# Dear Naked Scientists

• 20 Replies
• 1747 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Dear Naked Scientists
« on: 01/04/2016 06:57:02 »
I was wondering if there is any procedure in place to evaluate New theories that are posted in the New Theories forum of The Naked Scientists science forum and if not, whether an exception can be made in the case of a new theory that is well documented and supported by mathematical and logical arguments and especially so if the new theory in question claims to validate many of the theories of Sir Isaac Newton. After all Newton has come in for a good deal of undeserved criticism from modern day physicists, not least in the form of the claims that Newton's theories are out of date and represent a mechanical Universe.  This forum above all, is the science forum of the University,  Newton had attended and as such has a tradition to uphold as a fair and impartial arbiter in scientific discussions.  I have posted proofs of such a new theory : The Gestalt Aether Theory. The theory was already present when I joined Naked Scientists twelve years ago and has been improved in the duration.

The first proof of the GAT (Gestalt Aether Theory) claims that the long cherished belief that it is the electron that is the fundamental charge carrier is false. Instead GAT claims that the fundamental charge carrier is the photon, and presents mathematical and written evidence in support of this claim. Surely this is an important enough assertion to deserve attention, especially since it is a well documented and observed fact that in every other interaction that involves electrons and energy exchange it is photons that are the mediators.  By introducing the concept of the photon as the fundamental charge carrier, the propagation of electricity is brought into line with all other observed phenomena involving electrons and energy exchange.

The second proof of the GAT claims that the present widely held belief that  electromagnetic radiation (in the radio wave wave lengths) is due to two or three causative factors, such as:

1) spin of the electron
2) revolution of the electron around the nucleus
3) spin of ions
4) vibrations of the crystal lattice in the conductor and so forth.,
is false.

GAT Theory claims that radio waves, just like visible light are also due to photon emission and thus brings into line the two phenomena, which apart from radio waves having massive (comparatively) wave lengths, share all other properties in common. Please do read and evaluate. Notice that there is a single causative factor for both visible light and radio waves, although implemented differently.

The third proof of the GAT puts forward the claim that light is finite, it does not travel for ever, as is assumed by Quantum Mechanics and modern physics and that the propagation of  incoherent light follows the inverse square law. It is asserted that the validity of this claim can be proven through experiment and mathematical calculations.

The fourth proof of the GAT (gestalt Aether Theory) examines the modern day theory of scattering and reflection of light and finds that it may be in error. A claim is made that light is composed of lines of photons and that these lines of photons  travel in straight lines. (a la Newton).

It goes without saying that I would greatly appreciate any constructive criticism that is forthcoming, making quotes from Quantum Mechanics text books does not fall into this category, unless the specifics that have been raised are dealt with.

Even more important is the theory sound ?

« Last Edit: 01/04/2016 07:09:14 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4916
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #1 on: 01/04/2016 08:14:20 »
No problem. Here's what you need to do:

First proof: isolate a charged photon and measure its charge. Then explain how ionisation occurs.

Second proof: AFAIK no scientist holds any of these "beliefs", so little point in disproving them.

Third proof: I = I0/r2 is simple geometry and experimental fact. All you need to do is tell us the value of r for which 1/r2 = 0

Fourth proof: explain diffraction, interference and polarisation in terms of projectile particles.

helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #2 on: 01/04/2016 12:05:13 »
alancalverd
Quote
No problem. Here's what you need to do:

Even after all these years you did set my heart beating....... I appreciate that as a globaal moderator of this science forum you have literally thousands of posts to arbitrate every single day, however, IF someone told youthat the 'Cow had jumped over the moon' paraphrasing for " It is not electrons that are the charge carriers but it is  photons that do this job....... Would you give a stock answer, like "It's not possible." or would you go out and try to see for yourself!

Quote
Third proof: I = I0/r2 is simple geometry and experimental fact. All you need to do is tell us the value of r for which 1/r2 = 0

Can do ! Providing it is possible to ascertain, the number of electrons that are taking part in the interaction.

