0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

No problem. Here's what you need to do:

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.

that light is composed of lines of photons and that these lines of photons travel in straight lines.

the GAT (Gestalt Aether Theory) model of the photon is primarily a wave

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 difficult to do experiments without some idea of the expected result.

3. Please state whether your theory is (A)Quotethat 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.

either (really) a wave, or (really) a particle BUT can never posses both properties simultaneously

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 isQuoteeither (really) a wave, or (really) a particle BUT can never posses both properties simultaneouslybecause 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.

r => infinity, 1/r2 = 0

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.

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!

c t = d If the time is in femto seconds then ceb70870ab9ff4277e19ea1ae294fdd5.gif

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.

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.

All this makes it tough to imagine trying to prove that light is finite.

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.'

Since the photon is a particle ( at times)

(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.)

Thus as light travels forward it is also spreading out over an area equal to the inverse of the square of the distance traveled.

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.

if the inverse square law holds good it should be possible to observe how far these travel before disappearing.

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?

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.

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

(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.

The area of a sphere increases as the square of its radius, not the inverse square.

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.

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.

As Jeffrey and I have pointed out, if the inverse square law holds good, they never disappear. That's simple Euclidean geometry.

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 !

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.