0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I'd like to remind you that this thread is meant to compare currently accepted theories with our observations. What are the results predicted by the mathematical models for a particular experimental setup? What is actually observed? Is there a discrepancy? Can we identify the cause of the discrepancy? Can it be removed by changing some aspect of the experimental setup?Here are some experimental observations I uploaded to Youtube. I think you can easily reproduce them to make sure that they are not misleading tricks.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=FahdhYJSb9gInvestigation on Diffraction of light 4 : Non-diffractive obstacle//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL1wRnM4I_gInvestigation on Diffraction of Light 9 : Horizontally Tilted//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWrmnkFsIKwInvestigation on Diffraction of Light 10 : Vertically Tilted Obstacle//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sy1VK-1E-UInvestigation on Diffraction of Light 13 : Non-Diffractive slit; A Challenge to Huygen's Principle

This thread is a follow up of my previous thread discussing and criticizing existing theories about light.

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2021 02:12:39This thread is a follow up of my previous thread discussing and criticizing existing theories about light.So from your failed thread on the existing theory of light, you are now going to make a failed thread on a new theory of light? Well isn't that swell.

How do you define failure in this context?

If you seek a "better" way to explain light, you need to explain in what ways the current explanation fails.

My model can be thought as an extention to the working principle of antenna, which can be shown clearly here.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=md7GjQQ2YA0

Matrix mechanics is a formulation of quantum mechanics created by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Pascual Jordan in 1925. It was the first conceptually autonomous and logically consistent formulation of quantum mechanics. Its account of quantum jumps supplanted the Bohr model's electron orbits. It did so by interpreting the physical properties of particles as matrices that evolve in time. It is equivalent to the Schrödinger wave formulation of quantum mechanics, as manifest in Dirac's bra–ket notation.In some contrast to the wave formulation, it produces spectra of (mostly energy) operators by purely algebraic, ladder operator methods.[1] Relying on these methods, Wolfgang Pauli derived the hydrogen atom spectrum in 1926,[2] before the development of wave mechanics.

The Schrödinger equation is a linear partial differential equation that governs the wave function of a quantum-mechanical system.[1]:1–2 It is a key result in quantum mechanics, and its discovery was a significant landmark in the development of the subject. The equation is named after Erwin Schrödinger, who postulated the equation in 1925, and published it in 1926, forming the basis for the work that resulted in his Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933.[2][3]Conceptually, the Schrödinger equation is the quantum counterpart of Newton's second law in classical mechanics. Given a set of known initial conditions, Newton's second law makes a mathematical prediction as to what path a given physical system will take over time. The Schrödinger equation gives the evolution over time of a wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. The equation can be derived from the fact that the time-evolution operator must be unitary, and must therefore be generated by the exponential of a self-adjoint operator, which is the quantum Hamiltonian.The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics, introduced by Werner Heisenberg, and the path integral formulation, developed chiefly by Richard Feynman. Paul Dirac incorporated matrix mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. When these approaches are compared, the use of the Schrödinger equation is sometimes called "wave mechanics".

physical model

Polarization twister design.

Are you familiar with the use of matrices to represent operations?The best known are those used for transforming images - reflections rotations etc).

The Planck constant, or Planck's constant, is a fundamental physical constant denoted h, and is of fundamental importance in quantum mechanics. A photon's energy is equal to its frequency multiplied by the Planck constant. Due to mass–energy equivalence, the Planck constant also relates mass to frequency.In metrology it is used, together with other constants, to define the kilogram, an SI unit.[1] The SI units are defined in such a way that, when the Planck constant is expressed in SI units, it has the exact value h = 6.62607015×10^{−34} J⋅Hz^{−1}.[2][3]At the end of the 19th century, accurate measurements of the spectrum of black body radiation existed, but predictions of the frequency distribution of the radiation by then-existing theories diverged significantly at higher frequencies. In 1900, Max Planck empirically derived a formula for the observed spectrum. He assumed a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black-body radiation could only change its energy in a minimal increment, E, that was proportional to the frequency of its associated electromagnetic wave.[4] He was able to calculate the proportionality constant from the experimental measurements, and that constant is named in his honor. In 1905, Albert Einstein determined a "quantum" or minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself. The light quantum behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, and was eventually called a photon. Max Planck received the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics "in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta".Confusion can arise when dealing with frequency or the Planck constant because the units of angular measure (cycle or radian) are omitted in SI.[5][6][7][8][9] In the language of quantity calculus,[10] the expression for the value of the Planck constant, or a frequency, is the product of a numerical value and a unit of measurement. The symbol f (or ν), when used for the value of a frequency, implies cycles per second or hertz as the unit. When the symbol ω is used for the frequency's value it implies radians per second as the unit. The numerical values of these two ways of expressing the frequency have a ratio of 2π. Omitting the units of angular measure "cycle" and "radian" can lead to an error of 2π. A similar state of affairs occurs for the Planck constant. The symbol h is used to express the value of the Planck constant in J⋅s/cycle, and the symbol ħ ("h-bar") is used to express its value in J⋅s/rad. Both represent the value of the Planck constant, but, as discussed below, their numerical values have a ratio of 2π. In this article the word "value" as used in the tables means "numerical value", and the equations involving the Planck constant and/or frequency actually involve their numerical values using the appropriate implied units.

