HYPOTHESIS FOR WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY SOLUTION

[MIL]

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

 

[studiot]

Did you think to compare any of this twaddle with any known experimental facts?

Hypothesis : the photon has mass is enough to condemn it from the start.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, MIL said:

HYPOTHESIS FOR WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY SOLUTION

There is nothing needing a solution there.

7 minutes ago, MIL said:

The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct - Occam's Razor

That is not what Occam's razor says.

7 minutes ago, MIL said:

Photons are particles which; contain energy, have mass

Photons do not have mass.

7 minutes ago, MIL said:

PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF PHOTONS

...

Most of this is reasonably accurate, if a little garbled. It doesn't really say anything new.

8 minutes ago, MIL said:

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

Can you show, in suitable mathematical detail, that this spinning dipole model accurately predicts observed and measure behaviour?

Quote

not the photons ‘reading your mind about whether or not they are being watched’.

Where did that silly idea come from?

13 minutes ago, MIL said:

‘Entangled’ photons are not ‘communicating; with each other.

Correct.

13 minutes ago, MIL said:

But because photons do interact, they simply each had those paired properties separately prior to being emitted even and retain them thereafter

Nope. This is shown to be false by experiment.

14 minutes ago, MIL said:

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.

 

In an experiment such as the "quantum eraser", where none of the photons that pass through the slits are measured (until they reach the screen) can you explain (mathematically) how measurements of other (entangled) photons that do not contribute to the interference pattern can change the result of the experiment?

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, MIL said:

PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF PHOTONS

·         These electromagnetic properties and their energy cause photons to interact with other photons in particular observable ways under certain circumstances. 

...

 

·         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.    

 

You would need a model of photon-photon interactions, because they do not readily interact with each other.

Also this mechanically spinning dipole model. What is physically spinning?

[YaDinghus]

4 hours ago, MIL said:

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

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Excerpt 1: Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the answer that makes the fewest assumptions. 

Excerpt 2: In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.

 

Your Hypothesis: Photons carry energy (correct), have mass (incorrect), and therefore have electromagnetic properties and actions.

 

Aside the fact that one of your facts are 50% wrong, I don't see how having energy and mass should infer that anything has electromagnetic properties and actions. Maybe this is some linguistic problem you're having, but if it isn't, there certainly is a logical problem. Now, Photons DO interact with matter via the electromagnetic interaction, heck, they are the transmitter bosons of the electromagnetic field, so again, you are partially right. Also, you're not saying anything that is new. 

 

"A photon is fundamentally very simple and can thus be described by a mechanical model."

Photons don't have mass, yet they have momentum. This insight was worth a nobel prize (Albert Einstein's Photo Effect). Up until then, scientists believed light was only a wave. I'm being a little inaccurate here, because it was Einstein's introduction of the wave/particle dualism that earned him the Nobel Prize with his Photoeffect theory, not the insight that Photons have momentum without mass. Without wanting to be dogmatic, but overthrowing a principle that earned Albert Einstein a Nobel Prize is quite ambitious. 

 

"Photons are real and of course can thus be described in a realist manner, (rather than only mathematically or statistically)."

Photons appear as real and as virtual particles. I don't know where you're going with this.

 

"A photon has electromagnetic properties (i.e. electrical field and magnetic field), and has/is/carries energy. "

Given the fact that Photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field, yeah. Though they don't emit an electric or magnetic field of their own. Every particle has energy. That's fundamental.

 

"These electromagnetic properties and their energy cause photons to interact with other photons in particular observable ways under certain circumstances. "

The only photon-photon interaction that I know of is the interference of their waves. In 'A Brief History of Time", Hawking describes that Photons orbiting a black hole at the Schwarzschild Radius would 'interact' with eachother via the Pauli Exclusion principle. But because we know the speed of Photons with systematically 100% precision (invariance of the speed of light) their locations are extremely uncertain, and constricting them to a sphere around a singularity makes their location on the surface of this sphere even more uncertain - if I've understood Heisenberg correctly. What makes Photon-Photon mechanical interactions even more difficult is the fact that they don't have a diameter. There is no spatial crossection for a mechanical interaction. The simplicity of the photon that you mentioned before makes this literally impossible.  

