MIL

Good point. Below is the photo of my 'highly sophisticated experimental set-up" consisting of a small long cylindrical magnet which I stuck to a metal tray so that I could have my hands free to hold both my phone and the laser. The magnet I used here was a cylinder magnet of a small diameter, and therefore some of the original beam happened to overshoot the magnet edge, which was creating the hotspot you saw on the right. And the laser light in the 'field lines' pattern between them is a reflection off the very slightly rounded magnet edge, though it is telling how the two hot spots still appear to be connected by what appear to be field lines. Here are a few of the articles on CERN's photon-photon interaction, etc. - The thing to bear in mind is that, (assuming as per my proposal), if it is the photon's electromagnetic fields which are interacting when they are travelling nearly-parallel with other photons which they are tightly packed together with, then they have plenty for that interaction to occur. But two photons travelling straight towards each other each at the speed of light have very little interaction time to interact. - Equally, if you were shooting two magnets towards each other at absurdly high speeds how close would they need to pass by one another before you'd observe any measurable alteration of their trajectories due to magnetic interaction? https://www.iflscience.com/physics/cern-sees-highenergy-light-interacting-with-itself-for-the-first-time/ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-02643-x https://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-collider https://io9.gizmodo.com/in-this-image-two-photons-interact-heres-why-its-grou-1654502848/amp

As I didn’t hear anything further back, (almost surprisingly), I thought I’d like to share with you this photo I took, which defies everything you believe you know about Quantum Mechanics, (sorry). You believe it is impossible for a magnetic field to interact with photons, yet this is a photo of the pattern created by a laser beam reflecting off the end of a magnet onto a wall. This is irrefutable proof that electromagnetic fields can alter photon trajectories and that therefore the foundation of QM contains fundamental foundational flaws. Our accepted theories require what is shown in this photo to be flatly impossible. Robust scepticism is naturally a critical part of healthy scientific discourse. Perhaps I'd erred by not communicating my explanation with sufficient economy, so I'll try again, and will distil my hypothesis down to a few lines below. The fundamental aspect of whether photons interact with fields or with each other might be rather contentious, - being that this would defy accepted theories of electromagnetism, (but also validate certain QED predictions). CERN's Atlas Experiment, (among other experiments I cited), has since 2015 proven that photons can interact with other photons, (to 4.4 sigmas). I'd recently been considering myself what would be the simplest and most elegant way to demonstrate that photons interact with electromagnetic fields as well, before working that out as per the photo above. Incidentally, it’s not altogether unknown that photons interact with magnetic fields. We do have the Faraday effect, (which is understood as applying only within a medium), and the Magneto-optic Kerr effect, (which describes the changes to light polarization and intensity when reflected from a magnetized surface). But it seems as if nobody has put all the pieces of this together into a cohesive understanding to correctly explain the double-slit experiment, until this - PHOTON CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR - PROVEN AND UNPROVEN (Proven and correct explanations/characteristics annotated in blue. ) (Incorrect items annotated in red.) WAVELENGTH: Photons have a wavelength made up of an oscillating electric and magnetic field. – Proven. PARTICLE-NATURE: Photons are particles. - Proven, as per photoelectric effect, blackbody radiation, etc. MAGNETIC FIELDS: Photons do not interact with magnetic fields. - Thought to be proven and accepted, but my photo above proves this wrong, (as do certain other experiments as well, and as per Faraday effect, as cited). Photons each have a magnetic field which can interact with the magnetic fields of other photons. (My hypothesis based on the postulates herein). PHOTON INTERACTION: Photons cannot interact with other photons. - Previously thought to be true, but now proven wrong, (by CERN and others, as per other citations in paper). (Or), Photons rarely interact with each other: - Partially correct. Head-to-head photon collisions are rare as photons are so miniscule. And evidence suggests photons interact to a significant degree with nearly parallel photons only when traveling at a very similar angle and in very close proximity, but very minor interaction is presumably common. Therefore, as photons; each have rotating magnetic poles and magnetic fields, and as photons do interact with close magnetic fields, they therefore can repel and attract each other similarly to how magnets can, (similar though not exactly the same – as they do not stick together quite like magnets do). – My hypothesis COHERENT LIGHT IN LASERS Lasers produce highly coherent light which therefore spreads out very little. - Proven and accepted. Light which is not coherent spreads out, (unlike lasers, and because the out-of-sync photons are magnetically interacting with one other), and if this were not the case then we would not need lasers and could use regular light to do the same things! - Obviously and logically true, despite being considered impossible. DESCRIPTION OF PHOTON: A photon cannot be understood or described by any mechanical model or 'realist' explanation, (to quote Wikipedia). – A physical explanation is possible, (as I’ve laid out), as soon as we’ve simply corrected our foundational errors about photons not interacting with photons and fields. Photons can only be described mathematically, (but only vaguely so even, in terms of statistical probabilities). – That’s only the case until we’ve found a correct physical description. The physical description of a photon as a (mechanically) spinning electromagnetic dipole can adequately explain and model every aspect of light. DIFFRACTION: Huygens-Fresnel Principle states that at the point of disturbance every point along the wavefront becomes a source of a spherical wave. – Flatly physically incorrect as you can plainly see yourself. A laser shot through a slit will have the majority of light passing straight through, and only the light within a few micrometers of the slit edges diffracts as per a ‘spherical wave’, i.e it isn’t the entire ‘wavefront’ which diffracts. (Logically, the H-F Principle also could of course not explain interreference patterns from both the double-slit and from single-slit experiments.) Furthermore, the photons near the slit edge are simply interacting with the Van der Waals forces of the matter and thus being electromagnetically attracted and repelled by the slit edge’s fields to cause the diffraction, not because they’re interacting with one another then. (Incidentally, the accepted Huygens-Fresnel Principle for diffraction would require photons to interact with each other, [which is held to be impossible], as the explanation, the internal pressure between every photon along the wavefront would be what causes the entire wavefront to diffract. Accordingly, to have previously accepted that explanation, you would have had to already accept what you believe to be impossible). REFLECTION: Photons striking a surface are absorbed by the surface electrons, which then emit a photon of the same wavelength, frequency, and path.– No. Photons striking a surface interact with the surface’s Van der Waals forces and are simply electromagnetically repelled themselves. WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY: A photon is not only a particle but also a wave – The only reason we claim this is as nobody has previously been able to come up with a correct particle explanation for the double-slit experiment, until now. And a photon is both a wave and particle simultaneously - until measured or observed, which forces it to collapse into either state. – My explanation does not require superposition, which was never a real thing anyway, (as previously explained as well). DOUBLE-SLIT INTERPRETATION: Physicists have no consensus on Quantum Mechanics and the explanation of the Double-slit experiment.– Obviously all the existing interpretations are wrong, as if there had been a reasonable explanation then there would be a consensus. INTERFERENCE PATTERNS: Overlapping photon waves cancel each other out through destructive interference. – I assert this is entirely incorrect, and that the correct explanation is as follows. When the diffracted light from each slit recombines immediately after the slits, in many areas the recombined light will no longer be coherent as the light from each slit travelled a different distance. And thus, where the photons are out-of-sync/non-coherent, they simply electromagnetically repel each other causing them to group into bands of light with bands in-between them where there are no photons. Accordingly, it’s simply extremely basic self-organizational magnetic behaviour. WAVEFUNCTION COLLAPSE: Measuring which slit a photon passes through collapses the wavefunction and superposition, causing it to become a particle. – Who are they kidding? It was always a particle. Simply, the means used to detect the photon affect the photon, as again, as photons interact with fields. ENTANGLED PHOTONS: Through ‘entangled super-position’, they communicate their polarity to each other and do so instantaneously at speeds faster than the speed of light no matter how far apart they are. – Incorrect. (Except perhaps in Star Trek?) Just like a pair of gloves in boxes, they were always a matching pair, and never with any superposition. Experiments regarding this utilised incorrect foundational assumption, as explained. QUANTUM FIELDS: Or alternatively, there are neither particles or waves, just quantum fields as per the description accepted by many prominent Physicists. – No evidence of this, and no need for this as a particle explanation now satisfies all explanations, therefore this can be dismissed. FURTHER DISCUSSION It is interesting as well to note that nobody seems to have grasped the other implications of what this solves which I had alluded to as well. - For once you have realised that photons interact with fields, you realise this explains; black holes, gravity wells, and enables us to easily unify Quantum Mechanics with Relativity with a consistent definition of time. I didn’t want to overwhelm you immediately, put you can read my brief proposal for this here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/to1rsun0crxwvrn/2 Hypothesis for Correcting the Theory of Relativity.pdf?dl=0 In any case, I didn’t necessarily expect you to heed my solution, but my message does nevertheless fulfil the secondary purpose of putting these solutions on-file, with myself being their original source.

