MIL

HYPOTHESIS FOR WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY SOLUTION

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, MIL said:
 
- A lot of the discussion here has been getting stuck on whether or not photons have mass.

When scientists are saying photon is massless particle, they really mean that photon has no rest-mass. That is, they mean that there is no valid frame of reference in which photon particle is at rest, and thus it's not possible to measure its rest-mass (like it happens with other kind of particles).

In the case of other particles to measure their rest-mass they can be accelerated/decelerated to see how they behave in well-known electric and/or magnetic field, to compare with other known particles.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sensei said:

When scientists are saying photon is massless particle, they really mean that photon has no rest-mass.

In other words, they have no mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It’s impossible to involve mass when you’re describing a photon NOW. You have to involve a certain change in time. Photons and mass are interchangeable (E=mc2), so you can have either mass or a photon, but you can’t have them both at the same time when you're describing the same thing. What IS a photon right now WAS mass earlier, or vice versa.

Hawking radiation states that a black hole evaporates. It decreases in size and loses mass by emitting photons. In our Sun, the difference between 4 hydrogen atoms that are converted into one helium atom, in terms of mass, is only 0,7%. This percentage of mass has been converted into photons. This conversion also happens the other way around, photons are able to change into an electron-positron pair, which is matter, and therefore has mass. 

Edited by MarkE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MarkE said:

It’s impossible to involve mass when you’re describing a photon NOW. You have to involve a certain change in time. Photons and mass are interchangeable (E=mc2), so you can have either mass or a photon, but you can’t have them both at the same time when you're describing the same thing. What IS a photon right now WAS mass earlier, or vice versa.

Hawking radiation states that a black hole evaporates. It decreases in size and loses mass by emitting photons. In our Sun, the difference between 4 hydrogen atoms that are converted into one helium atom, in terms of mass, is only 0,7%. This percentage of mass has been converted into photons. This conversion also happens the other way around, photons are able to change into an electron-positron pair, which is matter, and therefore has mass. 

Is that relevant to anything at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Is that relevant to anything at all?

Instead of changing his whole hypothesis, I might have given him a something to ponder in order to approach and edit his initial starting values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Strange said:

In other words, they have no mass.

"mass" term is ambiguous. It can refer to "rest-mass" ("invariant-mass"), "relativistic-mass", etc.

I am saying, don't leave room for different interpretations. It requires using unambiguous terms to express your thought.

When somebody simply says "photons have no rest-mass" everything is clear from the beginning.

If somebody would come here claiming "photon has rest-mass", you would ask him to tell frame-of-reference in which photon is at rest. Simple, quick and elegant answer. He/she should get the picture straight away, even if not scientist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 12:34 AM, Sensei said:

"mass" term is ambiguous. It can refer to "rest-mass" ("invariant-mass"), "relativistic-mass", etc.

I am saying, don't leave room for different interpretations. It requires using unambiguous terms to express your thought.

When somebody simply says "photons have no rest-mass" everything is clear from the beginning.

If somebody would come here claiming "photon has rest-mass", you would ask him to tell frame-of-reference in which photon is at rest. Simple, quick and elegant answer. He/she should get the picture straight away, even if not scientist.

 

Like you or not, i have to say that photon move with an heloidal movement in straight movement of two sub- particles that posses both electric and mass charge with opposite sign and with c velocity.

In so called static status the sub - particles, move with c velocity in a central point, with the same c velocity, in a chest like  spherical movement. Photons are structured by two mater, sub- particles with opposite electric and gravity "charges". Electron has a third sub- particle which is of kind -e, and -M, or +e, and +M. this define the status  of electron or positron.

When i visual them so, that doesn't mean i am sure. Maybe, they can  be how i visual, when and if CERN would for sure decide if there is any -M,+M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

Like you or not, i have to say that photon move with an heloidal movement in straight movement of two sub- particles that posses both electric and mass charge with opposite sign and with c velocity.

In so called static status the sub - particles, move with c velocity in a central point, with the same c velocity, in a chest like  spherical movement. Photons are structured by two mater, sub- particles with opposite electric and gravity "charges". Electron has a third sub- particle which is of kind -e, and -M, or +e, and +M. this define the status  of electron or positron.

When i visual them so, that doesn't mean i am sure. Maybe, they can  be how i visual, when and if CERN would for sure decide if there is any -M,+M.

If there would be positive mass +M and negative mass -M, overall mass would be -M+M=0, isn't.... ? ;)

Electron mass is me= ~9.11*10^-31 kg,

and positron (antimatter antiparticle of electron) mass is also me= ~9.11*10^-31 kg..

