The Photon model

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Photon model

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:51 pm

The particle model of light was introduced by Einstein, for which he got a Nobel price.

Following the laws of quantum physics, we can see that particles of light do not exist at all.
We can see no particles until we measure them with a sensor. The sensor measures step-wise
changes in electronic voltages. But that is all that we can see of the "particles".

If you model light as particles then you have to assume that they split up into
all kinds of "possible" particles, that show their true nature only when they hit the sensor.
This causes all kinds of confusion in physics.

But what if there are no particles at all?
That is the basis of this post.

This leaves us to different possible models:

Loader model

The loader model assumes that electrons have different levels of potential.
But instead of receiving photons, they collect energy continuously.
When they reach a certain threshold they jump to a next level.

This way light is still a wave, but the electrons react stepwise.
This gives the illusion of a photon hitting an electron.

Example of a "Photon" that arrives at a sensor:
0.6 , 0.1 , 0.7 , 0.9 , 0.3 , 0.7 = before state
0.7 , 0.2 , 0.8 , 1.0 , 0.4 , 0.8 = after state
The 4'th sensor detects a photon, due to the change from 0.9 to 1.0.
So the randomness of quantum interactions come from the initial states of the particles that
receive the light-energy.

http://unquantum.net/ has a series of experiments that might support this loader model.

The loader model can be seen as a no-particle variant of the Pilot wave interpretation.

Wire model[b]

This model assumes that particles are connected by "wires".
These wires might be the simple representation of some system that we do not know yet.
The wires transfer the energy from one particle to another.
This model was shown in one of the videos of Thornhill on gravity.
Here is a video playlist that shows this wire theory in a very simple way. I expect it to be a bit more complex than that.

There are different possible usages for the wires:
1) The wires can transfer forces within a system. Immediately.
2) wires can model special relativity.
3) wires can remove randomness from quantum physics by assuming that a transfer is only possible
when 2 particles are in sync.
4) 2 wires can make a knot. This can from a pseudo-particle. Or otherwise strange behaviour.
5) connections between atoms in a molecule are often modelled as wires.
6) on the level of quarks, the gluons are modelled as wires.
7) the consistency and structure of matter.

The idea is a bit similar to the superstring theory, but far less complex.
It is compatible with the super deterministic interpretation of quantum physics. Except it is much simpler, and still allows for "free will" in a some way.

[b]Testing


Unlike the interpretations of quantum physics, these interpretations can be tested.
The results on unquantum show promising results for the loader theory.
The experiment by Ralph Sansbury, where he opened a path to a sensor just before the photon would arrive,
showed that the photon did not arrive at the sensor. This might suggest the wire model.
But for both, more testing is needed.

Consequences
Because we see quantum phenomena in all types of matter,
these models might apply to these as well.
But it goes too far for this post to explore that direction.

Conclusion

What I clearly showed is that it is possible to replace the particle model of light with a wave model.
It even gives simple deterministic models for quantum phenomena.
And unlike the quantum physics interpretations, these can be tested.

So, what if light is not made of photons?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The Photon model

Unread postby Webbman » Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:14 am

what if the particle contains a wave and part (or all) of it is transferred on contact?
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The Photon model

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:25 am

Webbman wrote:what if the particle contains a wave and part (or all) of it is transferred on contact?


A particle is of limited size. Waves are of unlimited size.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The Photon model

Unread postby LunarSabbathTruth » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:53 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:The particle model of light was introduced by Einstein, for which he got a Nobel price.
...


A good rule of thumb is "take what Einstein said, and study the opposite."

The "loader" model has merit.

Perhaps one key may be that what people are calling "fundamental particles" are really just groups of smaller particles that are synched together. So when people say "1 photon", what they are really talking about is (say) 10000 sub-photons. (The "sub-photon" being the actual fundamental entity that cannot be divided.)

The 10000 "sub-photons" can stay together (and be interpreted as a particle), or they can spread out (and be interpreted as a wave), or half can go one way, and half the other way, etc.

- joe
LunarSabbathTruth
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Photon model

Unread postby lw1990 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:13 am

Photons and electrons were shown to be able to phase between particle and wave in the double slit experiment.
Everything in the universe is made of the same substance in different densities and geometric arrangements - these arrangements and densities cause different behavior. Some of these behaviors we classify as particle behaviors or wave behaviors. An electric current through a wire moves as a wave, if the wire is led into a pool of water, electrons will discharge which behave like particles. The medium the current passes through determines if it is phased into a wave or particle.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: The Photon model

Unread postby kasim » Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:41 am

First of all, it was Newton who described light as "a stream of corpuscles". Einstein came later. A little study of the history of science gives us a better clue of the nature of photons.

In the 17th century, Huygens claimed that light is made of waves because it displays diffraction and interference phenomena; whereas Newton said they were a stream of particles without using that model to explain diffraction and interference phenomena. Despite this failing, Newton's model was accepted mainly because of his prolific work.

In 1801, the wave theory of light was accepted mainly because Newton's particle model doesn't explain the diffraction and interference phenomena. The final nail in Newton's corpuscular theory came when they measured the speed of light in water. Newton said it was higher in water than in air whereas Huygens said the opposite. It's lower in water than in air i.e. the speed of light is NOT a universal constant.

Along came Einstein in 1905 and proved that Newton was right but so was Huygens; i.e. the photon displays both behaviours. So Einstein gave us the particle-wave duality theory which was accepted by the science community.

In 1923, DeBroglie theorised that any moving particle displays wave behaviour where the momentum of the particle is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the displayed wave. This was proven with the electron diffraction experiments and shortly afterwards, DeBroglie won the Nobel Prize for physics.