Quote
Fourth proof: explain diffraction, interference and polarisation in terms of projectile particles.

Since the GAT (Gestalt Aether Theory) model of the photon is primarily a wave, the question does not arise.  Coming back to the fact that you are the global moderator of all these sites, it is not surprising that you read only a line or two before making up your mind and posting a reply. BUT for heaven's sake how can you talk about wave/particle duality when the whole post is so very openly against it ?

Could you please, please at the very minimum forward my post to at least the minnows in the first year of Trinity College, Cambridge and see what they make of these ideas ?
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4916
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #3 on: 01/04/2016 17:58:04 »
1. I wouldn't go out and look for myself. I have sufficient trust to ask in the first instance for a photograph of the cow jumping over the moon. Or in your case, a writeup of the experiment in which you isolated a charge-carrying photon. This is, after all, a scientific forum so we kind of expect the observation to preceed the hypothesis.

2. It would cause something of a revolution in mathematics if you found or calculated a number r for which 1/r2 = 0.  Your first guess would be interesting: it's very difficiult to do experiments without some idea of the expected result.

Quote
that light is composed of lines of photons and that these lines of photons  travel in straight lines.
or (B)
Quote
the GAT (Gestalt Aether Theory) model of the photon is primarily a wave
. You can't have it both ways!

Chris may be better acquainted with that venerable College, but to the best of my knowledge none of the students or fellows of Trinity is a fish. "Head of the River" is a boat race, not an academic post. You are, I think, misidentifying the ripe odour of history and good wine.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2016 18:04:33 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #4 on: 01/04/2016 23:10:42 »
Quote
1. I wouldn't go out and look for myself. I have sufficient trust to ask in the first instance for a photograph of the cow jumping over the moon. Or in your case, a writeup of the experiment in which you isolated a charge-carrying photon. This is, after all, a scientific forum so we kind of expect the observation to preceed the hypothesis.

The link in blue has been put there if more information is needed. However, in case you had followed the link and it was not clear.  Here is the present day theory for the propagation of electricity in a circuit:

The mechanism of energy transport through a medium involves the absorption and re-emission of the wave energy by the atoms of the material. When an electromagnetic wave impinges upon the atoms of a material, the energy of that wave is absorbed. The absorption of energy causes the electrons within the atoms to undergo vibrations. After a short period of vibrational motion, the vibrating electrons create a new electromagnetic wave with the same frequency as the first electromagnetic wave. While these vibrations occur for only a very short time, they delay the motion of the wave through the medium. Once the energy of the electromagnetic wave is reemitted by an atom, it travels through a small region of space between atoms. Once it reaches the next atom, the electromagnetic wave is absorbed, transformed into electron vibrations and then reemitted as an electromagnetic wave. While the electromagnetic wave will travel at a speed of c (3 x 108 m/s) through the vacuum of interatomic space, the absorption and reemission process causes the net speed of the electromagnetic wave to be less than c.

On the surface nothing wrong with it, unless it is that it completely ignores 'quanta' and packets of energy. Further in space where there are no electrons to 'pass on the energy' fields would be required.  Also currents in a DC circuit are thought to be caused by moving electrons ( even if they are moving at only 10 cms/hr, while the current is established at near c) using the mechanism enumerated above.    While in a circuit carrying an AC current , the current is thought to be due to vibrations of the metallic lattice of the conductor. Two reasons for two different types of current!!
As for my explanation an explanation is given both mathematically and in words for why it is thought that a free electron (as for instance in an electrical conductor) cannot emit or absorb photons. Think back to recoil, the impulse force can be strong if exerted over a short period of time or weak if exerted over a longer period of time, this does not affect the velocity of the projectile. Similarly if a free electron emits a photon and almost immediately reabsorbs the same or a photon with the same energy, recoil is compensated. Thus showing that it is possible for free electrons to emit photons. Once this is accepted everything falls into place, the speed at which a current is established, the formation of lines of force around the conductor, the amount of energy delivered and so on.
Incidentally, all of the experiments with spectra show charge (energy) carrying photons. I do not understand why you think it would be difficult to do.

