HYPOTHESIS FOR WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY SOLUTION

[YaDinghus]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

I agree with your approach and can give the mathematical support. I have a model for the photon perfectly matching your description. It is proposed in web page of a web site presenting a book so not everything is showed at the site but has enough content for anyone have a good idea on what is proposed. The model is based on a couple of more elementary "rings of current" particles (a positive and a negative ones) in spite of spinning dipoles as you mention but can match your description.

The photon model is presented here: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-1_The_photon_structure.htm

The elementary particles involved are presented here: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section3-2_The_most_elementary_particles_of_the_Universe.htm

I attach here an image of them.

The big problem you don't know you take with your approach and need to face up is that at the end not only Einstein was wrong...

A new study was published that reconfirmed the accuracy of Einsteins GR predictions to 0.00000022s in 14 years. That's an accuracy of 4.95×10^-16, or: the measurement was within an error margin of 5×10^-14% of what GR predicted.

EINSTEIN WASN'T WRONG!

https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/pavz5v/atomic-clocks-einsteins-elevator-nist

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, YaDinghus said:

A new study was published that reconfirmed the accuracy of Einsteins GR predictions to 0.00000022s in 14 years. That's an accuracy of 4.95×10^-16, or: the measurement was within an error margin of 5×10^-14% of what GR predicted.

EINSTEIN WASN'T WRONG!

https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/pavz5v/atomic-clocks-einsteins-elevator-nist

 

That's an improvement on the results we published ~5 years ago.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Hijack and replies split to here. Please don't offer more pet "theories" to explain someone else's pet "theory".

 

[MIL]

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.

 

[MigL]

At the right edge of the frame, I see another 'hot' spot; the other pole of the magnet, I presume.
And what looks like 'field' lines between the two poles, just as if it was iron filings on a sheet of paper overlaying a bar magnet.
Could these apparent lines be just reflections off magnetic particles in the air (or ionized particles from the laser ) ?

Without looking at the experimental set-up and method, this picture could be anything, and proves nothing.
I could post a picture of a white bedsheet and say it proves the existence of Casper the ghost.
How about posting the relevant information for this experiment ?
(haven't looked into your CERN/ATLAS claim, but as far as I know, bosonic interactions can only occur at the Schwinger limit )
 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, MIL said:

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).

What? There are a number of replies to you, most of which you seem to have ignored. I don't see any kind of math, which was requested of you.

16 hours ago, MIL said:

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.

 

 

Irrefutable? Hardly. There's not enough information here to actually know what's going on, so it's evidence of nothing. There's nothing to refute. Science requires rigor, which is why blurry snapshots of bigfoot do not constitute conclusive evidence.

 

16 hours ago, MIL said:

 

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).

The Faraday effect takes place in a material, where the photons interact. It is not a direct interaction with the field. I pointed this out to you some time ago.

Quote

 COHERENT LIGHT IN LASERS Lasers produce highly coherent light which therefore spreads out very little. - Proven and accepted.

No, not true. Laser light can often be collimated pretty well, but the coherence does not cause the collimation. Laser diodes are famous for their beam divergence; they require collimation lenses 

Quote

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.

The spreading is not the issue. Lasers being monochromatic is a very useful quality that makes them quite useful. 

 

Quote

 

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.

There's no contradiction here.

Quote

(Logically, the H-F Principle also could of course not explain interreference patterns from both the double-slit and from single-slit experiments.)

That's funny. I recall a quite logical explanation for single- and double-slit interference using this concept. And one can derive the single slit equation from that description

http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys222core/modules/m9/diffraction.htm

Quote

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.

If this were true than you should be able to come up with an equation for interference which depends on the material, and how it interacts with the light. Do you have such an equation?

Quote

(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. 

Citation needed. Where is that justification used to explain diffraction?

Quote

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.

Um, what?

Quote

 

Interpretations of QM do not give rise to different equations being correct in QM. It's a matter of how one understands the equations.

 

Quote

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.

If they repel, why do you get interference pattern? They should have a new trajectory, and the light's path will depend on where the repulsion took place.

Where is your model which predicts the interference pattern, based on repulsion?

 

Quote

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.

Are your hands tired from waving them so much? Appeal to ridicule is not a valid argument.