 

"These electromagnetic properties also cause photons to interact with other particles/matter/fields in certain ways. "

Yes, this is very well documented. Matter which interacts with photons is called visible or light matter, opposed to dark matter. 

 

"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."

But you run into Bohr's conundrum when he proposed the planetary model of the Atom. He had to axiomatically postulate that electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus don't radiate away their potential energy as light. You really need the complex math of Quantum Mechanics to get rid of this problem without just postulating stuff that otherwise contradicts classical mechanics. 

If you don't come up with some genius math, this hypothesis is basically dead in whatever medium it was trying to propagate through

[Mordred]

Well I for one don't see the OP ever employing the mathematics required lol particularly since he states it as a mistake to do so in his paper lmao.

 Good summary however quite accurate +1

 @OP good luck with the advanced QM mathematics you will need. If you actually understood the required mathematics involved you would be well aware just how wrong your attempted hypothesis really is.

 A theory requires predictability and testability and thus requires not conjectures but the very mathematics you shun.

 Lol if you truly understood those mathematics and the pointlike and wavelike characteristics which involves the compton wavelength then you would have realized that waveparticle duality isn't a problem as mentioned above by Strange.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Mordred

[MIL]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

You would need a model of photon-photon interactions, because they do not readily interact with each other.

Also this mechanically spinning dipole model. What is physically spinning?

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. 

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, MIL said:

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. 

Plot holes? This in't a murder mystery novel.

QM works. It's well-tested and remarkably successful.

 

7 minutes ago, MIL said:

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. 

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.

7 minutes ago, MIL said:

 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. 

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. 

7 minutes ago, MIL said:

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.

It's called diffraction, and is already part of mainstream physics.

7 minutes ago, MIL said:

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. 

If it's a physical particle, how big is it and how fast is it spinning?

 

[Mordred]

On further note you seem to be defining spin of a particle as a little ball.

 So ask yourself this question why does it take a 720 degree rotation for an electron to return to its original state ? While under a 360 degree rotation you get a change in phase sign ? ie a circle or ball only has 360 degrees...

 Explain that please...(according to your model, I already know how to do so under QM)

Edited May 24, 2018 by Mordred

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

On further note you seem to be defining spin of a particle as a little ball.

 So ask yourself this question why does it take a 720 degree rotation for an electron to return to its original state ? While under a 360 degree rotation you get a change in phase sign ? ie a circle or ball only has 360 degrees...

 Explain that please...(according to your model, I already know how to do so under QM)

 

Thanks for telling me something I didn't know. +1

Should I repost this in the 'today I learned thread'?

 

[YaDinghus]

17 hours ago, MIL said:

vast plot/logic holes in the currently accepted theory of quantum mechanics

We're very well aware of many of the limitations of QM. And we're really racking our brains about them. Also, not a scientific argument.

 

17 hours ago, MIL said:

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. 

We're not 99%. I don't mean to be arrogant, but I expect most people here, especially professional physicists, to be among the 1% of the smartest people in the world, some maybe even in the .1%, which would mean they have an IQ around 140-150. So, if you want to use real physics arguments, I'm sure we'll understand you. But you also have to recognize that if they say there's a serious problem, or an array of serious problems, with your theory, that pouting and whining won't promote your theory.

 

17 hours ago, MIL said:

once you look past the dogma

What dogma?

17 hours ago, MIL said:

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.

Regarding your finger and its light-bending abilities, check out this mind-bending video on youtube. 

 

17 hours ago, MIL said:

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. 

You may be talking about it in the way you describe. I am certainly not. Since Photons don't carry a charge, their movement doesn't create a magnetic field, either, and the only way they could interact with other photons in a classical mechanical manner would be collision, and thereby impulse transfer. I haven't ever heard (or read, for that matter) of any such observation of this manner of photon-photon interaction. Photon-electron and photon-nucleotide, yes, but not photon-photon. If photons could exchange momentum with eachother as described by newtonian mechanics, even if the probability were ever so slight, by the abundance of photons bathing our reality we would have noticed. And for reasons already explaned, a Photon is NOT A ROTATING DIPOLE

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Thanks for telling me something I didn't know. +1

Should I repost this in the 'today I learned thread'?

