0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
For the past several years I have been working on two main projects, the first is a zero pollution, engine that yields pure rotary output and the second is a new theory of physics entitled : “A Gestalt Theory on the Nature of light and related phenomenon.”. Unfortunately both projects have been temporarily stalled due to lack of funds. Gestalt Theory or the new classical physics that it represents is mainly based on the works of Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein and Walter Heisenberg.
Neo classical physics explains physical phenomenon in quantifiable terms as a series of events connected by cause and effect. In other words, it is a science .that is founded on causality. If we consider any science as a sphere of knowledge, then at the furthest reaches of the sphere representing neo classical physics would lie the realm of relativistic physics, even further afield than that would lie the domain represented by Quantum Mechanics. This is an area where FTL transactions (Faster than light) are possible, where an object can possess two identities, simultaneously and distinctly, where objects can become disembodied and then manifest themselves again. This is an area of knowledge where the “Many World Theory” is all too clearly seen to exist. In short this is the area of knowledge where anything is possible and where all possibilities exist simultaneously.
Duh! Tell me what it is that troubles you?Unless you have some proof of FTL, everything I have said is absolutely true. Consider the facts. as far as the human brain can see, which is billions of light years distant, everything follows causality, unless you have something to prove FTL transactions, QM and all that it says is a difficult pill to swallow! Neo classical physics ( I am still working on it) explains everything that we see in terms of classical physics. Tell me, for hundreds of years the inverse square law held good for the propagation of light, then lasers came along and things changed, the Gestalt theory has an explanation for this that works! ! Yes! it does. How would QM explain it? Already to explain the propagation of EM, QM states that a photon metamorohioses into a positron and an electron, which undergo mutual annihilation resulting in another photon and so on, this according to QM is how an EM wave propagates. Excuse me???
Reply with quoteand when did laser light stop obeying the inverse square law? Bear in mind that the inverse square law only applies to intensity versus distance from a point source. The 'point of origin' (simplisitically) of a laser (or even a car headlamp) is not where the light comes out but some considerable distance behind.
explain how it explains the double slit experiment.
You've associated a charge with the electric field and this is a fatal flaw in the theory. Since this would mean that electric fields would interact with each other and with themselves, your theory predicts that the electromagnetic field is nonlinear in vacuum. However, this isn't in agreement with centuries of experimental evidence.
A simple test would be to conduct the two-pinhole experiment in a constant electric field. If your theory is right, the fringe pattern should shift depending on the direction of the applied field.
I did read the post carefully and looked at your diagrams. If photons are dipoles they would experience a torque in an applied field. This means your theory predicts that electric fields interact with each other through this torque. And as I said, it's a simple test to see if an external field deviates a light wave. Just check if the fringes in a 2-pinhole setup move, or if a laser beam is influenced by an external electric field.
1) The EPR experiment involves measuring the photon's spin by having it interact with matter. You clearly misunderstand the experiment.
The inverse square law states that if a
source of light has a given intensity at a certain distance from the source then that intensity will vary inversely with the square of the distance from the light source.