Quote

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.

No, that's not what QM says about entanglement. And your explanation is contradicted by experiment, which chows that the particles are in an undetermined state until measured.

Quote

 FURTHER DISCUSSION

How about you address the fundamental flaws in your hypothesis, and develop a mathematical model, before proceeding to "further discussion"

 

[MIL]

20 hours ago, MigL said:

At the right edge of the frame, I see another 'hot' spot; the other pole of the magnet, I presume.
And what looks like 'field' lines between the two poles, just as if it was iron filings on a sheet of paper overlaying a bar magnet.
Could these apparent lines be just reflections off magnetic particles in the air (or ionized particles from the laser ) ?

Without looking at the experimental set-up and method, this picture could be anything, and proves nothing.
I could post a picture of a white bedsheet and say it proves the existence of Casper the ghost.
How about posting the relevant information for this experiment ?
(haven't looked into your CERN/ATLAS claim, but as far as I know, bosonic interactions can only occur at the Schwinger limit )
 

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

 

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, MIL said:

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. 

And how did you rule out that this isn’t just how light reflects off of a metal cylinder with a rounded end? 

[Strange]

11 hours ago, MIL said:

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. 

Glad see that you recognise that your experimental set up is less than ideal. A few things you might want to think about to make your observations slightly scientific:

One of the purposes of an experiment is to confirm the predictions of a model. So you should be able to predict exactly what results you expect within a range. Not just "look at this pattern".

Another purpose of experiments is to rule out other explanations. For example, is the pattern caused by the rough surface of the magnet rather than the presence of a magnetic field. So, for example, you could demagnetise the magnet and see if you still get the same result. Or you could attach a small mirror to the end of the magnet and see if you still get the same pattern. Or, even better, a small mirror attached to an electromagnet so you can adjust the strength and direction of the magnetic field to see what effect it has.

Of course, all the above depends on being able to reproduce the experimental conditions. So having a hand-held light source is obviously inadequate.

As your claims contradict long-established science you would need much more compelling evidence than this rather shoddy setup.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Glad see that you recognise that your experimental set up is less than ideal. A few things you might want to think about to make your observations slightly scientific:

One of the purposes of an experiment is to confirm the predictions of a model. So you should be able to predict exactly what results you expect within a range. Not just "look at this pattern".

Another purpose of experiments is to rule out other explanations. For example, is the pattern caused by the rough surface of the magnet rather than the presence of a magnetic field. So, for example, you could demagnetise the magnet and see if you still get the same result. Or you could attach a small mirror to the end of the magnet and see if you still get the same pattern. Or, even better, a small mirror attached to an electromagnet so you can adjust the strength and direction of the magnetic field to see what effect it has.

Of course, all the above depends on being able to reproduce the experimental conditions. So having a hand-held light source is obviously inadequate.

As your claims contradict long-established science you would need much more compelling evidence than this rather shoddy setup.

 Rotate the cylinder and see if the pattern changes. Change the angle of reflection and see how the pattern changes.

Or not reflect the light at all - expand it with a lens and see what the pattern looks like.

[Mordred]

 LOL considering that I've worked with magnets that can literally rip 10 inch nails out of concrete and cost by itself nearly half a million US dollars. It is interesting to note that such a high powered magnet such as the one I just described generates literally zero indications of diffraction. I can literally shoot a laser directly past that very same magnet and the laser still shoots straight and true. No optical illusions are generated, etc etc.

 Yet you wish us to believe a home experiment using a low powered garden variety laser and magnet is going to overturn the understood properties of light ?  We literally use millions of magnets in our everyday world. I'm positive that if light was affected by electromagnetic charge then you would notice measurable effects. This would  includes signal  delays in fibre optical cables which has literally no interference from local power cables.

Not that this has any bearing on wave-particle duality which applies to all particles and not just photons, neither does your light to light interactions that were mathematically predicted by QED support wave-particle duality. You also obviously are following a garden path with regards to particle entanglement. Though the last one is rarely understood by a vast majority of posters.

 Yes I've read your article, There is literally zero substance within that article to support any of your claims....

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yet you wish us to believe a home experiment using a low powered garden variety laser and magnet is going to overturn the understood properties of light ? 

As they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".