Relativity+

[Lloyd]

* Farsight, your main topic here is photons and electrons, isn't it?
* Where's a list of all of the main experiments that have been done on those two entities? What are the main findings of all those experiments?
* Would you please show how your theory conforms with all those findings?

[Farsight]

Farsight, Thanks for those words...of wisdom.

And thank you too kevin. It's good to talk.

The solid is the most difficult concept I grapple with, I look back in time as far as I can with sight. I find no movement whatsoever. I check and check until I am blue in the face, that which was sited as far back as I can find, is positioned and was positioned to a FIXED detectable grid. BUT, that which travels on this grid moves, I check and can check everything created in this grid, thus I can see how everything encompassing within a sort of bubble about itself can switch from point to adjoining point.

I'd say "the solid" doesn't move, but ripples in it do, and that's what everything is made of.

Your fingers typing are not moving as such, they are a collection of specifically arranged orientations that are enabled to switch across in the solid of space. This is the big hurdle, the universe is litterally a solid FIXED, the bubble that is our universe we percieve can expand as it takes more STUFF from whatever bubble it is within, our galaxy is a bubble in the universe bubble, our star a bubble within that , this planets bubble is within the suns bubble. We are bubbles of duality STUFF.

And this "stuff", this space, is unique, because when we look at it through a microscope it seems as if it's just not there, but everything is made of it.

The grid all of this occurs upon has infinite scale that all the bubbles are travelling about upon, just like your underground system, and each bubble has a heart point where the duality pinchs into and emitts from.
I think abbot suger saw His god, and "I am alpha and Omega" Is the answer. We and everything created are to scale in it's image, it is holographic in nature all operating in a sea of liquid gold, the crystaline matrix of gold is a key imo.

I say the world is painted in light, and so is the canvas. Perhaps, in the end, this is just another way of saying the same thing. In some strange way, motion is king. Without it, light doesn't move, so you can't see, and signals in your brain can't move, so you can't think. Without it there is no time. Talking of which, here's something you might find interesting:

...This is another optical illusion. Apart from the shading where they meet, the two large rounded blocks are actually the same colour. Fold the paper a little to compare them. Then you can see that the difference is merely an illusion. What this tells you is that colour is subjective. It isn’t a real objective property of things in the world. It’s a perception, it’s in your head. Colour is a “quale”, one of the “qualia”, the way things seem. Light doesn’t actually have a colour. It has an energy, an oscillation, a frequency. What it’s got is a motion.

Let’s move on to sound. Imagine a super-evolved alien bat with a large number of ears, like a fly’s eye. This bat would “see” using sound, and if it was sufficiently advanced it might even see in colour. But we know that sound is pressure waves, and when we look beyond this at the air molecules, we know that sound relies on motion.

Pressure is related to sound, and to touch. You feel it in your ears on a plane, or on your chest if you dive. This pressure of air or water is not some property of the sub-atomic world. It’s a derived effect, and the Kinetic Theory of Gases, tells us that pressure is derived from motion.

You can also feel kinetic energy. If a cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s impacted your chest you would feel it for sure. But apologies, my mistake. It isn't the cannonball doing 1000m/s. It's you. So where's the kinetic energy now? Can you feel it coursing through your veins? No. Because what’s really there is mass, which is energy, and motion.

You can also feel heat. Touch that stove and you feel that heat. We talk about heat exchangers and heat flow as if there’s some magical mysterious fluid in there. And yet we know there isn’t. We know that heat is another derived effect of atomic and molecular motion.

Taste is chemical in nature, and somewhat primitive. Most of your sense of taste is in fact your sense of smell. Do you know how smell works? Look up olfaction and you’ll learn about molecular shape. But a theory from a man called Luca Turin[30] says it’s all down to molecular vibration, because isomers smell the same. That’s motion again.

The point of all this is there’s a lot of motion out there, and most of your senses are motion detectors. But it probably never occurred to you because you’re accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how you experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, ontological things that are there. And nowhere is this more so than with time...

[Farsight]

Remember, everything is composed solely of distributed charge spheres....thats the bubbles.
Actually Spheres surrounded by Donuts. Dual Charge entites. They travel the lattice grid of the matrix which has been summerized and composed of 20 different quaternion equations by Maxwell.

