Stars and photons

[richjkl]

A more obvious example is seen in the human eye.

Hecht, Schlaer and Pirenne in 1942 showed rods can respond to single quanta during scotopic vision.

In 1979 Baylor, Lamb and Yau were able to use rods from toads placed into electrodes to show directly that they respond to single photons.

Or they were responding to a very low energy electromagnetic wave? Like eyes are supposed to do? If you don't mind, could you elaborate on what the experiment was exactly? From your description it seems like an obvious thing, that an eye cell is responding to light, in whatever form it may be.

[klypp]

What is a single photon?

Hecht, Schlaer and Pirenne used "single quanta" in 1942.
Baylor, Lamb and Yau used a single photon in 1979.
Grangier used a single photon in 1986.

Ever since there has been numerous attempts to create single photon sources. Here is some news dated 2007:

Important advances have been made in high-performance single-photon sources that bring such possibilities closer to reality.

and

The traditional approach to generating single photons is to use weak laser pulses. In order to reach the single-photon level, you have to attenuate the light very strongly, limiting the efficiency of the device. Also, the photons emitted are governed by statistics. What we need is a high-efficiency source where we can generate photons one by one.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124847.htm

Why? Don't these guys know that a single photon was produced more than 30 years ago???

Not really, it depends on what you mean by "a single photon". On this site alone you'll find:
"the smallest pulses of light"
"the elementary particles of light"
"the smallest quantities of light"
"quantum-scale particle"

Doesn't sound very well defined to me, but I guess that's quantum theory for you: Dualities and uncertanities...

What they de facto are doing is trying to produce incredible small light pulses in a stable and controllable manner. Fair enough. But this doesn't prove that light is particles. It doesn't even prove that light is quanta!

It does prove that light can be switched on and off. I already knew that...

[webolife]

Klypp,
I didn't realize we had so much in common... I thought you derided me on another thread... was that someone else?
I've nearly exhausted everything I have to say about photons and stars on another thread, but will sum up one point here:
"Photons" are not particles nor waves, in the sense of objects emitted from a source [I disagree with Steve Smith's description here], but are discrete field pressure vectors connecting a peripheral observer to the light source-sink, directed toward the sink, not away from it toward the observer. The "discreteness" of the photon is a simple consequence of the logic that if it were any smaller it would be non-phenomenal, hence light "rays" are better described as light "beams"... regardless their essential field geometry is conical [albeit virtually cylindrical], with the "planckish" diametered base at the photoreceptor site, and the apex at the source/sink. In this respect they are reasonably punctual at both ends of the vector, but particularly at the source/sink which is fundamentally an electron, or electronic field fluxing to a "lower energy level". This flux, changing the field geometry as it occurs, results in an instantaneous "tug" at the peripheral base, the photoreceptor, and "light" happens. That is my story, and I'm sticking to it! er... IMHO.

[klypp]

I'm sure we have a lot in common, webolife, but light theory is not part of it.

The problem with any "new" theory on light is that it has to stand up to modern technology. It has to explain how modern communication works, how a radar works, how the CHARA array works and so on and so on...
Wave theory can do this. Your theory can not.

You claim that light is instantaneous and at the same time moving towards the source. That's a contradiction. Nothing can be moving and arrive instantaneously.

A vaste amount of modern technology is based on light moving away from the source. In this other thread you defended your theory by claiming that radars and land surveyor instruments simply do not work.

That's about where I found no point in taking the "discussion" any further. Sorry...

[upriver]

The only thing you can see is what hits your eye. The only thing you can measure is what hits your instruments.
If a "photon" is a "local production" when it hits your instrument, you will have no way to deduce that it was something else before this happened.

These simple statements alone would be enough to characterize the above post: Pure speculation...

Except if your instruments can detect what is happening in the middle(longitudinal waves) before it becomes a photon.

You seem to be unfamiliar with Aetherometry. Go here to read the whole article from Aetherometry.
I doubt that the Correa's do much speculation...
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/English/photon.php

[webolife]

Klypp, klypp, klypp...