Can anyone please advise how many of the participants and contributors in this forum and this discussion happen to be professional physicists? I'm a little surprised if there are genuine physicists, that they seem incredibly reluctant to consider strong new ideas, and if anything insist on defending the orthodox dogma despite its myriad of flaws. Sometimes it feels like arguing against the Catholic Church and their Geocentric model of the universe... I'd have thought they would naturally be more curious and be genuinely more interested in trying to correct these flaws, to investigate new ideas, and potentially contribute to a startling new understanding of our nature of reality. No? I have provided a model of a solution. The model I provided is a logical and mechanical description of how this could and I believe it does work very well to explain everything. I have not provided a mathematical model. Nor likely could I. There are however people who do have the experience and skills to do that, and who are paid to do such things full-time, they're called Physicists. I run two businesses, am possibly taking on a third, and have other exacting demands on me. So maybe someone else could help investigate the possibilities I've laid out further, rather than for it to be up to me alone to learn the mathematics of physics from scratch, and rebuild the entire basis of quantum mechanics myself in only my scant free time? At least I've satisfied my own personal curiosity, and I can live a-peace in a universe which I know fully makes sense and does not rely upon any mysterious, spooky or inexplicable behaviour at its fundamental level. Has anyone by the way read the detailed proposal in full and actually understood what I'm pointing out as the flaws in our currently accepted theories, how this chain of errors developed, and how my proposed solution resolves these? And is there any mathematical description that particularly even fundamentally describes a photon as both a wave and a particle, (which can be in various places at once/etc). So if we want to talk math then what are we looking at here? What is the current accepted equation that we'd need to provide an alternative version of? I can't say I've heard of one really, and presume such an equation doesn't exist but I could be wrong. Absolutely light has behaviours of both waves and particles, hence the need for my solution which explains how a particle can result in wave-like phenomenon with having to itself be a wave (which I hasten to add it is obviously not). Picture as an analogy, a photon as a spinning bar magnet. A magnet has no net charge, but does of course still have positive and negative magnetic ends. Picture that magnet mounted on a pin like in a compass. When a compass's needle is subjected to a magnetic field the needle will align itself with the magnetic source (even if the needle's center of gravity hasn't moved). Now if that bar magnet happened to be shooting through that magnetic field at the speed of light then naturally it would have been subjected to the field for only a very small moment of time and therefore the resulting effect might not be very dramatic. In any case, being that a photon would have a net neutral charge, it should not exactly be deflected by a magnetic field until it is in very close proximity to an electron or nucleus, at which point the dipole differential would be significantly stronger. I'd read the results on an experiment as far back as the 1970's which demonstrated that the polarization of light can be changed by strong magnetic fields. When I searched for that article again to reread it I couldn't find it, but I'll try and have another look.

Apologies from my absence from the discussion, I'd had a project deadline to dispel. In regards to photon mass I meant to suggest they have genuine mass, not relativistic mass. I appreciate it's hard to measure, hence the 'rest-mass' practical challenge. I'll go out on a limb, as I haven't considered this in-depth. But I presume you should LITERALLY be able to measure the mass of photons through radiation pressure, say with a Nichols radiometer. (And I fully appreciate that this is not the accepted explanation of radiation pressure, but then again, as I'd said I don't believe 'we' have a correct explanation of the photon to begin with. But isn't it more fun if we describe it that way? As within the context of a mystery novel? Yes, QM has been thoroughly tested and results in plenty of accurate predictions. But that doesn't mean it's entirely correct. To get down to the very essence, a photon CANNOT be both a particle and a wave. We know for various reasons (i,e, photo-electric effect, that it definitely is a particle and cannot be only a wave). However, the only reason that we say it has to also be a wave is that nobody had ever come up with a (non-impossible) explanation for how if the photon is a particle it can also result in effects such as interference patterns. I was convinced there had to be a simple explanation to be had, and I myself reworked the double-slit experiment through different variables, and then got stuck for a few months on it, before I realized that all it would take for photons to create the double-slit interference patterns is for the photons to be interacting. And once I delved into that there are plenty of indications that photons do interact with matter, with fields, and with each other. The Copenhagen wave-particle interpretation wasn't ever really anyone's idea even nor was it supposed to be the accepted explanation. It was more of simply a temporary political compromise at the time between the wave-light and the particle-light camps, being that neither could provide a full explanation which actually works. And now I've done that for you. It's simple electromagnetic interaction. Done and dusted. I'll leave a forwarding address for the nobel, thanks ladies and gentleman. Hi Mordred, did you happen to read my detailed paper provided in the link, or at least skim it? I'd previously discussed the Stern-Gerlach experiment in regards to my hypothesis, and had suggested as follows therein - "Stern-Gerlach Experiment - This is consistent with my proposal. The magnetic moment of any atom passing through the magnets would be altered by the magnets, and any atom that had an angled magnetic moment as it entered the magnetic field would immediately flip so that its magnetic moment is aligned with the magnetic field of the electromagnets. Therefore they'd each then be pulled towards one magnet or the other to land in the same band." To rephrase that more directly, the magnetic fields in the apparatus cause the photons to orient their own polarization/magnetic fields to this, and that is why the photons are then consistently deflected by specific amounts. And why do they do this? - Going back to the root of my hypothesis, because photons interact with electromagnetic fields (due to their dipole properties). It seems like a very simple explanation to me. This is a very bold assertion to drop so casually into the conversation. Please post your detailed explanation and justification for making it. I expect to see substance in your post without having to leave this website to look up references, in accordance with the rules of this forum. Though of course a reference as backup to your own working would be good. Is that really a bold assertion? Which aspect of it by the way please, the Van der Waals force interaction, or the photon interaction? Van der Waals forces I trust are themselves only simple dipole electromagnetic forces. That we see them at the boundary of matter should be nothing unusual. And therefore they're the same basic forces which are responsible for all the other photon interactions as well, including reflection, diffraction, interference patterns, etc. Apologies if that seems surprising for me to suggest, but I genuinely don't believe there is any other logical and physical explanation for these interactions other than electromagnetic interaction. And this explanation is so simple and elegant and seems to check all the boxes that in hind-sight it seems so very obvious to me now. My detailed hypothesis paper in the link contains plenty of additional substance regarding this, but I can't post all 17 pages of it here I presume. P.S. And thank you everyone for keeping this discussion cordial and constructive by the way. I'd been anticipating plenty of insults and condescension so I'm very pleased that on this forum this has not been the case!