It's nice to hear somebody talking about the real Maxwell's equations, junglelord. Not the Heaviside vectors. You'll doubtless be aware of Maxwell's electric elasticity equation E = 1/ε D in his Dynamical theory of the electro-magnetic field. This is how it is. Grab that matrix and twist your fist all the way round, then tuck it into itself, and the twist stays there. That's what a "charge bubble" is. But like Maxwell said, it's dynamical rather than static, there are no grid lines and there is no fist to twist it, because the photon is just a ripple, and that's all there is. Only when this spacewarp travels through itself it can be trapped as an electron. Or a proton. There isn't much else.

[Farsight]

Farsight, your main topic here is photons and electrons, isn't it?

No, but they're very important.

Where's a list of all of the main experiments that have been done on those two entities? What are the main findings of all those experiments?

It's a long list. But to keep it simple, start with pair production and annihilation, which shows that you can convert a photon into an electron and vice-versa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

Then look at electron spin as per the Stern-Gerlach experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_quant ... ctron_spin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment

The photon has no mass, and no charge, and whilst it conveys momentum, and we say the photon has spin, it isn't like electron spin. The electron has angular momentum. It has mass, and charge, and when you annihilate it, all that comes out is a photon. That's all that was ever there. There's nothing else it can be but a self-trapped photon.

Would you please show how your theory conforms with all those findings?

It takes a lot to show it all, Lloyd. That's why it's a book. See relativity+. Look inside and note the dedication, it's dedicated to the unsung heroes of science, the people who don't get heard. I've just joined a few dots, and explained it in simple terms that everybody can understand. Like this:

CHARGE EXPLAINED

Charge is another one of those things you learn about in physics. Well, you think you do, but you don’t. Not really. The textbooks don’t explain it, and they shrug off this omission by telling you it’s fundamental. It isn’t. It’s as fundamental as mass, which is not very fundamental at all. Pair production and annihilation demonstrate that charge can be created and destroyed along with mass, so it isn’t fundamental. The thing is this: if you understand mass you already understand charge. But you probably don’t realise it yet. So I’ll explain it.

Let’s start with the easy stuff. We know that we can rub a balloon to create an electric field. It can pick up a piece of paper or make your hair stand on end. We’ve all seen and felt a spark of static, blue and crackling as electricity tears the air. We know that high voltage is called high tension, and tension is negative pressure and pressure is stress. So we’re happy with the fluid analogy where a current flows from the negative to the positive terminals of a battery. They got that backwards in the old days, but that doesn’t matter. We just measure the rate of flow in terms of amperage, and multiply by time to get charge, and multiply again by voltage to get energy. We work out that the amount of charge in a battery is all about the number of electrons available to flow, and we know that our charged-up balloon has a surplus of them above and beyond its protons.

So, how much charge is in a flat battery? None, I hear you say. Wrong. It’s chock full of charge. It’s full of positive charge and negative charge. That’s why it’s got mass. That’s why it’s a material object. If there wasn’t any charge, it would be a whole heap of gamma radiation.

But let’s keep it simple and forget the positive charge for the time being. What is it about these electrons that keeps our laptops humming? What is this mysterious thing called charge? The answer is easy once you know how to see it. Go to the kitchen, get a glass, then quickly fill it with water and hold it up to the window. You’ll see bubbles swirling and silvery, pop pop popping. They aren’t actually silver of course, they just look that way because they distort the light. Now go to the cutlery drawer and pull out a spoon. It’s silvery. Metals look that way because they're awash with electrons. When you look at a spoon you're seeing those electrons, or more properly, the charge. It’s reflective, silvery. Charge looks like this for the same reason as those bubbles. It’s like a highway mirage on a hot sunny day. You see what looks like water on the road ahead, but it’s merely the light from the sky bent towards your eye. You are seeing distortion, and it’s silvery like a bubble because it bends the light...

[Lloyd]

* How about putting the book online, or making it available via email attachments or something? I mean for a fee [in dollars].

[StevenO]

What do you mean by light is "electric" in nature here? That the photon is the quantum of the EM and electrostatic fields?

Not quite, because AC is more fundamental than DC, and because there's only one field. Ever heard of Jefimenko? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko's_equations and note this paragraph:

"There is a widespread interpretation of Maxwell's equations to the effect that time variable electric and magnetic fields can cause each other. This is often used as part of an explanation of the formation of electromagnetic waves. However, Jefimenko's equations show otherwise. Jefimenko says, "...neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a dual entity always having an electric and a magnetic component simultaneously created by their common sources: time-variable electric charges and currents."

I don't agree that AC is more fundamental than DC. I think it is the opposite. Electrostatics are a results of a difference in photon emission fields causing the appearance of charges. A moving charge causes magnetism due to relativistic effects.

<...> But whichever way you experience this single electromagnetic field, there aren't any actual photons flying back and forth between you and the stack of electrons, mediating the force. Each electron is essentially a self-trapped 511keV photon, spinning round and round exerting a "frame-dragging" effect on the surrounding space. Or you could say that light travels in straight lines, and when it doesn't we say space is curved. Hence an electric field is curved space.

Space is the linear movement of photons and as such should not be curved by definition. Are you familiar with Miles Mathis' work? He holds that the electron is 7 levels of spin on top of a photon, while protons and neutrons have additional spin levels on top of that. He is able to derive that with simple mechanical derivations.

How would you explain the difference between "real", "virtual" and "messenger" photons then?

A real photon is something detectable and real. It conveys energy/momentum, and since the dimensionality of energy is pressure x volume, the photon is effectively a "pressure pulse" rippling through space at c. A virtual photon is more of a pressure gradient, it's still a wave, but a standing wave, like an evanescent wave, which you can see mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field. A messenger photon between say an electron and a proton is the same sort of thing, but rippling round and round the proton as the electron rolls around it.

What proof do you have that a photon is a pressure wave and not a particle? How do you explain the frequency of the photon and the constant energy content of a photon if it is a propagating pressure pulse in three dimensions?

What proof do you have the electron is "half" the photon "wrapped up"?

Actually, it's a whole photon wrapped up. In pair production you start with a +1022keV photon and split it into two 511keV photons, then wrap each one in opposite directions. It's like throwing a water wave at a post in the sea and seeing two opposite whirlpools form:

How do you split one photon into two?

How do you wrap up half a photon?

You make it travel through itself. The photon is akin to a pulse of spacewarp. Change its direction so much that you make it travel all the way through itself because it's wrapped round twice, and it's perennially travelling through its own warped space. It can't get out, it's like it's tied in a knot of its own making.

So, you would hold that space is actually made of photons then?

Why would a photon have no mass and a "wrapped up" photon would?

Because there's a symmetry between momentum and inertia. The difference between them depends on who you say is moving. If you have to catch a medicine ball travelling at 5m/s it's tricky because it's got a lot of momentum. If however it's you travelling at 5m/s and I put the medicine ball in your way, it's hard to get it moving at 5m/s because it's got a lot of inertia. A photon has momentum p=hf/c. But you can't make it go faster or slower so mass doesn't apply. However when you employ pair production the photon isn't going anywhere anymore, and we call it an electron. But you can make the electron go faster or slower, so the momentum now looks like inertia. This is why E=mc².

So, you hold that photons do not follow E=mc² then? I still have trouble understanding why you would assume that photons can transfer energy, but have no mass. It is hard to measure because photons are mostly used as physical yardsticks.

The photon is then actually this "Higgs" particle?

No, the Higgs boson would be more like the W and Z bosons, very short-lived, more like an event than a particle.

How can a particle "give" mass to another particle?

So many questions already from a few lines. Any explanation would be appreciated.

A pleasure. There will doubtless be some things wrong with all this, but the overall picture is just so simple and coherent, and everything fits so well that the gist of it looks like it's right. It fits with quantum mechanics and QED too. The quantum of quantum is just so horribly simple it's scarey!

What is the "quantum of quantum"?

[Farsight]

How about putting the book online, or making it available via email attachments or something? I mean for a fee [in dollars].

The problem is it would get nicked, see for example this webpage where the link doesn't work: http://www.pdfgeni.com/book/New-theorie ... g-pdf.html

But there's a free version in the form of a paper here: http://www.relativityplus.info/. It's a bit condensed, it doesn't explain things so well, and it's out of date with a few bugs in it, for example the pair-production image is wrong, but it gives you the drift.

[Farsight]

I don't agree that AC is more fundamental than DC. I think it is the opposite. Electrostatics are a results of a difference in photon emission fields causing the appearance of charges.

This is what's taught. But when you actually look for messenger particles between an electron and a proton, they simply aren't there. There aren't any photons zipping between the two. People then talk of virtual particles, and promptly forget that they're virtual. An electron isn't ablaze with emitted photons, and low-speed electron/positron annihilation yields two 511 keV photons, and nothing else. There's nothing else there, and those two 511 keV are now moving at c. The electron's electric field just has to be something to do with its spin, which points to it being a photon configuration where the transient field-variation appears as a fixed field. I'd say it's a mistake to resort to virtual photons to justify the photon's sinusoidal electromagnetic field variation, they're an abstraction, the accounting units of QED rather than something real.

A moving charge causes magnetism due to relativistic effects.

It doesn't cause it. It is it. If you move through an electric field you see it as a magnetic field, but all it ever was was a single field, the electromagnetic field. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko's_equations.

Space is the linear movement of photons and as such should not be curved by definition. Are you familiar with Miles Mathis' work? He holds that the electron is 7 levels of spin on top of a photon, while protons and neutrons have additional spin levels on top of that. He is able to derive that with simple mechanical derivations.

No, sorry, I'm not familiar with Miles Mathis' work. I've just had a look at http://milesmathis.com/ and the first few sections look good, for example where he talks about time in terms of motion. But this section on charge where he talks about "bombarding photons" looks wrong: http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html. But there's good stuff in there, thanks for pointing him out.

What proof do you have that a photon is a pressure wave and not a particle?

A radio wave is made up of photons, and might have a wavelength of 1500m. This demands a "particle" that's 1500m long. Chop it in two and you'd have a "particle" that's 750m long, only you don't. You get two photons 3000m long. It's clearly not a particle in the sense of a point particle bulleting through space, it's some kind of wave instead, in the volume of space. It's a pressure wave because it conveys energy, and energy is pressure x volume, but I think "pressure pulse" is a better way of saying it.

How do you explain the frequency of the photon and the constant energy content of a photon if it is a propagating pressure pulse in three dimensions?

The frequency is going to vary according to the attributes of the emission. The frequency can vary smoothly, and the photon energy will vary smoothly in line with this frequency. The quantum nature of this energy isn't a "lumpiness" in the amount of energy delivered by photons, because that frequency can vary smoothly. Instead it's an aspect of E=hf, where h is Planck's constant of action. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant and the bit where it says

"The Planck constant has dimensions of energy multiplied by time, which are also the dimensions of action. In SI units, the Planck constant is expressed in joule seconds (J·s). The dimensions may also be written as momentum multiplied by distance (N·m·s), which are also the dimensions of angular momentum".

That's my bolding on momentum multiplied by distance. Given that E=hf says the energy is momentum multiplied by distance multiplied by frequency, an given that Placnk's constant is constant, then that distant must be constant. It's 3.86 x 10^-13 m, and relates to the constant amplitude you see in all depictions of the electromagnetic spectrum:

How do you split one photon into two?

By directing it towards a barrier, provided by an atomic nucleus. This divides the photon into two halves down its length, each resultant half being twice as long as the original. But there's an elasticity here two, each half curls up and flies off spinning around itself. I could do with an animation in a lattice to try to show this.

So, you would hold that space is actually made of photons then?

No, I'd say space is what everything else is made of. A photon is just spacewarp, it isn't "made" of anything but space.

So, you hold that photons do not follow E=mc² then? I still have trouble understanding why you would assume that photons can transfer energy, but have no mass. It is hard to measure because photons are mostly used as physical yardsticks.

Photons don't follow E=mc². See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties. E=hf applies instead. The f for frequency is written as a v.

How can a particle "give" mass to another particle?

It can't. A photon has no mass, but when you employ pair production to reconfigure photons into particles with mass, we don't call them photons any more.

What is the "quantum of quantum"?

Doh, typo. I meant to say "the quantum of quantum mechanics".

[StevenO]

I don't agree that AC is more fundamental than DC. I think it is the opposite. Electrostatics are a results of a difference in photon emission fields causing the appearance of charges.

This is what's taught. But when you actually look for messenger particles between an electron and a proton, they simply aren't there. There aren't any photons zipping between the two. People then talk of virtual particles, and promptly forget that they're virtual. An electron isn't ablaze with emitted photons, and low-speed electron/positron annihilation yields two 511 keV photons, and nothing else. There's nothing else there, and those two 511 keV are now moving at c. The electron's electric field just has to be something to do with its spin, which points to it being a photon configuration where the transient field-variation appears as a fixed field. I'd say it's a mistake to resort to virtual photons to justify the photon's sinusoidal electromagnetic field variation, they're an abstraction, the accounting units of QED rather than something real.

I fully support your statement that virtual or messenger particles are not what they are supposed to be, but that was also the core of my statement: the charge field is relative to an underlying photon field. The virtual and messenger photons are actually real photons. I don't understand your remark about the electron since we know that electrons can absorb and emit real photons other than 511keV ones.

What proof do you have that a photon is a pressure wave and not a particle?

A radio wave is made up of photons, and might have a wavelength of 1500m. This demands a "particle" that's 1500m long. Chop it in two and you'd have a "particle" that's 750m long, only you don't. You get two photons 3000m long. It's clearly not a particle in the sense of a point particle bulleting through space, it's some kind of wave instead, in the volume of space. It's a pressure wave because it conveys energy, and energy is pressure x volume, but I think "pressure pulse" is a better way of saying it.

This makes no sense. Atoms can emit and absorb photons that are orders of magnitude larger than the size of the atom. The wavelenght of the photon is the photon spin against the lineair motion of the photon.

How do you explain the frequency of the photon and the constant energy content of a photon if it is a propagating pressure pulse in three dimensions?

The frequency is going to vary according to the attributes of the emission. The frequency can vary smoothly, and the photon energy will vary smoothly in line with this frequency. The quantum nature of this energy isn't a "lumpiness" in the amount of energy delivered by photons, because that frequency can vary smoothly. Instead it's an aspect of E=hf, where h is Planck's constant of action. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant and the bit where it says

"The Planck constant has dimensions of energy multiplied by time, which are also the dimensions of action. In SI units, the Planck constant is expressed in joule seconds (J·s). The dimensions may also be written as momentum multiplied by distance (N·m·s), which are also the dimensions of angular momentum".

That's my bolding on momentum multiplied by distance. Given that E=hf says the energy is momentum multiplied by distance multiplied by frequency, an given that Placnk's constant is constant, then that distant must be constant. It's 3.86 x 10^-13 m, and relates to the constant amplitude you see in all depictions of the electromagnetic spectrum:

I think you did'nt answer my question. Would'nt the energy of the photon dilute or dissipate if it was a pressure wave expanding in three dimensions?

How do you split one photon into two?

By directing it towards a barrier, provided by an atomic nucleus. This divides the photon into two halves down its length, each resultant half being twice as long as the original. But there's an elasticity here two, each half curls up and flies off spinning around itself. I could do with an animation in a lattice to try to show this.

So, you would hold that space is actually made of photons then?

No, I'd say space is what everything else is made of. A photon is just spacewarp, it isn't "made" of anything but space.

What is space made of then?

So, you hold that photons do not follow E=mc² then? I still have trouble understanding why you would assume that photons can transfer energy, but have no mass. It is hard to measure because photons are mostly used as physical yardsticks.

Photons don't follow E=mc². See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties. E=hf applies instead. The f for frequency is written as a v.

Would'nt Planck's constant hide the photon's mass?

How can a particle "give" mass to another particle?

It can't. A photon has no mass, but when you employ pair production to reconfigure photons into particles with mass, we don't call them photons any more.

That looks like a word game to me. Two photons of the right energy can call up a Higgs Boson then?

[Farsight]

I fully support your statement that virtual or messenger particles are not what they are supposed to be, but that was also the core of my statement: the charge field is relative to an underlying photon field. The virtual and messenger photons are actually real photons. I don't understand your remark about the electron since we know that electrons can absorb and emit real photons other than 511keV ones.

A free electron doesn't emit electrons, only a bound electron. And that binding isn't due to real photons. There's something real there, and it's related to a photon, but when an electron is attracted to a positron, there just aren't any photons flying back and forth between them at the speed of light. They're simply not there, those virtual particles aren't real particles.

This makes no sense. Atoms can emit and absorb photons that are orders of magnitude larger than the size of the atom. The wavelength of the photon is the photon spin against the linear motion of the photon.

You're thinking of the photon as a billiard-ball particle, and it isn't like that. Light is a wave. A wave on the surface of the ocean isn't a thing that spins, even though it causes the local water to move in a circular fashion. It travels along with a sinusoidal waveform, and it's energy and pressure that moves laterally, not water. It's similar for a wave in space. It's a wave, not something like a spinner dolphin.

I think you didn't answer my question. Wouldn't the energy of the photon dilute or dissipate if it was a pressure wave expanding in three dimensions?

The energy of a radio emission does exactly that, but at the very small scale the individual photons don't. Space is the way it is, and E=hf always applies. And h really is momentum x distance. It's a wave attribute, there's an action or kick going through space and nothing else. There is no discrete particle with a surface or shape. See http://physicsworld.com/blog/2009/10/ru ... a_rug.html and think of the rolling ruck as a photon in a 2D sheet, then imagine this in a 3D solid.

What is space made of then?

It isn't made of anything. It's just space, the fundamental stuff underlying everything else. Some people say space is made up of quantum foam, but if you ask them what that's made of, they resort to virtual particles again. But these virtual particles are virtual, they aren't real. And they're missing a trick in that space isn't made out of particles, particles are made out of space. You need motion, like a ripple of spacewarp. It's always a wavelike motion. When this propagates in a straight line at c we call it a photon. When we use pair production to make it go round and round in circles we call it an electron.

Would'nt Planck's constant hide the photon's mass?

No, because mass is a measure of the amount of energy that isn't moving in aggregate with respect to you. A photon is moving like totally with respect to you, so mass doesn't apply. But if you trap that photon in a mirrored box, the mass of the mirror-box system is increased. Alternatively if you use pair production to trap that photon using itself, the mass of that "system" is increased. But we don't call it a photon any more, we call it an electron.

That looks like a word game to me.

It's no word game. That's the simple reality of the experimental physics. Annihilate an electron with a positron, and the result is two 511keV photons. There isn't anything else, which means that's all that was ever there.

Two photons of the right energy can call up a Higgs Boson then?

Maybe, but the Higgs Boson is hypothetical, it was proposed in 1964, forty-five years ago. There's no actual evidence for it. It isn't in the same league as pair production and annihilation and photons and electrons. And even if it had been detected, it still wouldn't be in the same league. You can get a sense of this by looking at the W and Z bosons. See where it says "all three particles are very short-lived with a mean life of about 3×10^−25 s". A particle like this is more of an event than a particle, like a supernova is a type of explosion rather than a type of star.

[Lloyd]

Farsight: the photon is effectively a "pressure pulse" rippling through space at c

* Shouldn't light be analogous to sound, which latter is an expanding spherical wave motion in molecules of the air etc, while light is an expanding spherical wave motion in aether particles that fill space?

[junglelord]

I believe light expands at the compton wavelength.

That quote is accurate except for the identification of light as being only primary angular momentum without a relationship to encapsulation. The Compton Wavelength identifies the geometry of the photon.

An electron expanding at the speed of light....a photon, assumes a double cardioid shape as it expands.

In 1923, Arthur Compton noted that J.J. Thomson's model of the electron did not account for the lower frequency (longer wavelength) associated with "electron scattering." To account for this, Compton imagined the photon as a billiard ball that passed through the atom and dislodged electrons from a force within the atom according to the Doppler principle. [1]

Compton's theory accounts for the momentum of the photon itself, and explains the scattering of radiation in terms of corpuscular photons, but it does not explain how the photons always manage to miss the nucleus of the atom or fail to strike electrons from the outside toward the inside of the atom. His theory also fails to take into account the angular momentum of the incident photon.

Further, Compton's theory of a corpuscular incident photon assumes that the light is emitted as bullets that happen to be shot directly at the target. Also, this bullet would have to retain its full energy from the moment it left its source and transfer its full energy to the target atom.

Quantum Photon
In the Aether Physics Model the photon is quantified as a true quantum of angular momentum. It is equal to the angular momentum of the electron (Planck's constant) times the speed of light:

Photon = h x c

Light is then quantified as the photon times frequency:

Light = photon x frequency

Transmission
The quantum Aether unit has two spin. That means there are four half-spin spin positions in the Aether unit. The photon has one spin. As seen in the image below, the photon fills two spin positions within the Aether unit.