You claim that light is instantaneous and at the same time moving towards the source. That's a contradiction. Nothing can be moving and arrive instantaneously.

I make no claim that light is moving...
I claim that light is a vectoral pressure effect based on the changing potential of the field that happens [to the entire field] when an electron or electronic field "collapses" to a lower energy state. The entire field changes instantaneously as a logical and exigent outcome of the compression of its centroid. This is why I have no difficulty explaining light behavior and gravitation in the same breath. The vectoral direction is "toward" the centroid, but not "moving" toward it, except in the briefest sense that the condensing field takes a split second to occur... collapsing, compressing, condensing, entropy, centropy.

A vaste amount of modern technology is based on light moving away from the source. In this other thread you defended your theory by claiming that radars and land surveyor instruments simply do not work.

I never said they don't work, silly! But they don't operate according to some light speed measurement, but by a shift in the spectrum of the signal caused by the slight pressure differential caused by the direction or motion of the vehicle, in the example of radar, or in the angular field of the signal spectrum in the case of a rangefinder... in neither device is light speed delay being measured either directly or indirectly by any mechanism. The Doppler [acoustical] assumption of Hubble is simply unproven.
I would say additionally that explanations of how modern technology works are built on the assumptions of physics, not necessarily on true nature. If you want to befuddle understanding of light, resort to models of invisible and undetectable mechanisms and computer simulations of waves or particles that assume what they are attempting to demonstrate. If you want to understand clearly what light is, draw an optical ray diagram.
As I said before, even Einstein knew that the c-rate could never be proven, due to the problem of simultaneity.
And speaking of relativity, just because a prediction is validated, does not mean that the assumptions are correct... other assumptions may also lead to the same observations, but with a different explanation... hence the EU. Hence me and you.
again, er... IMHO

[klypp]

Except if your instruments can detect what is happening in the middle(longitudinal waves) before it becomes a photon.

"In the middle" is exactly where you placed your instrument in the first place! No matter if you move your instrument closer to the light source, or further away from it - a "photon" will be "locally produced", according to this theory. And if that's what you see, that's what light is!
But I think you'll have a hard time finding an instrument that can detect "photons". Stick to the idea that light is longitudinal waves - in the middle and everywhere else!

Aahh!
But you mean an instrument that can detect what something was before the instrument detected it? Just like the telescope some quantum folks used when they discovered that the moon wasn't there when they wasn't looking!?
Of course...

[biknewb]

Light. What is it?
I never could imagine something being a wave and a particle at the same time.

Ever since reading Ralph Sansbury's work, I have been trying to see light as an action from a distance. Like webolife describes.
The exact mechanism by which this occurs is undoubtedly complex, with different competing models. But this mechanism is not essential for understanding the effect of light in real life. So I have simplified the case to the following assumption:
Light is a special excited state of an atom, this atom has a "light potential". Any other atom that can "see" the excited atom can take over this "light potential" and do something with it. A rod in the eye can convert it to a nerve pulse, but most atoms receive the "light potential" and just send it along, sometimes altering its colour. The existence of different colours indicates the "light potential" contains a frequency. So this frequency component constitutes the wave character of light and the action in the distance constitutes the particle character.
An atom which "light potential" is taken over by another atom, falls back to the ground potential. This explains that light can be seen as quantised.
So when webolife talks about a sink, and light's vector pointing to the source, I understand what he means.

Interesting new views of how light "works" arise when trying to see light this way.
The observation of entangled photons allegedly communicating instantly over large distances, becomes easier to understand if the photons are not actually travelling, but are properties of atoms, being measured at a distance.

The locally produced photon of klypp fits in with this concept imho, as it is the "light potential" of an excited atom that allows any atom in its line of sight to take over this "light potential" and do something with it, locally.