- Have most Physicists genuinely convinced themselves that they figured most everything out apart from the peripheral details?? I actually find that rather hard to believe. Here by is a reasonably decent article laying out some of the issues therein still. https://www.wired.com/story/physicists-want-to-rebuild-quantum-theory-from-scratch/ Fine. I was looking for a model (i.e. math) and your paper doesn't seem to have any. Regarding the inquiry about photon-photon interactions. Instead of telling us the evidence exists, go ahead and present it. In the context of a model, so we can see what the predictions and implications are. It's called diffraction, and is already part of mainstream physics. - I'm genuinely baffled that you implied by your previous comment that you don't believe in photon-photon interaction or photon-electromagnetic field interaction, but then you talk about diffraction here. Yes, it is diffraction, obviously so. But that diffraction has to be either caused by photon-photon or photon-Van der Waals force interaction. One of those two interactions is required for diffraction. I suggest it's the latter, although accepted physics seems to suggest (which I find quite ironic), that it is the former. Is this something I have managed to communicate clearly both here, and in my detailed paper in the link? That's incredibly fundamental in this discussion. - A lot of the discussion here has been getting stuck on whether or not photons have mass. That's not actually a critical matter in the context of this particular discussion and hypothesis, so let's try and move beyond that point. It perhaps pertains more to the bigger picture than strictly to this topic. For those whom are concerned about photon mass, it's covered here - https://galileospendulum.org/2013/07/26/what-if-photons-actually-have-mass/

Here is how one source happens to explain that, although admittedly I have not confirmed this myself : ) Some electromagnetic interactions involve "real" photons with definite frequencies, energies, and momenta. Electrostatic and magnetic fields involve the exchange of "virtual" photons instead. Very close to an electron is a dense cloud of virtual photons which are constantly being emitted and re-absorbed by the electron. Some of these photons split into electron-positron pairs (or pairs of even heavier stuff), which recombine into photons which are re-absorbed by the original electron. These virtual particle loops screen the charge of the electron so that far away from an electron it appears as if it has less charge than close by. https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414

Why do you suggest spinning in two directions would not?

That's not an aspect of QM that I've looked into, and you are talking about an electron rather than a photon there. But if it's a hypothetical mechanical explanation which you're requesting I suggest then I can play along with discussing that. An electron is not only an electron by the way, as an electron is surrounded by a dense cloud of photons, so there are a number of different moving parts there which we're talking about. In any case, if something requires a 720 degree rotation to return to its original state then one simple possibility would be that it happens to be spinning along more than one axis. I don't know if that is precisely what is happening in the circumstances you'd asked about, but that is nevertheless a mechanical solution to the question you posed.

This is my first time using this forum, so bear with me if I don't get the quoting and responses quite correct here. But I do thank you for your well-considered responses. And I suppose either you'll be able to grasp this hypothesis and the vast plot/logic holes in the currently accepted theory of quantum mechanics, or you won't. As I'd said, I don't expect 99% of people to grasp how this solution resolves things, and I'm not intending to spend a lot of time trying to convince those who are unable to, of the merits of it. I'll try to answer genuine questions where I see them however, although I'll try to avoid rehashing what is already explained in the paper. - - I could certainly use the help of any Physicists who do appreciate the merits of the hypothesis to consider the mathematical expression of this, as that perhaps isn't something I can necessarily do entirely myself. Also In regards to the math question, it's not that I shun it entirely. It is that I do believe that we do need to get the understanding and logic of such matters sensible and correct before we do that math, as otherwise the math can lead us astray to incorrect solutions which is quite where we are today. In regards to photons; having mass/interacting with other photons/interacting with electromagnetic fields - or not, once you look past the dogma there are plenty of indications that these actually are the case. I might not be able to definitively prove all of those entirely myself, but I do believe I have provided a solution where all the parts of this puzzle do fit together infinitely more logically than they do under our current accepted theory(s). Thus, take it or leave it, your call. Even sitting here at my desk I can take my finger and can see the visual proof myself of electromagnetic lensing of light over the edge of it, so don't try and tell me that's not a real thing. In regards to 'Swansont's' question about what is physically spinning - It is the photon-particles that are themselves physically spinning. And the axis of which they are spinning about results in the three types of polarization; linear/circular/elliptical. (At least in the case of coherent light, in the case of noncoherent light it will be a non-distinct combination of all three). And the speed of their spin (and thus wavelength) is a product of how much energy the photons are each carrying. 'YaDinghus' - In regards to the diameter or cross-section of photons, what we are essentially talking about there is their electromagnetic field in regards to how they react with other matter and fields. And the intensity of this field decreases as per the inverse-square law. Accordingly, you can't exactly say it has a specific length any more than you can say that gravity has a specific length. I'd suggest there is still some manner of a photon particle at the center of that electromagnetic field, but its size would be exceedingly small, and it would not tend to interact with other particles through direct particle-to-particle contact any more than the nuclei of atoms do - being that atoms are mostly empty space as well. And in regards to Bohr's conundrum, that's explained and resolved in the section of my paper relating to centripetal acceleration.