After the fuss over electron diffraction died off, the whole thing was forgotten but electron interference experiments kept being shown even today without concluding what the significance of moving particles displaying wave behaviour is.

My conclusion is that particle and wave behaviour are different sides of the same coin i.e. they exist together not as a duality - sometimes particle and sometimes wave. DeBroglie's finding should've replaced Einstein's duality theory but because of Einstein's pre-eminence, it wasn't. Aren't we in danger of idolising certain people and accepting everything they tell us even if it's wrong?

I believe that photons ARE particles that display wave behaviour. Photons are described as electromagnetic waves. What gives rise to the electric field component? and what gives rise to the magnetic field component? If you consider the photon to be a bound state of 2 electric charges of opposite polarity, this explains the source of the electric field component and why it's sinsoidal. Because the electric charges are moving, they generate a magnetic field at right angles to both the electric field and direction of motion.

Also, from classical physics, the KE of a moving object is 1/2 mv^2. If that's a photon, it would be 1/2 mc^2. But the total energy of the object is mc^2. So where's the other half? It's bound up in the object as internal energy; and only particles that have mass can have internal energy. This proves that photons are particles that have mass and KE.

Scientists tell us that massless energy contributes to mass - dark matter contributes nearly 70% of the mass of the universe. It's worse with the proton - quarks contribute 10% of the mass and the remaining 90% is due to the energy of the massless gluons. It's like building a house with 10% bricks and 90% mortar.

It's about time that scientists revisited DeBroglie's theory and admit that photons are particles that have mass and display wave behaviour. That way, it's easy to accept that energy contributes to mass.

A similar blindness happened with Carl Anderson's gamma-ray photon experiments: he noticed that they split into electron-positron pairs. Unfortunately, he became pre-occupied with the finding of the anti-electron (positron) that Paul Dirac postulated 4 years earlier. After he received the Nobel Prize in 1936, his work was largely forgotten but remained as a relic.

Since then, scientists have given us the quark theory in 1964. The mass of the quarks shrank from 99% to 10% in just 50 years. Anderson's experiments actually prove that energy splits into electrons and positrons not quarks. This means that protons and neutrons are made of positrons and electrons like atoms. When they combine into nuclei, they do so electromagnetically by forming bonds i.e. there's no need for a strong force. The whole thing is a shambles.

Lawrence Krauss accuses religious people of picking the good bits of the scriptures and ignoring the bad bits. Scientists are picking up the bad bits of their theories, such as quarks and Higgs boson, and ignoring the good bits, such as DeBroglie's theory and Anderson's proof that energy splits into electrons and positrons not quarks.
kasim
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:20 am

Re: The Photon model

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:33 pm

~
Kassim wrote:
ignoring the good bits, such as DeBroglie's theory and Anderson's proof that energy splits into electrons and positrons not quarks.


Agreed, everything detected as 'particle' has positive/negative polarity, and what the QD folks
are calling "quarks" are just inherent 3D axial flows (six, when + and - are taken into account),
of the aetheric substrate.


A little study of the history of science...

does help.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2623
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Photon model

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:16 pm

kasim wrote:My conclusion is that particle and wave behaviour are different sides of the same coin i.e. they exist together not as a duality - sometimes particle and sometimes wave.


The whole idea of my first post is that there are no particles.
And if we look carefully at light we can see no particles at all.
All light always behaves as waves, as is described by quantum physics.
But we can detect a package of light at a detector.
(And according to unquantum sometimes at 2 detectors).

So, it appears that the interactions between matter and light are in quanta.

If we model light as electric and magnetic fields, it is obvious that the forces caused by these
fields can not be transferred with particles. Each particle would cause a randomness in the fields
that make them unstable and lose energy.
Such forces would cause [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion]Brownian Motion[/b].
And in Bose-Einstein condensates, we can see that this is certainly not the case.
The particle model of force-field-carriers is even impossible in the case of static fields.
The mainstream "solution" is to introduce virtual photons. With other words, photons that do
not really exist. Which still does not work, because of the randomness.
So the simplest possible case, a static field, can not even be modelled correctly by mainstream.

So my conclusion is that we should totally get rid of the particle model of light.
It is just confusing, and simply not true.

What is nice, is that these alternative models can actually be tested.

The threshold model is very easy to test, and has been confirmed by unquantum.

The wire model, which was even shown in a EU slide, can be tested as well.
There are likely certain conditions under which wires form or break, just like
chemical bonds break between atoms in molecules,
or like the the cooper-pairs in super-conductivity.
Something which is not understood well with quantum physics.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The Photon model

Unread postby saul » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:54 pm

Great stuff, I am in agreement with the "loader" model.

I have been circulating a similar version of this for peer review, please take a look:
"Demystifying Quantum Mechanics"
http://vixra.org/abs/1611.0059
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: The Photon model

Unread postby comingfrom » Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:08 pm

Great topic.

Zyxzevn wrote
The whole idea of my first post is that there are no particles.

....

If we model light as electric and magnetic fields, it is obvious that the forces caused by these
fields can not be transferred with particles.


What do your fields consist of, if not particles?
What is waving, if there is no medium?

I guess I'm a particle believer, like Kasim (whose post I consider excellent).
It is easy for me to visualize a particle behaving as a wave (a fast moving object with a gyroscopic wobble), but I cannot visualize how a wave can ever behave as a particle.

Energy needs a carrier, or container.
And waves need a medium.

I believe our [E/M] fields that we speak of are fields of photons.
Photons are charge.

And, I think, the threshold model can still hold true if photons are particles.
~Paul

P.s. Happy New Year to all!
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests