0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Could it be that the frequency of a photon is like the spin of a photon
No, frequency is like the rate of horses passing the finish line, spin has cycles
Could it be that the frequency of a photon is like the spin of a photon.
Frequency and Spin of a Photon are similar in that they are both fundamental properties of a Photon.- Other fundamental properties of a photon include its mass (0), electric change (0), lepton number (0) and Parity (1).
Quote No, frequency is like the rate of horses passing the finish line, spin has cycles TheBox.Well that’s just it. Does the frequency of a photon refer to the rate at which they are being emitted or is it something else altogether?
Yet lately for a number of reasons I have been experiencing doubts as to if this is true.
In reality rate is frequency in my view not energy.
Quote from: Thebox on 26/05/2018 13:35:52In reality rate is frequency in my view not energy.Pick one.
Based on what experiment?Because all the other experimental evidence seems to show that it's right.
Bored chemist Quote Based on what experiment?Because all the other experimental evidence seems to show that it's right.Well this is where it gets really interesting. I believe that there is a schism or sharp divide in quantum mechanics between results based on observable empirical evidence and the esoteric, baseless thrown out there guesses and suppositions. Take for instance the structure of the atom the discovery of which was due to Rutherford. Today we often take for granted that the atom is built around a nucleus but in actual fact this was path-breaking research. Continuing from there Neils Bohr’s model of the photon was also based on work that was completely empirical and built upon the work done by Balmer, Lyman and Rydberg on the spectra of atoms. Then there is Max Planck’s outstanding work in proving the discrete nature of energy. His work was so revolutionary that it was only finally accepted because his results were impeccably tabulated and all of his experiments were reproducible. The benefits of this work have been incalculable everything that we know about the atom, the (physical) properties of the photon, the structure of metals, atomic energy and the technological advances resulting in the cell phone and other modern miracles has been due to this outstanding research. Then we have the other not so savoury half of quantum mechanics that is based on conjecture rather than on evidence and which is full of esoteric and fantastical theories. Chief among these is wave/particle duality, complementarity principle, the wave-function and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The result of these theories is that till today no-one can give a straightforward answer to the question of how light propagates. No one doubts that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is well reasoned and even necessary. The objection is that it is elevated to a Principle of physics. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation might have been preferable. But enough of this, this is old ground and has been covered before. The point is that I was so disillusioned with this part of quantum mechanics I came up with my own theory which is outlined here: Gestaltaethertheory.comAccording to this theory an electron mediates it energy by emitting pulses of electrical energy, these pulses of electrical energy get polarised forming photons. See the diagrams below:The link above gives fairly comprehensive information on how a photon propagates etc., so I need not include it here. So according to this theory the photon is not sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle but is always the symbiosis of a particle and a wave. The other claim made by Gestalt Aether Theory (GAT) is that when we are speaking of the frequency of a photon we are talking about something real and tangible in the classical sense. This means that when we speak of light with a frequency of 600THz it actually means that the electrons is oscillating at such a rate and emitting 600,000,000,000,000 photons per second. Not very surprising when you think that modern smart phones can process data at the rate of several gigabits per second this means collecting input data, evaluating it and outputting the result. When, in comparison, one thinks of the humble electron with the infinitesimal distances each oscillation covers, It seems only appropriate and natural that an electron should be able to oscillate at the rate of several hundreds of terahertz per second.The question is which theory is true, the conventional theory as postulated by myself in the earlier post namely that:Photon frequency doesn’t correspond to the interval between pulses but rather to the oscillation inside one individual pulse. When we speak about the frequency of a photon in the quantum mechanical sense, we mean characteristic energy of that photon by formula E=hv (h=Planck's constant and v= frequency). Now, if there is a source which gives out photons of a single frequency (say of green colour) and a single photon is emitted at an interval of 0.1 seconds, what you'll be seeing is flashes of green light. But that's the frequency at which photons are being emitted and not the actual frequency of the photon. To sum up, in the classical sense it means rate of emission and in the quantum mechanical sense it means the energy of the photon.Which of these two view- points is true and how does it affect physics? My answer to this is look at any atomic clock, they have been around for more than half a century. At what rate is the electron in the Caesium atom oscillating ? It is oscillating at exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz! This oscillation is why atomic clocks exist. (Whether microwaves of this frequency are produced due to this oscillation is another question.)If the electron in the Caesium atom can oscillate at 9,192,631,770 Hz what explanation is given for the fact that light of 600 THz frequency does not oscillate at 600 THz at the same time emitting photons at the rate of 600,000,000,000,000 per second. The same applies to ALL optical and higher frequencies. I put it to you that it is a given that photon frequency is directly related to the rate of emission by an electron. I also put it to you that on the basis of this evidence that the wave-particle duality put forward by quantum mechanics is absolute humbug. A photon as illustrated in my post is a wave with some of the properties of a particle. It has no mass yet its energy can emulate a particle in much the same way that ultrasonic waves are used in lithotripsy to shatter kidney stones. If one extrapolates a llittle further one can see that in the light of this evidence the whole, vastly bloated, teetering edifice of quantum mechanics is on the verge of collapse. Incidentally, the fact that this evidence has been around for fifty years without any attention being paid to it, is amazing as is the fact that virtual interaction (self interaction) by electrons orbiting the nucleus has been completely ignored in terms of the effects on wave particle duality.
I like your polarisation idea, but you have not accounted for negative energy cancelling out the positive polarity.
TheboxQuote I like your polarisation idea, but you have not accounted for negative energy cancelling out the positive polarity.First of all thanks for taking the trouble of going through the post. The polarisation of the photon means that physically it resembles a di-pole and therefore is electrically neutral, it is self-contained does not have to depend on and is not affected by outside influences.
What you are saying doesn't make total sense, because you do not seem to be accounting for fields emanating from atoms.
TheboxQuoteWhat you are saying doesn't make total sense, because you do not seem to be accounting for fields emanating from atoms. The photons are the field. If you read the link you will get some idea of this. Think about the alternative Feynmann himself talks about there being 400 field, Michio Kaku talks about several thousand!
I understand your idea thoroughly, I know you are saying the photons are the field, but you are not describing your own idea properly. I can see exactly what you are saying . However in describing an individual photon you have to account for the point to point transfer of the ''wave'' energy.Consider a large object being the centre of a single huge di-pole photon, then consider photons are di-pole energy packets permeating through the single photon field, point to point.I think this is what you are trying to say ?
TheboxQuoteI understand your idea thoroughly, I know you are saying the photons are the field, but you are not describing your own idea properly. I can see exactly what you are saying . However in describing an individual photon you have to account for the point to point transfer of the ''wave'' energy.Consider a large object being the centre of a single huge di-pole photon, then consider photons are di-pole energy packets permeating through the single photon field, point to point.I think this is what you are trying to say ?I hope you don't mind too much if I once again suggest that you read the link that I had posted namely Gestaltaethertheory.com all of your objections and suggestions are addressed there. Thanks.
It is important to note that it is the energy of the real photon that travels along the line of virtual photons and not the photon itself. As the real photon travels forward it disperses energy laterally also, so that dispersion takes place according to the inverse square law. Here is what both a real photon and a virtual photon might look like:
The point is that I was so disillusioned with this part of quantum mechanics I came up with my own theory which is outlined here:
Quote from: McQueen on 26/05/2018 14:35:50The point is that I was so disillusioned with this part of quantum mechanics I came up with my own theory which is outlined here:Your fundamental point seems to be that you didn't like the bits of QM that you don't think are subject to experimental verification (spoiler alert; they are) and because of that you cam up with your own idea- one that isn't actually consistent with experiments- and called it a "theory"- even though it isn't one.That's "creative writing" rather than science.