Quote
2. It would cause something of a revolution in mathematics if you found or calculated a number r for which 1/r2 = 0.  Your first guess would be interesting: it's very difficult to do experiments without some idea of the expected result.
Unlike Quantum Mechanics and present day theories of physics which state that light as it travels is a wave and because of this its energy is dissipated over a wide area ( everywhere) but mysteriously comes together as a discrete particle possessing a definite energy at the point where it is detected. GAT theory takes the more common sense view of stating that photons are emitted by electrons at the same rate at which the electrons are irradiated. Thus if the electron is being irradiated with blue light at 600 THz then the electron is oscillating and re-emitting the photons at the same rate. Therefore, if the number of electrons in the interaction is known, it is possible to calculate exactly how far the light will travel and the extent to which it will spread out. In support of this theory , is the fact that mobile phones (even fairly basic ones) can process information at gigabit speeds, this being so, it is highly probable that electrons in atoms can oscillate at several hundreds of terahertz. If this is so, why have two explanations; electromagnetic radiation bouncing off ( what is there to bounce off in the atom) atoms in the case of reflection and absorption and emission in the case of scattering. It doesn't make sense.

Quote
Quote
that light is composed of lines of photons and that these lines of photons  travel in straight lines.
or (B)
Quote
the GAT (Gestalt Aether Theory) model of the photon is primarily a wave
. You can't have it both ways!

Here is a pictorial explanation:

What could be more natural than that the electron emits pulses of electrical energy to mediate its needs.

What a photon may look like.
As you can observe, the photon is a 'wave' it has no substance no mass, at the same time it is electrically neutral and also preserves its energy or identity because of its condensor like structure. In short it fulfills every criteria for a photon. The Quantum mechanic view that it is either (really) a wave, or (really) a particle BUT can never posses both properties simultaneously is highly esoteric and ridiculous. Much more probable, that it is a synthesis of the two, just like the sound waves used in lipotripsy.

Quote
Chris may be better acquainted with that venerable College, but to the best of my knowledge none of the students or fellows of Trinity is a fish.

To paraphrase the immortal P G Wodehouse, 'perhaps I should not have dragged that venerable old college into it, but it was too much of a temptation!'

« Last Edit: 13/05/2016 12:08:04 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4916
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #5 on: 02/04/2016 00:16:00 »
Unfortunately your initial presumption of "the present theory" is wrong. Don't waste your time disproving something that nobody believes.

Nor, for that matter, would any serious scientist think that a photon is
Quote
either (really) a wave, or (really) a particle BUT can never posses both properties simultaneously
because we know the difference between a model and reality.

And the sound waves used for lipotripsy are simple mechanical compression and shear waves, with no useful particulate model.

But you might amuse yourself by answering my questions, in particular the value of r for which 1/r2= 0, which seems rather fundamental to your hypothesis. If it's all bound up with terahertz oscillations, you should at least be able to give us an order of magnitude estimate of rmax.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 00:26:33 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #6 on: 02/04/2016 04:58:16 »
Quote
Unfortunately your initial presumption of "the present theory" is wrong. Don't waste your time disproving something that nobody believes.
Nor, for that matter, would any serious scientist think that a photon is
Quote
either (really) a wave, or (really) a particle BUT can never posses both properties simultaneously
because we know the difference between a model and reality.

This has rapidly deteriorated into a 'yes it is, no it's not' kind of scenario, with "don't try and disprove a proven theory" as the trump card. Absolutely pointless Alan if you don't mind.

P.S. I didn't realise you were from Cambridge, so naturally a bit touchy I suppose.

I can't help adding though, that the very ethos of Quantum Mechanics is that we can never hope to picture the sub-atomic world with anything approaching our idea of reality:

The electron is present as a cloud. Averaged over the cloud, the positive kinetic energy is half as big as the negative potential energy.
More importantly, the cloud really is the state of the electron. It's not a picture of where some dot-like particle probably is. It isn't anywhere in particular. It also doesn't have any particular velocity.  In a hydrogen atom, it's certainly not going in a circle. The cloud doesn't go anywhere at all. There's no reason for it to radiate. The world at a small scale cannot be put together out of anything like the pictures we're used to at a large scale.

As is very clear from the above the Quantum Mechanics theory really does believe that a particle can be a cloud (read wave) at certain times and a particle at the other BUT can never possess both properties simultaneously.

Quote
And the sound waves used for lipotripsy are simple mechanical compression and shear waves, with no useful particulate model.

Have you ever tried shouting at a stone in the hope that it would break ? It seems to me that a sound that can break a stone has some very particulate property about it!
« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 05:00:18 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4200
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #7 on: 02/04/2016 13:29:38 »
r => infinity, 1/r2 = 0
« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 13:31:49 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #8 on: 02/04/2016 14:51:38 »
Quote
r => infinity, 1/r2 = 0

To actually calculate whether light travels forever or is finite is not such a big deal. Using femto second switches and a limited light source it should be possible to prove once and for all whether light does indeed travel forever OR if it has a finite distance. If for example a light source is available that has a source of a fixed number of electrons is switched on for a very short time, then it should be possible to calculate how far it will travel :

c t = d If the time is in femto seconds then $$(3 \times 10^8 ) \times (10^{-15}) = 3 \times 10^{-7} m$$

Providing the light source does not contain too many electrons (for this reason lasers are out), no light should be detected at even 1 m distance. It's as simple as that, if a monochromatic light source is used it should be even easier to detect.

Alternately, radio waves could be used, since this would provide for very accurate detecting. If it is possible to generate a radio wave of a known frequency that lasts something like a femto second or maybe even a bit longer, it should be possible to determine if electromagnetic radiation travels forever or for finite distances.

The point to take note of here, is that the tools do exist to carry out the experiment, but would the result of the experiment be accepted ? Thanks to the fact that photons retain their individual identity till the last minute ( before they fade into the 'virtual photon aether' according to GAT, are absorbed by an electron according to QM) )  it should be absolutely possible to determine if light does indeed travel forever or for finite distances.  This can be done by placing  receptive atoms at suitable distances from the source.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 15:04:36 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4200
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #9 on: 02/04/2016 15:11:21 »
As long as you don't have zero as your numerator the only way you can get a zero result is at an infinite distance from the source.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4200
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #10 on: 02/04/2016 15:26:03 »
Any proposed hypothesis is best derived from analysis of observational evidence or from modifications to an established theory. You appear to have strayed from this ideal.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4200
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #11 on: 02/04/2016 15:31:32 »
If established theory is properly understood then major modifications attempted for the sake of ego become readily apparent.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4916
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #12 on: 02/04/2016 15:33:24 »

This has rapidly deteriorated into a 'yes it is, no it's not' kind of scenario, with "don't try and disprove a proven theory" as the trump card. Absolutely pointless Alan if you don't mind.
Not at all. The scientific method is based on disproof, not proof, but there's little point in your attempting to disprove a theory that nobody else believes in anyway.

Quote
P.S. I didn't realise you were from Cambridge, so naturally a bit touchy I suppose.
Far from it: an emotional pachyderm, but a stickler for accuracy and honesty, so I can't accept that there are minnows or indeed any other fish at Trinity without confirmation from a member of that college.

Quote
I can't help adding though, that the very ethos of Quantum Mechanics is that we can never hope to picture the sub-atomic world with anything approaching our idea of reality:

The electron is present as a cloud. Averaged over the cloud, the positive kinetic energy is half as big as the negative potential energy.
More importantly, the cloud really is the state of the electron. It's not a picture of where some dot-like particle probably is. It isn't anywhere in particular. It also doesn't have any particular velocity.  In a hydrogen atom, it's certainly not going in a circle. The cloud doesn't go anywhere at all. There's no reason for it to radiate. The world at a small scale cannot be put together out of anything like the pictures we're used to at a large scale.

A somewhat naive view, except for the last sentence.

Quote
As is very clear from the above the Quantum Mechanics theory really does believe that a particle can be a cloud (read wave) at certain times and a particle at the other BUT can never possess both properties simultaneously.

You really shouldn't put words into other people's mouths, or ascribe beliefs to an inanimate theory. What quantum mechanics does, is to provide a predictive mathematical model of how things work, which it does quite well.  If your theory can explain or predict something to a greater degree of accuracy, or over a wider range of application, please let us know. So far, quantum mechanics seems to describe atomic and molecular phenomena throughout the observable universe, and to better than 1 part per billion.

The notion of wave-particle duality died in the 1930s. The Schrodinger equations were, I think, the final nail in its coffin.

Quote

Have you ever tried shouting at a stone in the hope that it would break ? It seems to me that a sound that can break a stone has some very particulate property about it!

Lipotripsy doesn't involve stones - it's about cellulite. Perhaps you meant lithotripsy, where we break up renal calculi with ultrasound. You do indeed need to shout very loud to break a stone, but a fine example on a very large scale was the Dam Busters raid, using water shock waves from a bomb to destroy a concrete dam. You could try to model it by considering the path of each water molecule but as they all returned more or less to their original positions after the wave, it's considered more profitable to model such phenomena as waves.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 15:41:15 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4916
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #13 on: 02/04/2016 15:36:09 »
c t = d If the time is in femto seconds then ceb70870ab9ff4277e19ea1ae294fdd5.gif

Fair enough, and in the next femtosecond it travels another 3 x 10-7 m. But when does it stop? According to astronomers (and some of my best friends are astronomers) there are photons around that have been travelling for billions of years.

We await your calculation of r0 with interest.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #14 on: 02/04/2016 18:11:48 »
Quote
As long as you don't have zero as your numerator the only way you can get a zero result is at an infinite distance from the source.
And
Quote
Fair enough, and in the next femtosecond it travels another 3 x 10-7 m. But when does it stop? According to astronomers (and some of my best friends are astronomers) there are photons around that have been travelling for billions of years.

With regard to the first quote, I have to congratulate jeffreyH on his logic as applied to this particular problem even if I am  not strictly speaking sure of the mathematical acumen behind the statement. With regard to the second quote by alancalverd it all depends on which theory is correct. I was doing some calculations of the Voyager spacecraft, and calculate that with just 40W of transmitting power, the transmissions have traveled more than 20 billion kilometres to earth, it takes about 40 minutes for the signal to travel that distance. The amazing thing is that as the signal travels from $$20\times 10^{12}m$$ the signal would have spread out over an area of $$(20\times10^{12})^2 = 4\times 10^{26} m^2$$ which means that the signal must be filling the entire solar system and bouncing of the heliosphere.  Further light from 12.5 billion years away has been detected. All this makes it tough to imagine trying to prove that light is finite.

Coming back to the two theories and taking the Quantum Mechanics theory first. I don't know if it would be too simplistic to state that according to Quantum Mechanics 'light travels as a wave and arrives as a particle.' To simplify this as light travels in the form of a wave its energy is diffused over the entire area of space, when it is detected it takes the form of a particle possessing an exact energy.   Taking the example of the solar system filled with the Voyager space craft signal might mean that if one takes a detector from place to place in the solar system the particle with its  energy now localised and not diffuse would appear at that location AND also at every other location where it was measured. As to exactly how this happens is   moot but the maths (according to QM) says that it can and does happen.