The word quantum is the neuter singular of the Latin interrogative adjective quantus, meaning "how much". "Quanta", the neuter plural, short for "quanta of electricity" (electrons), was used in a 1902 article on the photoelectric effect by Philipp Lenard, who credited Hermann von Helmholtz for using the word in the area of electricity. However, the word quantum in general was well known before 1900,[2] e.g. quantum was used in E.A. Poe's Loss of Breath. It was often used by physicians, such as in the term quantum satis. Both Helmholtz and Julius von Mayer were physicians as well as physicists. Helmholtz used quantum with reference to heat in his article[3] on Mayer's work, and the word quantum can be found in the formulation of the first law of thermodynamics by Mayer in his letter[4] dated July 24, 1841.In 1901, Max Planck used quanta to mean "quanta of matter and electricity",[5] gas, and heat.[6] In 1905, in response to Planck's work and the experimental work of Lenard (who explained his results by using the term quanta of electricity), Albert Einstein suggested that radiation existed in spatially localized packets which he called "quanta of light" ("Lichtquanta").[7]The concept of quantization of radiation was discovered in 1900 by Max Planck, who had been trying to understand the emission of radiation from heated objects, known as black-body radiation. By assuming that energy can be absorbed or released only in tiny, differential, discrete packets (which he called "bundles", or "energy elements"),[8] Planck accounted for certain objects changing color when heated.[9] On December 14, 1900, Planck reported his findings to the German Physical Society, and introduced the idea of quantization for the first time as a part of his research on black-body radiation.[10] As a result of his experiments, Planck deduced the numerical value of h, known as the Planck constant, and reported more precise values for the unit of electrical charge and the Avogadro–Loschmidt number, the number of real molecules in a mole, to the German Physical Society. After his theory was validated, Planck was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery in 1918.

So it turns out the way I've been teaching microwave polarisation is wrong!! Well, it's not so much wrong, it's the fact that the 'picket fence' analogy for polarisation isn't what it first seems. Where the picket fence only allows vertically polarised light through, a corresponding polarising filter only allows horizontally polarised light through! Watch this video for more explanation.

Quote from: alancalverd on 09/08/2021 12:41:39But E = hf and E > 0 for a photon!More to the point, there is no such thing as a negative frequency. Fact is that it doesn't matter where you put the "center" frequency, the spectrum of a delta function is infinite, but the energy of a photon is absolutely defined.You can use online calculators such as wolfram alpha to show that the width of the curve in time domain is proportional to the height of the corresponding curve in frequency domain. So, if the time domain signal is infinitesimally thin, then the frequency domain curve is infinitesimally low. I'd like to elaborate further, but I'm afraid that I'll have to do it in new theory section.

But E = hf and E > 0 for a photon!More to the point, there is no such thing as a negative frequency. Fact is that it doesn't matter where you put the "center" frequency, the spectrum of a delta function is infinite, but the energy of a photon is absolutely defined.

Here are some more examples. Perhaps we can see some patterns.

The wavelength and frequencies obey the laws of inertial reference

Has anyone run experiment with two adjacent photon quanta with a gap in the middle to see if we isolate gap based affects?

Here I'll try to figure out if there is a way to improve it. If there is, what will it look like?

Here is an example of a Gaussian pulse and its Fourier transform.https://www.gaussianwaves.com/2014/07/generating-basic-signals-gaussian-pulse-and-power-spectral-density-using-fft/This kind of pulse can be generated using electronic circuits. The value of σ can be adjusted. The vertical axis of frequency domain is not probability. It's magnitude instead.

You can use online calculators such as wolfram alpha to show that the width of the curve in time domain is proportional to the height of the corresponding curve in frequency domain. So, if the time domain signal is infinitesimally thin, then the frequency domain curve is infinitesimally low.

Re: Is there a better way to explain light?« Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 03:46:50 »Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12-07-2021, 11:12:39 Here I'll try to figure out if there is a way to improve it. If there is, what will it look like?As we know light has no visible quality in the absence of matter why photons are lacking mass and are too small to see unless we look at the source of the light or the object that the light is reflecting off. If we look into a 100 watt spotlight we see that intensity if we look into a 200 watt spotlight we see that it is considerably brighter we are now producing more photons yet the gap between the photons is very large in relation to the photons themselves. Now look at electrons there is some comparison to be made take a simple playing card it is made up of countless electrons although electrons have a very large space between them just like the planets orbiting the sun. If we shine that 200 watt light on the card it will be illuminated very brightly by photons that have a larger gap between them than the electrons and atoms that make up the card. If we could extract all the potential energy from the card it could produce more light than the sun for a brief moment that little playing card has more potential energy and light than any light you could ever shine on it. So what does all this mean the light leaves its source after being converted and lands back to the unconverted potential source only revealing its self leaving and returning not on the journey in between. Light is produced by excitement and light can illuminate matter by re excitement as light travels it maintains its potential until interrupted. I hope this explanation helps in some way if not it's just my electrons protons and atoms shorting out. PS. and my neurons.