Like I said, that's only just occurred to me - I can't think through whether it's an argument against your theory or for it!)
Solvay.
-
Now I've thought about it for a few minutes, what I've just said might (maybe?) be an argument against your theory:
The screen with the slits in it will be emitting low energy (but "real") photons in all directions. Won't your virtual photons align themselves with these photons as well as with the higher-energy (visible light) photons that you're sending through the system? Thus destroying the field pattern?
-
Paul
That is totally ridiculous , it’s not a question of being slow on the uptake but is there anything worth giving your attention to . I have found your posts to be well informed , judicious and full of humour. QM is so well established that in most instances it is the recognized mode of thinking not to question anything to do with it .
You say that the virtual photon field won't interact with electrons, so it just passes through matter. So how/why does the field get altered by passing through the two slits in your diagram? Surely the presence of the slits shouldn't affect the field/aether?
The point is not why the “Virtual” photon field interacts slightly differently with matter than with air , but that this is the observable effect in the Double Slit Experiment. Why should the photons of the Virtual photon field try to pass through matter in the first place ? There is nothing to attract them there , they might not pass through solid matter at all , preferring instead the easier route of the two open slits. Again it is only comparatively high energy photons which can effect “virtual” photons and cause them to orient themselves in their direction of propagation. So extremely low energy photons of the type referred to ( about 10 ^^ -12 eV , from what you describe) , would not affect the virtual photon field but most probably become a part of it. It appears as if every proof that QM brings forward for the existence of wave-particle duality , is to some extent flawed. Louis De Broglie’s matter waves , which is the critical QM argument , leaves infinites at one end of the scale (i.e., the macroscopic scale ) as I had pointed out a car weighing 1000 Kgs and traveling at 10 km/hr has a matter wave associated with it of about 10 ^^ - 36 m. This is unacceptable as you will realize if you go onto bigger objects. Yet the same “matter waves “ ( do they exist ) claim to prove wave-particle duality at the sub-atomic scale. Davisson’s experiment proving electron diffraction , uses a beam of electrons , not single electrons . How can anyone claim that this proves that electrons have wave properties ? Only a single electron manifesting diffraction could prove the point. Lastly with the Double Slit Experiment , what is more probable that a neutron can pass through both slits at once , or that it has some prior knowledge of where to go ? Or the alternative which I have put forward , that the particles in question are merely following the easiest route , by following the interference pattern of the “virtual” photon field (aether ). This is something you must decide for yourself.
When a photon (or electron) detector is placed over one (or both) of the slits, the photon (or electron) stops exhibiting an interference pattern. How does your theory explain this? (How/why is the field altered so drastically by the presence of the detector?)
Surely this is self explanatory , if you ask yourself , how photons and electrons are detected. In both cases , if I am not mistaken , an electromagnetic field (together with a light source ) and/or a photo detector is used, this would destroy the interference pattern of the virtual photon field and the particle under experiment would proceed as if only one slit were open , resulting in the additive pattern observed when only one slit is open. Again this is more acceptable than to think that the interference pattern disappears because we are observing it , which is the QM view !!!
-
Thanks, McQ, your explanations are helpful and your theory certainly has potential.
I accept your explanations for the phenomena exhibited in the double-slit experiment (they're definitely plausible). Perhaps you can now go on to address the other questions I raised in my earlier (30 Sept) posting above?
Please understand that I'm not challenging you because I think you're wrong, I just want to understand the details so that I can decide for myself if this theory really works or not.
Also, just to explain my point of view:
QM itself can just be thought of as a technique for getting the right answers - i.e. a set of mathematical equations (well, effectively just one equation - Schrodinger's) that can be used to get results that agree (perfectly) with experiment. The problem, as I see it, is that nobody understands the physical mechanism underlying these equations - i.e. WHY these equations give the right answers.
There are various INTERPRETATIONS of why they work (Copenhagen, etc), but none of these really predict anything new (i.e. they all give the same results as QM). Hence there's no way of proving that one is "better" than the others.
This is why I ask if your theory gives rise to any new predictions (or if it has some sort of mathematical basis that gives results that agree with Schrodinger but then extend them further).