 

 

 Well it would certainly qualify then lol

[MIL]

On 24/05/2018 at 2:27 AM, Mordred said:

On further note you seem to be defining spin of a particle as a little ball.

 So ask yourself this question why does it take a 720 degree rotation for an electron to return to its original state ? While under a 360 degree rotation you get a change in phase sign ? ie a circle or ball only has 360 degrees...

 Explain that please...(according to your model, I already know how to do so under QM)

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. 

[Mordred]

No It applies to all spin 1/2 fermions. Also no spinning in two directions will not solve the problem. Try again 

 Keep in mind each spin value has a different number of degrees to return to the original phase angle...

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mordred

[MIL]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No It applies to all spin 1/2 fermions. Also no spinning in two directions will not solve the problem. Try again

Why do you suggest spinning in two directions would not?

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, MIL said:

an electron is surrounded by a dense cloud of photons

How does that work? 

[MIL]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

How does that work? 

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

[swansont]

Those are virtual photons. They are not "moving parts" that let you solve this issue.

[Mordred]

34 minutes ago, MIL said:

Why do you suggest spinning in two directions would not?

 

 We are dealing with polarity states. If it will help see the Stern Gerlack experiment. Regardless of which axis you examine it still requires a 720 degree rotation.  As a further note if a particle were a spinning ball with two poles ie north and south then when they hit the detector plate 

Why can we only measure two quantized polarity states instead of any orientation? if you take a ball with two poles it can hit a wall at any orientation angle why does this not apply to an electron as per the experiment ?

 Tell me what did you study under QM before writing that lengthy article ? 

"Another important result is that only one component of a particle's spin can be measured at one time, meaning that the measurement of the spin along the z-axis destroys information about a particle's spin along the x and y axis."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment

here is another quote to account for

 However, if the magnetic field is inhomogeneous then the force on one end of the dipole will be slightly greater than the opposing force on the other end, so that there is a net force which deflects the particle's trajectory. If the particles were classical spinning objects, one would expect the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors to be random and continuous. Each particle would be deflected by an amount proportional to its magnetic moment, producing some density distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the particles passing through the Stern–Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up or down by a specific amount. 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mordred

[MIL]

On 24/05/2018 at 9:44 AM, YaDinghus said:

 

- Thanks, and your comments are quite constructive in terms of this discussion. I'll put my replies here in bold to try to make those discernible.

We're very well aware of many of the limitations of QM. And we're really racking our brains about them. Also, not a scientific argument.

- Physicists needsn't rack their brains to fill in the logic holes in QM. I've already done that for us now. : ) I mean this in jest, as there is quite a vast amount of work involved in rewriting and reassessing everything we think we know, and this needs to be done going all the way back to testing the most foundational of assumptions. 

We're not 99%. I don't mean to be arrogant, but I expect most people here, especially professional physicists, to be among the 1% of the smartest people in the world, some maybe even in the .1%, which would mean they have an IQ around 140-150. So, if you want to use real physics arguments, I'm sure we'll understand you. But you also have to recognize that if they say there's a serious problem, or an array of serious problems, with your theory, that pouting and whining won't promote your theory.

- It's not that 99% of Physicists couldn't grasp this, it's that I expect 99% of them will adamantly refuse to consider anything which undermines so much of the knowledge they've mastered to this degree. The basis of this is extremely simple - all these interactions are electromagnetic - that's basically it, no spookiness required whatsoever. 100% of Physicists should certainly be able to understand this, though I suppose most people might not have the mental flexibility to suspend disbelief to fully contemplate a new paradigm.

 

My point there was more that I won't therefore be offended or surprised when people refuse to entertain my hypothesis, and that's what I fully anticipate. Yet there is the glimmer of a hope that at least one rare physicist might feel there is something work contemplating and looking into further here. Best to take that as a challenge rather than anything else. 

What dogma?

- The dogma of the Copenhagen Interpretation, that light is literally a wave, Uncertainty Principle being a fundamental truth of nature, light as something that can be described mathematically but is actually something that cannot be fully imagined, etc. 

Regarding your finger and its light-bending abilities, check out this mind-bending video on youtube. 

- Yes, that's what I was talking about, as being examples of how common and obvious photon/electromagnetic field interaction is. They seriously butchered some of the explanations there. When they say that bending light in that way causes it to hit another part of your eye that's not correct, as that would cause it to appear entirely elsewhere in your field of view. It's simple diffraction, and it only takes 20 seconds playing with a laser pointer to figure out that their explanation there is fundamentally botched. 

You may be talking about it in the way you describe. I am certainly not. Since Photons don't carry a charge, their movement doesn't create a magnetic field, either, and the only way they could interact with other photons in a classical mechanical manner would be collision, and thereby impulse transfer. I haven't ever heard (or read, for that matter) of any such observation of this manner of photon-photon interaction. Photon-electron and photon-nucleotide, yes, but not photon-photon. If photons could exchange momentum with eachother as described by newtonian mechanics, even if the probability were ever so slight, by the abundance of photons bathing our reality we would have noticed. And for reasons already explaned, a Photon is NOT A ROTATING DIPOLE

- Did I miss something there or are you saying that matter or particles which have a neutral charge cannot interact electromagnetically? If so then I'll have to disagree, and most all interaction is electromagnetic of course. When I'm standing on the ground that's an electromagnetic interaction of the ground particles repelling my shoe sole's particles and therefore holding me up via electromagnetic force. The respective protons aren't actually physically colliding, but you already of course know all of that as it's very basic. Moreover, magnets also interact with other magnets electromagnetically, even though they have a neutral charge. 

Or are you disagreeing about whether light (photons) has/is/carries an electromagnetic field and has a wavelength? Of course it has that. Shouldn't we be more surprised however if that electromagnetic field wasn't doing anything at all? 

 

I believe you're correct that if photons are interacting in our reality then we would have noticed. We have noticed this. And one of the instances of us having noticed this is the double-slit experiment where it happens to become very obvious, (even though those photons are only having their course shifted by a small fraction of a degree). 

 

[Mordred]

Why would you claim in the last post most interactions are electro magnetic?

What about flavor for the weak force with 3 charges and color for the strong force with again 3 charges?

 Photons are charge neutral they do not exhibit a vector field as does a charged particle. If it were a charged particle it would exhibit fermionic antisymmetric characteristics and not bosonic symmetric characteristics. Particularly if it were a little ball as you claim.

 Though you are right about one thing. 

 You shouldn't expect physicists to accept what you have written however the reason has nothing to do with being set in our ways.

 Numerous models that once were accepted were later shown inaccurate physics adapts with new findings all the time.

 You however have yet to prove the need for us to adapt to your view...

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mordred

[MIL]

On 5/23/2018 at 11:01 AM, swansont said:

Plot holes? This in't a murder mystery novel.

QM works. It's well-tested and remarkably successful.

 

 

- 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/

[Mordred]

Swansont is well aware of the mainstream treatments as am I for a photon. The links you provided do not answer the questions in accordance to your model specifically hence why they are being asked.

 You don't have any of the required mathematics to support your claims...

 We are asking questions for two reasons 

1) to see how thoroughly thought out your model is

2) to see how you can explain mainstream views in accordance to your model. After all a good theory should encompass the large body of tests and mainstream views and be able to explain them via its own theory. This requires a detailed familiarity with how mainstream physics handles a given topic as well. How else does one compare the strengths and weaknesses of a new theory ?

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mordred

[studiot]

9 hours ago, MIL said:

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.

 

For good administrative reasons please put your comments ouside the quote box.

Otherwise it makes things very difficult for others.

 

Sure thing we can set it to one side temporarily.

Moving on to

9 hours ago, MIL said:

or photon-Van der Waals force interaction.

 

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.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, MIL said:

 

- 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/

 

That's a bit of a pivot. You were complaining of plot holes. Science that agrees with experiment is what matters.

Physicists are always trying to develop new theories. That doesn't mean that they will succeed.

Quote

 

- 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. 

 

 

Why does it have to be explained this way? What's wrong with the wave-derived formula, which works quite well? You have not explained why. Only insisted that it be so.

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

- 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/

 

So you link to a blog post about all the limitations on what could happen if photons have mass, and the very strict experimental limits on the value? That all points toward zero being correct.