Photon needed to create pair of electron-positron has to be have energy E=2 * h * fc

That's at least double rest-mass of electron and positron: E=2mec2

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

i have to say that photon move with an heloidal movement in straight movement of two sub- particles that posses both electric and mass charge with opposite sign and with c velocity.

You don't have to say this at all. You have your own thread. Don't hijack someone else's thread with your own nonsense. This is purely for their nonsense. Let's at least try and keep the nonsense organised!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 10:33 AM, Sensei said:

If there would be positive mass +M and negative mass -M, overall mass would be -M+M=0, isn't.... ? ;)

Electron mass is me= ~9.11*10^-31 kg,

and positron (antimatter antiparticle of electron) mass is also me= ~9.11*10^-31 kg..

Photon needed to create pair of electron-positron has to be have energy E=2 * h * fc

That's at least double rest-mass of electron and positron: E=2mec2

My idea is : there must be two meaning of M.

M is charge of mass, which create the all kind of mass particles.All mass particles created by this charge have a mass << than Mp. Like this:

  Epl. = G * M*M / Rc  joule. Here M is interpreted as charge. But if we have an energy, we must have a mass:

  M = G * M * M / ( Rc * c^2). = ( (Rpl * C^2 / M ) * M * M ) / ( Rc * c^2 ) =

(Rpl. / Rc) * M

Now take:  M = Mpl * alpha^0.5,   R = Rpl * alpha^o.5 and Rc (Compton radius of electron or proton, taken from Compton wave lengths), you would have mass of electron Me <<< Mplanc  (hypothetical limit common particle),  .

Yes. Is like the Coulomb law with charge "e",  where we have epsilon zero as constant of space , here we have constant of gravity as constant of space.

Both the charges "e" and "M" are property of the sub - particle of mater (the Democritis atom) ,  kind of "Preon,

On 5/27/2018 at 12:34 AM, Sensei said:

"mass" term is ambiguous. It can refer to "rest-mass" ("invariant-mass"), "relativistic-mass", etc.

I am saying, don't leave room for different interpretations. It requires using unambiguous terms to express your thought.

When somebody simply says "photons have no rest-mass" everything is clear from the beginning.

If somebody would come here claiming "photon has rest-mass", you would ask him to tell frame-of-reference in which photon is at rest. Simple, quick and elegant answer. He/she should get the picture straight away, even if not scientist.

 

or  prenon"

I simply Call Charge. The sub-particle of matter (if it exist for real) is all-ways in movement "( (G)* (M / Rx) ) = ( R * c^2 / M ) * ( M * Rx )  , here charge M of constant of space G, Is anti -mass.

Photon is coexistence with mass charge with anti mass . Here we have not:

  +M + -M = 0

But -M / M =1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

My idea is : there must be two meaning of M.

!

Moderator Note

This isn't your thread, so your idea is neither relevant nor appropriate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 26/05/2018 at 7:58 PM, Sensei said:

When scientists are saying photon is massless particle, they really mean that photon has no rest-mass. That is, they mean that there is no valid frame of reference in which photon particle is at rest, and thus it's not possible to measure its rest-mass (like it happens with other kind of particles).

In the case of other particles to measure their rest-mass they can be accelerated/decelerated to see how they behave in well-known electric and/or magnetic field, to compare with other known particles.

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. 
On 23/05/2018 at 4:01 PM, swansont said:

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

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

 

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. 

 

On 25/05/2018 at 11:36 PM, Mordred said:

 

 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. 

 

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. 

On 26/05/2018 at 9:38 AM, studiot said:

 

  On 26/05/2018 at 12:27 AM, 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.

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!

Edited by MIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MIL said:

 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. 
 

What we measure is consistent with p = E/c, which is what you have for massless photons. And you aren't offering an alternative model.

 
Quote

 

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. 

Your two statements are inconsistent with each other. You are talking of holes rather than details that haven't been worked out.

Quote

To get down to the very essence, a photon CANNOT be both a particle and a wave.

Light, on the other hand, has behaviors of both.

Quote

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. 

What you need now is a model to tell us what these interactions are, and have it predict all of the so-called wave behavior, without screwing anything up.

Quote

 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. 

It's not only not done, it's barely begun.

Quote

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."

Why would it flip instead of tumble or oscillate? It's not there is friction to stop its motion.

Quote

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. 

Photons are not deflected by magnetic fields. Magnetic fields by themselves do not change polarization of light. Photons are not dipoles - they have no charges.

Quote

 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. 

You can post the math, if there is any.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MIL said:

To get down to the very essence, a photon CANNOT be both a particle and a wave.