The 1 spin Aether unit looks like a snake in the above picture, but that is what it would look like moving through time. Since we are already moving with time, the only view of the photon we have is from the z axis. The photon looking down on the z axis appears as the following image:



The photon expands in a cardioid shape. The function that produces this shape is the Compton function:



Absorption
As an atom absorbs light, the angular momentum is stored in the positron spin position of the valence electron. The amount of angular momentum available from the light is determined by the distance between the emitting and absorbing atoms and the power available at absorption. The further the distance between the emitter and absorber means less power is available.

light = power x length

Because the atom has only certain resonances in which it can absorb angular momentum, the amount of angular momentum being absorbed depends on the resonant frequency of the absorbing atom

power = h x resonace

In the above case, the angular momentum is not quantum, but depends on the power level reaching the absorber atom and its resonant frequency.

Emission
As the valence electron fills the positron spin position with angular momentum, it eventually attains the mass of two electrons and has a net zero electrostatic charge. Having a net zero charge, the nucleus of the atom no longer pulls the combined electron-positron onn and it explodes outward toward the next Aether unit.

Depending on the amount of power reaching the atom, the double-sized onn either splits into a separate electron and positron (pair production) or splits into two photons. One photon emits outward according to the geometry of the Compton function above and the other is reabsorbed to the valence position and all the angular momentum moves to the electron spin position.

For a more detailed introduction to the Aether Physics Model, see our white paper, "A New Foundation for Physics," or our book, "Secrets of the Aether."

[1] Great Experiments in Physics, edited by Morris H. Shamos, Dover Publications Inc., 1959

http://www.16pi2.com/angular_momentum.htm

A photon is an aether unit - angular momentum dual, that is an electron expanding at the speed of light, the shape is a cardioid as indicated by the Compton Wavelength. That was my own learning curve and I hope to correct that misconception that the photon was not encapsulated. I would just as much prefer to say we are frozen light then to say the reverse (a photon is an electron expanding at the speed of light) which is really a invented chicken egg thing I made up on my own. The dual nature of all reality means the chicken is the egg and vica versa...so its not wrong to say that we are frozen light any more then its incorrect to call a photon an electron expanding at the speed of light.

The transfer of angular momentum is the key. The transfer of energy means little in a sense of geometry. That leaves a vague conception. Structure identified, reveals the functions in all possible aspects that would turn into technology. The angular momentum technology revolution is coming and will coincide with the 2-d materials technology.

Mark my words.

[Farsight]

Shouldn't light be analogous to sound, which latter is an expanding spherical wave motion in molecules of the air etc, while light is an expanding spherical wave motion in aether particles that fill space?

In some respects, but it isn't the same. Space isn't made of particles. One can describe space as an aether, but it's empty. Try using the word "vacuum" to see what I mean: the vacuum of space isn't full vacuum particles, you can't pump them out like you can with air. If you examine a cube of empty space there's simply no particles there. If however a quantum of light passes through this cube of space, people call this photon as a particle, but it's a wave not a billiard ball. It's a distortion rather than a point particle.

[Farsight]

I believe light expands at the compton wavelength. That quote is accurate except for the identification of light as being only primary angular momentum without a relationship to encapsulation. The Compton Wavelength identifies the geometry of the photon...

I'm sorry junglelord, but this does not feel in accord with any physics I know. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength where we can read "The Compton wavelength of a particle is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is the same as the rest-mass energy of the particle". Hence we can talk about the Compton wavelength of an electron being 2.426 x 10^-12m, this being the wavelength of a 511keV photon. This can indicate the geometry of the electron, but talking about the Compton wavelength of a photon which then identifies the photon geometery doesn't seem to hang together.

I would just as much prefer to say we are frozen light then to say the reverse (a photon is an electron expanding at the speed of light) which is really a invented chicken egg thing I made up on my own. The dual nature of all reality means the chicken is the egg and vica versa...so its not wrong to say that we are frozen light any more then its incorrect to call a photon an electron expanding at the speed of light.

It is more correct to say we're "frozen" light (though since the electron has spin and angular momentum IMHO "self-trapped" light is better). It's more correct because we see electrons and positrons, and protons, and antiprotons, and mesons and muons and lots of other particles too. When you annihilate them the end result is photons, just photons. That's when you realise that all these things are just different configurations of self-trapped photons, like different knots.