After some years contemplating this mechanism of light I haven't come up with anything of practical use yet. But it is fun anyway, ... I mean scientifically enlightening.
gerards regards

[webolife]

biknewby,
Your description of the "light potential" as a characteristic of the [local or universal] field is in direct agreement with my idea. The "frequency" aspect that you described is definitely more of a Ralph Sansbury concept, but I reconcile it by recognizing that the signalling source, stars in this thread, are in an oscillating mode, this due to rotation, electrical stressors, etc., pulsars, cepheids and the like, or beating rhythmically like our Sun... I would even attribute at least part of the "twinkling" aspect of stars to this... with this presupposition, no wavish "light frequency" need be imputed. Add to this that photoreceptors, whether biological, atomic/chemical or technological, are largely designed to resonate with the peculiar oscillations of a/the light source, thus contributing to the belief that the light itself is wavish by nature, and requiring models of emission, motion, longitudinal or standing waves, etc. I believe the geometry of the unified force field also applies to waves and wave media, but not that light must wave because geometries that apply to it also apply to some forms of waves... confusing sentence there, but it says what I mean. This why "non-material aether" concepts have appeal for me.

[FS3]

Perhaps this little experiment is sheding some more "light" on...

...light´s nature:

It´s called The Triple Phasor Paradox. This impressive experiment shows that light can actually pass through three polarized lenses yet be
completely attenuated by just two of the same lenses.

You can read about this rarely known phenomenon - which is said to be a clear Quantum Mechanical Effect here:
http://www.rogerwendell.com/text/scienc ... aradox.txt

First you should know that photons have two polarization
states, which are always perpendicular to each other and to the direction
the photon is traveling so long as the photon is not in a metal box (i.e.
it’s free). A polarization state is just what you would expect it to be,
if the photon is polarized "up-down" and you put your sunglasses on with
their slats going "sideways" you wont see that photon. Actually the
polarization of a photon is labeled by the oscillation of its electric
field if you want to think of the photon as a wave instead of a
particle. For this discussion it doesn't really matter so long as you call
"polarization" the property light has which prevents it from
passing through a perpendicularly oriented lens...

So photons are said to come in pairs and their polarization state depend on their fields.

...if you plotted all the photon polarizations from your
perspective on a graph of "up-down" versus "sideways" it would look
like a circle.

If you throw in (again) statistics, you may regognize the sum of all those photons polarization stats as a complete circle. No preferences in unpolarized light (many perpendicular polarized pairs of 0°-90° photons give a complete circle)

...So the truth is that you have no idea what the polarization
of a given photon is, until you measure it. Until you make that
measurement it could be "up" it could be "sideways" you just don't know. One of
the fundamental ideas in quantum mechanics is that a measurement
"collapses" the particle into a definite state - in our case polarization. This
is an example of something made famous by Schrodinger's cat...

OK, now to our experiment:

...Orient the first lens in any fashion. As you expect, light
will pass and then be stopped by a second filter placed 90 degrees
relative to the first. So all the photons entering the first have random
polarizations, and only those with "up-down" say pass. You have
forced the photons into a state defined by the natural basis of the lens. The
second lens, at 90 degrees is the other half of the same basis! Once the
photons pass the first lens, they have been measured as "up-down". The
second lens tries to measure them again as "sideways" but as all of the photons
are now "up-down," none of them can pass.

Now imagine instead that the second lens was at 45 degrees
instead of 90 degrees relative to the first. From the perspective of the
first lens all the passing photons are "up-down." But from the perspective
of the second all the photons are combinations of "up-down" and
"sideways," but it does not know which since until measurement it could be
either. This is the same way the first lens viewed light coming into it,
just there is less light! So like the first lens, the second one forces
its basis on the photons and some of them collapse into states of
"up-down" with respect to the second lens. Finally, the same argument can be
applied to a third lens oriented 90degrees to the first, since this
is again 45 degrees relative to the second lens. Again you enforce a
polarization basis which is different from the most recent, and
light will go through again.