Examining the logic behind this theory we find that a solid object (particle) accelerated in space will travel for ever until it is obstructed by something. Since the photon is a particle ( at times) the same must hold good for it, it will travel forever until absorbed by an electron in its path. However, physical observation has shown that the light apart from travelling forward also spreads out in keeping with the inverse square law. In order to accommodate these observations the obvious solution ( given the small size of the photon) is that light must travel as a wave, during this phase of the travel its energy is diffused throughout space. Maybe the logic goes something like that, I have no clear idea.  How is the Voyager signal detected ?

Thus if the Voyager signal is 1.2GHz its energy would be $$\hbar\times1.2\times10^9 = 7.9\times10^{-25}J$$ and it is that energy or identity that is picked up by the radio receivers. (How the energy can be diffused over the entire solar system and then undergo localisation every time it is detected at a particular location, is, I must admit a little bit beyond me, but QM says that's what happens so there you are.)

According to GAT each electron is pumping out photons at the rate of hundreds of terahertz per second, forming a line of photons. Strictly speaking these numbers even in terms of the size of the Universe are formidable. Now in the case of incoherent light, these lines of photons are emitted in all directions, meaning that there is a good chance that they are open to contact on all sides. Since the physical structure of the photon is a solenoidal wave structure it can and does interact with the 'virtual photons' of the aether which possess an identical structure but very low energies. What this means is that as it (the real photon) comes into contact with 'virtual photons' of the aether on all sides,  the energy from the line of photons is passed onto the adjoining 'virtual photons' promoting them to real photons possessing the same energy as the photons being emitted by the electron. This kind of distribution makes for a very fair explanation of the inverse square law distribution of incoherent light.

Thus as light travels forward it is also spreading out over an area equal to the inverse of the square of the distance traveled. When the emission of photons stops, the total energy of the emitted photons is spread out over an area over which each photon possesses the original individual photon energy emitted. Therefore once the emission stops the photons fade into 'virtual photons'. The total is the sum, the total number of photons remains the same and accounts for the distance the photons have traveled and the area over which they have spread, no more no less. Energy is neither created nor destroyed it balances out.

Fortunately the presence of femtosecond laser switches means that it is possible to test for both theories. Since the maximum frequency of emitted visible light is only a few hundred of terahertz, it means that only a limited number of photons can be released in the space of a femtosecond, if the inverse square law holds good it should be possible to observe how far these travel before disappearing.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4916
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #15 on: 02/04/2016 19:08:56 »
All this makes it tough to imagine trying to prove that light is finite.
So why bother, if the experimental evidence suggests that it isn't?

Quote
I don't know if it would be too simplistic to state that according to Quantum Mechanics 'light travels as a wave and arrives as a particle.'
Yes, it would.

Quote
Since the photon is a particle ( at times)
Not for the last 100 years.

Quote
(How the energy can be diffused over the entire solar system and then undergo localisation every time it is detected at a particular location, is, I must admit a little bit beyond me, but QM says that's what happens so there you are.)
There's the rub. Quantum mechanics doesn't "say" what happens, but describes and predicts what we observe. You are welcome to come up with a better description.

Quote
Thus as light travels forward it is also spreading out over an area equal to the inverse of the square of the distance traveled.
The area of a sphere increases as the square of its radius, not the inverse square.

Quote
What this means is that as it (the real photon) comes into contact with 'virtual photons' of the aether on all sides,  the energy from the line of photons is passed onto the adjoining 'virtual photons' promoting them to real photons possessing the same energy as the photons being emitted by the electron. This kind of distribution makes for a very fair explanation of the inverse square law distribution of incoherent light.
Far from it. What you have just described is a source of ever-increasing energy, which is not what is observed, or ever-decreasing photon energy, which is not observed either.