As far as I can tell, your theory is akin to other "hidden variable" interpretations (e.g. de Broglie / Bohm theories which - I think - say there are undetected fields guiding free electrons and photons, etc). I certainly favour such interpretations over the seemingly-bizarre ideas underlying Copenhagen and Many-Worlds interpretations. But without some sort of "proof" (e.g. provable predictions about experimental results, or, say, a derivation of some physical constant - such as why the quantum of electrical charge is 1.6x10^-19 Coulombs ?), there's nothing that gives these theories credence over other interpretations.
Solvay.
P.S. One more thing - just in case you're mistakenly thinking that I know what I'm on about or that I'm qualified to challenge you / help you - I would point out that I'm not a scientist. I haven't formally studied physics since I was 16 (that's 24 years ago), I've just developed an interest (my wife would say "obsession") with relativity and quantum theory over the past 18 months or so. My knowledge is based solely on reading a number of "layperson" books on these topics recently.
(I hope this doesn't put you off having a dialogue with me on this subject.)
1.618033989 - everyone's favourite number!
-
Paul
You , might be surprised to find that I agree with you. Quantum Mechanics is absolutely astounding . The aspect of QM that impresses me the most is the mindset which is expansive in its thought processes. I have begun to understand that in part this is because words are too restrictive , there is a tendency to get pinned down by definitions , hobbling one’s ability to go further down the line. On the other hand approaching things in a purely mathematical way also has equally great draw-backs , as can be seen throughout Quantum Mechanics as for instance in re-normalisation , second quantisation , third and fourth quantisation , De Broglie’s theorem and so on. Here the danger is of getting so abstract that the abstractions no longer apply to reality. To get back to the questions:
Why do you need a mechanism to explain the inverse square law of intensity? Surely it’s just geometry! (Say a light source emits 1000 photons. These photons travel out in the shape on an ever-increasing sphere. The intensity of the light is, basically, just the number of photons per unit area of that sphere. The surface area of a sphere is 4.pi.r^2, so the intensity varies as 1000 / 4.pi.r^2 – i.e. it’s inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. Simple.)
It turns out to be not so simple. Suppose that these 1000 photons that you speak of are in the form of small dots on a balloon . As the balloon is inflated the dots which were originally close together begin to get further apart . ( we would have to imagine that the dots stay their original size i.e they do not expand as the balloon is inflated ) When the balloon is fully inflated there are large areas on the surface of the inflated balloon which do not have any dots . This is not the way in which light and electromagnetic waves propagate. Take the example of the Voyager spacecraft , which is more than six billion kilometers away and still transmitting to earth. What this means is that , if we had access to a spacecraft and were able to trace the area covered by the signal , we could theoretically trace the surface area of a sphere (directional antennas can almost be ignored at these distances ) with a radius of 6 billion kilometers and at every point on that sphere , barring minor anomalies such as when planets get in the way , we would receive exactly the same strength signal that we are receiving on earth. Now , if the statement you had made were true , namely that intensity is equal to 1000 / 4.pi.r^2 , there would be huge areas where no signal at all were present. The signal would only be present if you happened to be in an area where there was a photon present. I will return to this topic after dealing with the next point.
When you talk about a single electron emitting a continuous stream of evenly spaced photons … don’t you accept the quantum view that electrons (in an atomic “shell”) can only emit (real) photons when they drop from one discrete energy level to another? (I thought there was plenty of experimental evidence for this view.)