So with two polarized lenses, perpendicular to each other (0° -90°) - no light comes through.
But with three polarized lenses - at polarizations at (0° - 45° - 90°) - you´ll see light coming through!

Finally if you are wondering why a photon has only two
polarization states even though we live in a 4d world, its
intimately tied to the massless nature of the photon, and has some pretty far
reaching consequences actually....

FS3

[biknewb]

Perhaps this little experiment is sheding some more "light" on...

...light´s nature:

It´s called The Triple Phasor Paradox. This impressive experiment shows that light can actually pass through three polarized lenses yet be
completely attenuated by just two of the same lenses.

You can read about this rarely known phenomenon - which is said to be a clear Quantum Mechanical Effect here:
http://www.rogerwendell.com/text/scienc ... aradox.txt
<snip>

FS3

That's a great experiment FS3. Thanks!

Let me translate it to my idea of atoms sending and receiving "the property of light". ...I have to come up with a better term let's call it PoL (Property of Light or Potential of Light)

A group of atoms is in an excited state each with its own PoL - the light source. The observation that polarisation of light is a real phenomenon, indicates that there must be differences in the direction of the PoL.
Only in a vacuum the PoL of excited atoms is taken over directly by receiving atoms. As soon as there is a medium, like air, the air atoms take over the PoL and pass it on.
The same goes for glass and other transparent material. Atoms of solid or reflective material bounce the PoL back. (Don't ask me how, I have only a faint idea of the actual mechanism.)
The fact that light speed is lower in a medium may be the result of the reaction time of the individual medium atoms.

Back to the experiment. (For simplicity it is done in vacuum)
The light source atoms are 'seen' by the polarising filter atoms. They take over the PoL, but they can only take over PoL's that are polarised in their preferred direction. The polarising filter atoms now have PoL available to atoms 'behind' the filter. A second polarising filter at a 90 degree angle with the first will stop the light. The atoms of the second filter have the 'wrong' preferred polarisation direction, so they can not take over the PoL even if they want to. Now we put another filter between the two, with a 45 degree angle of preferred polarisation. These atoms can take over the PoL from filter 1 atoms, but not the full amplitude of it. Only the part of the original direction they can manage, max. 70% I guess. But this time behind filter 2 there is some PoL available for filter 3. Filter 3 atoms can take over max. 70% in the same way, and make it available for the atoms of a detector unit behind filter 3.
The 70% is a guess, based upon the 45 degree angle. It is probably less, I don't know how efficient atoms are in taking on polarised PoL. Behind filter 3 some 49% of the light that passed filter 1 may be left.

And now I am going to look for two more polarising filters to test this

gerards regards

I may be totally wrong but I'm a dancing fool (Zappa)

[klypp]

I never said they don't work, silly! But they don't operate according to some light speed measurement, but by a shift in the spectrum of the signal caused by the slight pressure differential caused by the direction or motion of the vehicle, in the example of radar, or in the angular field of the signal spectrum in the case of a rangefinder... in neither device is light speed delay being measured either directly or indirectly by any mechanism. The Doppler [acoustical] assumption of Hubble is simply unproven.

OK, so radars do work, but they don't work the way they was built!!??

"But they don't operate according to some light speed measurement"
"in neither device is light speed delay being measured either directly or indirectly by any mechanism"
You're right, most radars doesn't measure light speed. The speed of light in air is well known. What they do measure is the time it takes for an electromagnetic wave to travel from the emitter to the target and back again. When this time is known, it's easy to calculate the distance to the target.
This works! It has been tested and retested over and over again. The technology is continously used all over the world. This is nothing but an ongoing experiment confirming all the time that light moves and has a well known speed in air.

This alone is enough to disprove your theory, so I will refrain from discussing your other "assumptions" for now.

If you really want to know how radar systems work, here is a site to check out: http://www.radartutorial.eu/html/_start.en.html

[klypp]

Before this gets too speculative...