Quote
if the inverse square law holds good it should be possible to observe how far these travel before disappearing.
As Jeffrey and I have pointed out, if the inverse square law holds good, they never disappear. That's simple Euclidean geometry.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 19:16:21 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #16 on: 02/04/2016 20:10:01 »
Quote
All this makes it tough to imagine trying to prove that light is finite.
So why bother, if the experimental evidence suggests that it isn't?
What experimental evidence suggests that light isn't finite ?
Quote
I don't knowif it would be too simplistic to state that according to Quantum Mechanics 'light travels as a wave and arrives as a particle.'
Yes, it would.
And you still claim there are no fish in Cambridge ?
Quote
Since the photon is a particle ( at times)
Not for the last 100 years.
A deliberately misleading statement, made as if it were fact. Wave particle duality is a well established principle of Quantum Mechanics. The fact that you can airily claim ( as a self proclaimed expert and a moderator) that it is not. Does not say much for you.
Quote
(How the energy can be diffused over the entire solar system and then undergo localisation every time it is detected at a particular location, is, I must admit a little bit beyond me, but QM says that's what happens so there you are.)
There's the rub. Quantum mechanics doesn't "say" what happens, but describes and predicts what we observe. You are welcome to come up with a better description.

Seemingly not.....!
Quote
The area of a sphere increases as the square of its radius, not the inverse square.
My mistake.
Quote
What this means is that as it (the real photon) comes into contact with 'virtual photons' of the aether on all sides,  the energy from the line of photons is passed onto the adjoining 'virtual photons' promoting them to real photons possessing the same energy as the photons being emitted by the electron. This kind of distribution makes for a very fair explanation of the inverse square law distribution of incoherent light.
Far from it. What you have just described is a source of ever-increasing energy, which is not what is observed, or ever-decreasing photon energy, which is not observed either.
It is NOT a source of ever increasing energy, it is a re-distribution of existing energy .
Quote
if the inverse square law holds good it should be possible to observe how far these travel before disappearing.
As Jeffrey and I have pointed out, if the inverse square law holds good, they never disappear. That's simple Euclidean geometry.
So a fixed amount of energy spread out over the inverse of the square of the distance, will never disappear and the proof lies in Euclidean geometry. Absolutely  Nuts. Especially as you claim that this process will go on for infinite distances. I repeat nuts....!
« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 20:15:06 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4916
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #17 on: 03/04/2016 00:10:39 »
You seem at least to accept that (a) the intensity of light decreases as 1/r2. You also claim that (b) light has a finite range. So please, for the umpteenth time, tell us the value of r for which 1/r2 = 0 in your universe. Because according to the mathematics of earth people, including those who inhabit Cambridge, (a) and (b) are mutually exclusive statements.

You seem not to understand that one object of quantum mechanics was to provide a mathematical formulation of the observed behaviour of light, that does not involve duality or any of the other absurdities of classical formulations (such as the Bohr atom and the ultraviolet "catastrophe"). The power of QM is such that it also predicts the nonclassical behaviour of massive particles from electrons to at least fullerene molecules. Unfortunately the people who write junior science syllabuses seem not to know this, thus we get many correspondents in this forum whose formal education stopped rather early, so they think there is a disjuncture between  classical physics which makes sense and "modern" physics which doesn't. Fact is that quantum mechanics and general relativity provide consistent and comprehensive models that, for large objects and low speeds, can be approximated by classical models with simpler equations, provided that you can accept some inconsistencies in the classical models - of which duality is the most glaring.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #18 on: 03/04/2016 02:27:53 »
A reminder:
I said
Quote
if the inverse square law holds good it should be possible to observe how far these travel before disappearing.
To which you replied:
Quote
As Jeffrey and I have pointed out, if the inverse square law holds good, they never disappear. That's simple Euclidean geometry.
Take the sun, the age of the sun is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years . So it is perfectly obvious and acceptable that light from the sun has been propagating for 4.6 billion years and will be visible after this amount of time. The distance traveled by the light during that time would be $$9.5 \times 10^{12}\times 4.6 \times 10^9= 4.37 \times 10^{22}$$ kilometres and during its travel following the inverse square law of light dispersion the light would have spread out $$1.9 \times 10^{45}$$ kilometres ! AND if what you say is true, a single photon traveling this path would have dispersed its energy over this entire area during its travel and still be present at the end? Ridiculous is not the word!!! Blasphemous is more like it !