HYPOTHESIS FOR WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY SOLUTION - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Author: Mikko Ilmari Laukkanen This hypothesis provides a simple elegant mechanical solution to the central mystery of Quantum Mechanics - that of wave-particle duality - and thereby helps resolve the other mysteries of QM as well. The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct - Occam's Razor HYPOTHESIS Photons are particles which; contain energy, have mass, and therefore have electromagnetic properties and actions, including each an electromagnetic field that interacts with the electromagnetic fields of other photons and matter around them. The simple self-organizing behaviour and actions of electromagnetic particles results in what we label as ‘quantum phenomenon’ and ‘wave behaviour’ such as interference patterns. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF PHOTONS · A photon is fundamentally very simple and can thus be described by a mechanical model. · Photons are real and of course can thus be described in a realist manner, (rather than only mathematically or statistically). · A photon is a particle, and is not itself a wave. · A photon has electromagnetic properties (i.e. electrical field and magnetic field), and has/is/carries energy. · These electromagnetic properties and their energy cause photons to interact with other photons in particular observable ways under certain circumstances. · These electromagnetic properties also cause photons to interact with other particles/matter/fields in certain ways. · Photons can reflect and diffract with other matter electromagnetically, (i.e. Van der Waals forces). · A description of photons as most likely being mechanically spinning dipole particles can fully explain the characteristics of light, including frequency, oscillation, wavelength, and polarization. · The electromagnetic interaction between spinning photons causes self-organization ‘behaviour patterns’ among photons. · This interaction between photons can cause certain observable phenomenon which can be described as or appears 'wave-like' in appearance - such as interference patterns. · As photons interact with fields and with the matter of the apparatus in double-slit experiments, it is simply the means of measurement which is altering the behaviour of the photons, not the photons ‘reading your mind about whether or not they are being watched’. · Photons have both momentum and mass (even if the mass is obviously very very small). · ‘Entangled’ photons are not ‘communicating; with each other. But because photons do interact, they simply each had those paired properties separately prior to being emitted even and retain them thereafter, thus there is no ‘super-position’ of properties such as spin or polarization. DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT INTERFERENCE BANDING EXPLANATION Following the electromagnetic diffraction occurring at the beam-splitter, where the photon’s wavelength-phase in the two overlapping fringes are out-of-phase (and have sufficient electromagnetic contact time due to similar trajectories and at close-proximity), the photons repel each other apart resulting in a dark band. And the photons creating the light bands had electromagnetically realigned themselves and possibly even attracted each other further to form relatively more coherent beams of photons in the places where we see the bright bands. Accordingly, the light and dark interference bands are not created as a result of mathematical wave-function collapse and the photons within the dark band cancelling each other out. Rather, the photons had simply repelled and attracted each other via electromagnetic interaction of their positive and negative dipoles (which you might be more familiar with the description of these photon’s wavelengths being in-phase our out-of-phase, if you insist), and thus there simply are no photons landing within the dark band areas. Please see full-length paper here for comprehensfive explanations, images, diagrams, and criticisms. https://www.dropbox.com/s/75mniw1pwzyja3e/Wave-Particle%20Duality%20Hypothesis.pdf?dl=0 Wave-Particle Duality Hypothesis.pd