What evidence do you have for that? 

But, of course, a photon is neither a particle nor a wave, so the point seems moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MIL said:

 

On 26/05/2018 at 9:38 AM, studiot said:

 

  On 26/05/2018 at 12:27 AM, MIL said:
  On 26/05/2018 at 12:27 AM, 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.

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!

 

Well this is a good go at a discussion.

But I think we need to clear up some terminology before proceeding.

There is no such thing as an 'electromagnetic' dipole.

The dipoles, quadrupoles and octupoles involved in VDW forces are coulombic in nature.

 

Quote

Atkins : Physical Chemistry

The interaction energy of two freely rotating dipoles is zero. However because their mutual potential energy depends on their relative orientation the molecules do not rotate freely, even in a gas. In fact, the lower energy orientations are marginally favoured, so there is a non-zero average interaction between polar molecules. We show in the following that the average potential energy of two rotating molecules that are separated by a distance r is proportional to r-6.

It is this interaction between molecules that accounts for the VDW forces which have been experimentally verified as conforming to the r-6 potential relationship which also appears in the Lennard Jones equation.

The point of that extract was to highlight how small and short range these forces are and how they do not lead to the stable regular arrays which allow the diffraction of EM radiation (since you mention diffraction).

The practical result of this is that we have only just begun to look for spectroscopic evidence of interaction so you would need to search doctoral thesis papers for this. For example.

http://www.iqst.ca/media/pdf/publications/JalalNoroozOliaee.pdf

There is also an effect, called Van Der Waals deshielding which can be observed by NMR spectroscopy, but this is not due to an interaction between photons and the

VDW force, but due to interaction of protons with the probing magnetic field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 
 
On 01/06/2018 at 10:47 AM, swansont said:

 

On 01/06/2018 at 10:47 AM, swansont said:

Light, on the other hand, has behaviors of both.

Why would it flip instead of tumble or oscillate? It's not there is friction to stop its motion.

Photons are not deflected by magnetic fields. Magnetic fields by themselves do not change polarization of light. Photons are not dipoles - they have no charges.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MIL said:
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...
 

When you feel like a Galileo it's time to take a step back and look at  your idea..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MIL said:
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 am a professional physicist. That is, I have a PhD and am employed as a physicist.

You haven't explained what these alleged "flaws" are, or why mainstream physics is dogma, despite your hyperbole. Physics works pretty well. That you don't like some of it is not a shortcoming that needs to be addressed.

Quote

 

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?

 

If you have new ideas, present your model and explain how it works better than existing physics, or show what results you can predict/explain that current physics can't.

Quote

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. 

No math = no model

 
Quote

 

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. 

 

Doing the math part is perhaps 95% of the effort.

Quote

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? 

You haven't provided any compelling reason to revamp QM, nor any reason that your approach is viable.

 
Quote

 

 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. 

 

 

It's called the Faraday effect (or faraday rotation) and happens to light in a medium, not free space. i.e. the light is interacting with a material, and that interaction is affected by the magnetic field.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MIL said:

I'd have thought they would naturally be more curious and be genuinely more interested in trying to correct these flaws

And if you look at it more closely, you will find that this is exactly what happens in the field of physics; new ideas are constantly proposed, but the vast majority is rejected again quickly because they either don’t work, are based on false premises, or offer no improvement on existing models.
You see, the trouble in your particular case is that you see a flaw where in actual fact there is none. The wave-particle duality - which, by the way, applies equally to all quantum systems, not just elementary particles or a specific kind - is really just that: a duality. That means there are two equally valid ways to regard the same thing, and what you see depends on how you look at it. The actual nature of a quantum system is neither wave nor particle, and it’s also not “both” or “neither”. It’s simply a class of object that has no equivalent in the classical world of human perception. That’s all there is to it.

The trouble here is that you think “well, they claim it’s both a wave and particle...but that’s impossible, because in my experience nothing can be both at the same time!”. But that’s a fallacy - you are attempting to apply classical thinking and logic to a system that is not classical; you then (rightly) notice that there’s a contradiction, and hence (wrongly) conclude that there must be some problem in quantum mechanics. But in reality there is no problem, and so there is no flaw to be corrected here. It’s merely your own conclusion that is invalid, because it is based on the wrong premise that classical logic applies to the quantum world. But we have known for nigh on a century now that it doesn’t.

The wave-particle duality is much like shining a light on a cylinder from different angles, and looking at the shadow. From one angle, the shadow looks like a rectangle; projected from another angle, the shadow looks like a circle. You could come along now and say: “Hold on, this is not possible!”. But in actual fact it is, because the object itself is neither a rectangle nor a circle, nor both nor neither - it’s a cylinder. There is no contradiction. The same in QM - there is no contradiction or problem in the wave-particle duality, it’s just two different projections of the same thing, which is in itself neither one of the two.