The "triple phasor paradox" is well known (except perhaps, for the strange name) and easily explained by wave theory. In fact, when quantum folks discuss polarisation, they seems to prefer the wave behaviour of their "wave-particle" photon.
Here is one description of how it works with an illustration (near the bottom of the page): http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/physic ... ter11.html

The really weird thing here is Wendell's explanation:

So the truth is that you have no idea what the polarization of a given photon is, until you measure it. Until you make that measurement it could be "up" it could be "sideways" you just don't know. One of the fundamental ideas in quantum mechanics is that a measurement "collapses" the particle into a definite state - in our case polarization. This is an example of something made famous by Schrodinger's cat, which I can
explain also if there is any interest.

If you believe that the state of the photon is undetermined until measurement then you have solved the paradox!

This, of course, applies to the first filter, not to the second or third. That's weird!!!

And, no thank you, I'm not interested in this guys explanation of Schroedingers cat...

[webolife]

Klypp,
Here is a pertinent quote from your suggested website, which although it presented several formulae involving c, also made it clear that police radar does NOT measure time delay at all. Frequency modulation and phase keying are mathematical systems designed to derive speeds based on the assumption of the c-rate, but actually serve only to eliminate the need for measuring direct time delay. The distance to the object is of zero importance. Spectral characteristics of the signal, what they refer to as Doppler effects [another wave-based assumption], are what are used to derive object speed. Which is what I was trying to tell you.

Here's that quote:
"A run time measurement isn't necessary for speed gauges, the actual range of the delinquent car doesn't have a consequence. If you need a range information, then the time measurement can be realized by a frequency modulation or phase keying of the transmitted power.

A CW-radar transmitting a unmodulated power can measure the speed only by using the Doppler- effect. It cannot measure a range and it cannot differ between two reflecting objects."

With respect to polarization, the Wendell quote, though weird to you, serves to neatly demonstrate that light effects can only be known when they are observed, no along-the-way observations have ever been made of light in any form. Further affirmation of instantaneous light action at a distance.

With respect to "photons" from stars, all we know of stars' existence is obviously starlight that has already arrived at our location, so spectral characteristics of that light determine everything we can know. Our assumptions about how light works therefore determine our conclusions of what these spectral characteristics mean. If redshifts are Doppler effects, based on the acoustical presuppositions of Young, et.al., then conclusions about recession rate, expansion, a big bang, or whatever, may be derived. But if these spectral characteristics signal electrical stress or other intrinsic elements, then no such conclusions are necessary. If light effects are field shifts due to collapse, compression, condensation etc. of the photospheric shell of stars, due say to electrical stress, gravitational collapse or whatever, then you have evidence of instantaneous light action. If you an honest and logical scientist, your assumptions will predetermine your conclusions.

[klypp]

webolife,
the topic was whether or not light moves. That's why I focused on radar systems that use other techniques than analyzing the doppler effect.

You are right about an unmodulated CW (continuous wave) radar. It cannot measure the time the signal spends to and fro an object. The reason is simple: It emits and receives a continuous wave. And since the wave is continous and unmodulated, it will have no way to know when the actual part it is receiving at a given moment, was emitted.
But there is lots of other systems in use. One system is a Pulsed Radar. It simply sends an impulse signal and then wait for the echo to return. Now it knows when the signal was sent and when it was received, and it can easily calculate the distance to the target.
But there is also such a thing as a Modulated CW radar. It uses a frequency modulated signal, and now it can keep track of when each part of the continuous wave was sent and received. These systems are often used when you want to monitor the distance to the target without any breaks.

A doppler radar can measure distance by analyzing the frequency shift. But you still have to send a signal first and then analyze the returned echo. Light moves!

With respect to polarization, the Wendell quote, though weird to you, serves to neatly demonstrate that light effects can only be known when they are observed, no along-the-way observations have ever been made of light in any form. Further affirmation of instantaneous light action at a distance.

This gets better and better!
"no along-the-way observations" is an "affirmation of instantaneous light action at a distance"???
Sorry pal, in my world is no observation an affirmation of nothing!!!