My theory 'Tota in est sum' meaning the total number of photons that are emitted during the emission process is also the total extent over which the light travels and spreads out, makes perfect sense. So much energy has been produced during the emission process and that same amount of energy has spread out over such and such an area. Nothing is added, nothing is subtracted. The energy has merely been re-arranged. AND it can work for the massive distances given in the above example, no problem.

Further let me remind you again that your statement is simply not true: IT IS NOT SIMPLE EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD.

It seems to me that in your rush to understand modern interpretations you have merely succeeded in assimilating the fact that it is extremely esoteric and are using that fact to bludgeon others with this poorly comprehended belief.

The GAT theory is not esoteric yet achieves a much greater simulation of the observed phenomena.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4916
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #19 on: 03/04/2016 12:49:25 »
a single photon traveling this path would have dispersed its energy over this entire area during its travel and still be present at the end? Ridiculous is not the word!!! Blasphemous is more like it !
Why? And what's wrong with blasphemy?

If you want a particle model, consider firing a machine gun in all directions in a gravitation-free vacuum. What is the speed of a single bullet at distance r? How many bullets cross unit area per second at r? You need to appreciate the difference between projectile energy and flux, then apply it to photon energy and flux.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #20 on: 08/04/2016 06:56:59 »
Quote
If you want a particle model, consider firing a machine gun in all directions in a gravitation-free vacuum. What is the speed of a single bullet at distance r? How many bullets cross unit area per second at r? You need to appreciate the difference between projectile energy and flux, then apply it to photon energy and flux.

I do not want to point out that IT IS NOT A PARTICLE MODEL ( sorry for shouting, but I have posted diagrams and written about it what else is there to do ?) IT IS A SYNTHESIS OF A PARTICLE AND A WAVE just as a ultrasound used in lithotripsy.

In any case here is how the propagation of electromagnetic waves works according to GAT:

Take the transmissions from the Voyager 1 space craft. If the distance from earth is taken to be 15 billion kilometres. The transmitter power  of the radio transmitter on the Voyager 1 space craft has a power output of  about 13 watts at 8415MHz.

The 3.7m dish antenna on Voyager 1 has a gain of 48 dB which makes this an effective power in the direction of earth of 800kW. In reality the huge distance ($$15\times 10^9$$ Km ) from the earth mean that the transmission is almost isotropic in nature.  So even if the transmission is considered to be a cone in cross section of the full isotropic transmission which would be spherical, the transmission still follows the inverse square law. Thus the transmission signal spreads out over an area of :

$$({15 \times 10^9})^2 = 2.25\times10^{20}$$ Kms.

Proof of the GAT lies in the fact that within that transmission cone every radio wave (photon) will have preserved its original energy or identity intact.

Thus in this case :

$$\hbar \omega = e$$ $$6.6 \times 10^{-34}\times 8.414\times 10^9 = 5.57 \times 10^{-24}$$ J.

This being so, where is the need for a wave solution or a collapse of the propagating wave function every time a signal is detected ?

Using this information it is possible to calculate the power density at earth:

$$P_r = P_t / 4\Pi r^2 = 8\times 10^3/4\Pi \times(15\times10^{12})^2 = 2.8 \times 10^{-22}$$ watts per square metre.

Signals from Voyager are received by the large 70m dish at Goldstone. A 70m dish has an area of 3800m, so the total power it receives over that area is $$\approx 1 \times 10^{-18}$$ W

The GAT theory works in every feasible situation and explains in a logical manner, every possible occurrence. What more can anyone ask ?
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”