So without wanting to appear rude or anything, I can still tell you straight out that what you suggest will not be taken seriously by anyone in the physics community, because you are attempting to solve a problem that does not actually exist - it’s based on a misconception, a wrong premise. The other thing then of course is that it is in direct contradiction to many things which we already know - as it happens, the various particles do not stand in isolation, they are part of an overarching hierarchy and scheme, called the Standard Model. This model is certainly not perfect or complete, but it works exceptionally well within a specific energy domain, and has been extensively tested for the past 50 years. And what you suggest is simply not compatible with that model.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MIL said:
 
1) 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?
 
2) 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. 
 
3) I run two businesses, am possibly taking on a third, and have other exacting demands on me.
 
4) 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. 
 
 
5) 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. 
 
6) Can anyone please advise how many of the participants and contributors in this forum and this discussion happen to be professional physicists? 
 
1) 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...

1 and 2)

Yes we would be more interested if you were prepared to use conventional terminology and not offer in your 'model' assertions of Physics which are demonstrated, at high school level, to be wrong.

3)

My heart bleeds! Anyone would think you are the only businessman on the Planet. FYI StudioT is also a business. So What?

4)

Typical management-mind speak IOW -  It's some on else's fault if it doesn't work, by my glory if someone else makes it work"

5, 6 and 7)

I doubt you would be prepared to listen to even a (recent) Nobel Physicist, but here is the index from a book by one such which contains all the equations and references you need.

As a matter of interest Frank Wilczek was 'brought up Roman Catholic' and describes in his book his journey to rejection of that Church.

photon1.thumb.jpg.f4fa2bbe558b29c3d78edef371681a29.jpg

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MIL said:

Can anyone please advise how many of the participants and contributors in this forum and this discussion happen to be professional physicists? 

You don't have to be a professional to be right. I may have studied physics in college, but I didn't get a relevant degree and I don't work in the field. But we are not judged based on our background; we are judged on how we present our case: with sound logic and supported by citations of reliable sources, and eloquence doesn't hurt

Edited by YaDinghus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

                          

7 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

You don't have to be a professional to be right. I may have studied physics in college, but I didn't get a relevant degree and I don't work in the field. But we are not judged based on our background; we are judged on how we present our case: with sound logic and supported by citations of reliable sources, and eloquence doesn't hurt

 

I think that MIL   is in the right direction, and his arguments (leaving aside some boasting and hyper – enthusiasm about his controversial with mainstream physic), stands strong, if we will be not biased.

How many questions about light (electromagnetic waves), have not find any persuasive answer? Can one of opponents in this thread may explain how something created from mass gravity objects and by means of electric charges, becomes without electric charges and gravity, move with “c” velocity, posses a specter frequencies, changing some property during their travel, and most of them to be changed again in mass particle with electric charge, in their stop.

O yes. There are different theories, which explain this or that, of course for this are theories, but no one can explain how the photon gain c velocity, loose charge and mass, and again, gain them when he stops near some heave nucleus.

This is MIL's thread, I can’t suggest something own in favor or contrary, (really some contra is permitted and valued if go with crowd).

Other precaution is that my suggestions can be more false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

Can one of opponents in this thread may explain how something created from mass gravity objects and by means of electric charges, becomes without electric charges and gravity, move with “c” velocity, posses a specter frequencies, changing some property during their travel, and most of them to be changed again in mass particle with electric charge, in their stop.

I'm sorry but your ignorance is not a problem with the science. It is a problem that only you can solve by learning.

Your question is so jumbled, ill-informed and full of misunderstandings, that to answer it would require gving you a fairly long introduction to basic physics.

Perhaps, if you want to learn, you could start a thread where you extract a single idea that you don't understand and ask a straightforward question about it. 

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

but no one can explain how the photon gain c velocity, loose charge and mass, and again, gain them when he stops near some heave nucleus.

Photons only travel at c, as do all massless particles. They never have any charge to lose. And they don't stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎23‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 11:46 AM, MIL said:

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. 

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...

3-2_1.jpg

Edited by martillo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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...

3-2_1.jpg

 

!

Moderator Note

Do not advertise your own pet theory in someone else's thread.

 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

  but no one can explain how the photon gain c velocity, loose charge and mass, and again, gain them when he stops near some heave nucleus.

It's created moving at c, there is no gain or loss of charge or mass, and it never stops (tough it can be destroyed), so these are non-issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now