Yes , I completely agree with the statement that electrons only emit (real) photons when they drop from one energy level to another, but what is apparent is that this process can be repeated by the electron almost indefinitely and that the rate at which it drops from one discrete energy level to another and back again is determined by the frequency of the light that it is emitting/absorbing. (There is no need to go into a garden to see this). Just look at the atomic spectra I was talking about , you can leave the spectrometer on for several days and find that lines never flicker , the electrons are constantly emitting ! Jumping from one energy level to another and back again. Given that this is so , it follows that when combined ( and even without it ) with Gestalt Theory which states that the energy of real photons is conveyed along lines of virtual photons which align themselves in the direction of propagation of the real photon , it is reasonable to expect , given the extremely high frequencies we are dealing with , that the emission of photons from a given electron will be along a single line ( favoured direction). Thus according to Gestalt Theory , the number of photons covering a surface area (photons per sq/m.) remains constant , for as long as the wave is propagating. But the intensity (i.e the number of photons in a given line is proportionately reduced .) This means that the photons spread over a wider and wider area while the number of photons in each line becomes correspondingly less. Thus the intensity of light , according to Gestalt theory , depends on the number of photons of a given energy being rapidly absorbed in succession by the same electron. Less photons being absorbed per electron means less intensity. That is completely absurd you say , look at the photo-electric effect and the work function etc., But the photo-electric effect is primarily concerned with free electrons. Free electrons as you must know , normally , never absorb or emit photons. However in the case of very high energy photons such as those of ultra-violet light (3.1 eV) , they have no choice , the energy of these photons is such as to forcibly eject free electrons from the metal surface. Less energetic but still energetic photons such as green light (2.25 eV ) have only a moderate photo-electric effect. Even less energetic photons such as those of red light have no photo-electric effect at all , they are ignored by the free electrons , which in any case are not receptive (energy – wise ) to their particular energies. Thus the photo-electric effect does not really prove or disprove what I have been saying. It is probable that as Einstein said a single photon is all that is needed to displace a free electron , the rest of the photons in the line continuing as usual , dispersing as heat . This seems to be supported by the fact that the energy of the ejected electron corresponds to the energy of the photon which displaces it. It is further supported by the fact that the photo-electric effect increases with the energy of the particles used , x-rays resulting in a greater flow of current and gamma rays with an even greater flow of current and so on. But this does not change anything viz-a-viz what I have defined as being the intensity of light. In fact if you think deeply about it , it is the only possible explanation. O.K , I realise that this is all highly controversial , but still the evidence , in the form of the manner of propagation of light and electromagnetic radiation (i.e., resembles a wave in propagation since every point on the radiating sphere has the same energy ) taken together with the rate or frequency of photon emission and absorption , as demonstrated by atomic spectra lines , seems to strongly support this view that the intensity of light has to do with the number of photons absorbed in rapid succession by an electron. It is often said that light propagates as a wave and arrives as a particle the Gestalt Theory of propagation seems to perfectly fit this description and accounts for how this is possible. Your views please.
-
Sol
I had serious doubts about this myself , if this theory (Gestalt Theory ) about the intensity of light being dependent on the number of successive photons (i.e., multiple photon absorption ) absorbed by an electron is correct , then does it contradict the photo-electric effect explanation of the intensity of light, the answer is that it does not. In order to understand this we have to go back to the observation that electrons have the ability to emit/absorb a photon in incredibly short periods of time ( approx . 10 ^^ - 19 secs) and to do so continuously . If we now look at a single frequency of photon emission , it is possible to see that for such a continuous and discrete emission to take place, it is necessary for the forces of recoil to come into play. The electron absorbs a photon goes to a higher or lower level emits a photon and comes back to its original position to repeat the cycle. In the photo-electric effect we are dealing with free electrons which are unable to deal with the forces of recoil necessitated by absorption , thus after the initial absorption , the electron recoils by such a great amount as to make a second absorption impossible or it gains energy and is ejected from the surface of the metal. That is all there is to it. The photo-electric effect simply states that certain frequencies of light (typically greater than 4 x 10 ^^ 14 Hz) never result in the photo-electric effect regardless as to how great the intensity of that light might be.
-
"Sol" ?? Wasn't he that weirdo character in "Dog Day Afternoon" (the Al Pacino film about a bank robbery that goes wrong)?
I accept the plausibility of your explanations (but I'm not 100% confident yet - still need to think about them more).
I'm not sure about your argument with the balloon, though - don't forget that after the first wave of photons, immediately behind them will come another wave, which will hit the surface of the balloon at different points (i.e. in the spaces between your dots), so over a measurable time interval you'll still get at least a few photons hitting every square cm, say.
(Not that that's an argument against your theory anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter.)
Just one minor clarification, please - in your last sentence of your last posting, did you mean to say that "... typically LESS than 4 x 10 ^^ 14 Hz never result in the photo-electric effect ..." (i.e. rather than "typically GREATER than"). I just want to be sure I'm not missing something here.
Thanks.
Solvay.
1.618033989 - everyone's favourite number!
-
Sol
Did James Coburn act the part of "Sol" in the film ? No , it is less than 4 x 10 ^^ 14 Hz that I mean , I think you are confusing this with wave - length , which gets "less" energetic as it gets bigger , with frequency the opposite takes place , right ?
-
No, John Cazale played "Sol".
1.618033989 - everyone's favourite number!