New Theory on the Propagation of Light and the Nature of Photons

[Epiménides]

You didn't show anything that proves photons travel.

[mooeypoo]

You didn't show anything that proves photons travel.

I'm not going to teach you physics you're perfectly able to learn for yourself with a VERY BASIC google search and some books. We already told you what's wrong with your theory, it's not a very large leap to study EXISTING physics, if you care so much in undermining it.

[Klaynos]

I put them in a completely photon proof box, and they are clearly spacially separated I can walk between the damn things!

[mooeypoo]

Here, I did a bit of the work for you. Now you have something to read over the weekend:

 

• Motion of photons: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00892.htm
  
• Planck's Constant and the energy of a photon: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html
  
• can a human see single photons? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html
  
• Interaction of light and atoms (Think.. why would they interact if there's no photon movement? you need to explain that if you still claim that photons don't move): http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/lasers/lasers2.html
  
• Interaction between photons and matter: http://mightylib.mit.edu/Course%20Materials/22.01/Fall%202001/photons%20part%201.pdf
  

And more, and more, and more.

 

Read a bit about the physics you insist is wrong, it seems you don't know enough to understand it, let alone crush it. You have a lot of work to do if you want to convince us (let alone the scientific community). Make sure you can - at the very LEAST - answer the questions your theory posts. At the current time, it's simply irrelevant, since it doesn't answer questions better than current theories (in fact, it has holes that the current theory fills), it has no predictions, and no reason for us to switch between the current theories to yours.

 

Welcome to a mini peer review.

 

~moo

[Epiménides]

Klaynos:

 

You said: "I put them in a completely photon proof box, and they are clearly spacially separated I can walk between the damn things!"

1) "Them" or "it"?

2) How did you put them in a photon proof box?

3) How could you see them?

4) Was it either motionless/still or moving?

4) How is a seen photon? and what is it look like?

 

Mooeypoo:

 

I haven't found any argument in you against what I said: photons don't travel anywhere. Those explanations are mathematically right, they work, but not objectively right. Photons don't travel.

[Sayonara]

Photons don't travel.

That rather depends on which frame of reference you are considering, so you need to specify it.

[Epiménides]

Objectively, i. e., in an integral view, in an integral knowledge (integral, I say: every frame of reference). Maths is just a frame/part of the true human knowledge about phyisics. The objective problem (not mathematical problem) is if a photon travels or not.

[Sayonara]

Do you understand what the term "frame of reference" means in physics?

[swansont]

Photons don't travel.

 

That kinda makes the rotating-mirror method of measuring the speed of light tough to explain.

[Klaynos]

Klaynos:

 

You said: "I put them in a completely photon proof box, and they are clearly spacially separated I can walk between the damn things!"

1) "Them" or "it"?

 

Them, a detector and an emitter.

 

2) How did you put them in a photon proof box?

 

It's a former nuclear lab in a basement of a concrete tower. The background light level is VERY low.

 

3) How could you see them?

 

Photo multiplier tube.

 

4) Was it either motionless/still or moving?

 

Relative to what? The earth, stationary.

 

4) How is a seen photon? and what is it look like?

 

You misunderstand how you "see" a photon, when you image things with your eyes you are detecting photons that have bounced off of things (or been emitted by them), photons don't interact (strongly enough) with each other for there to be bouncing so you cannot image them.

[Epiménides]

To Sayonara: I didn't understand it (i'm not english-speaker). Now I know what you are talking about.

 

_____

 

Again: the problem is whether the photon that left A (any point/body in space) going through glass is the same one that touches the observer's retina or not. I say it cannot be the same one. Then it made me think photon doesn't travel.

[Sayonara]

But any photon which touches the eye, having previously not been touching the eye, must have travelled in order to get to the eye.

 

The alternative is that as you walk around (or indeed stay still) your eye collides with stationary photons which somehow relay information about your surroundings, despite not physically interacting with them.

 

I don't think that the conclusion "photons do not travel" can be supported by the observation "a photon leaving A might not be the same photon which reaches your eye".

[Epiménides]

To Klaynos:

 

"The background light level is VERY low." That is my point: a VERY low (or the LOWEST)level of background light is enough to keep/sustain the "photons-chain".

 

I don't misunderstand how to "see" a photon: I mean there are things in the universe we can't know by "seeing": we can know them a) by thinking (reason), b) by calculating (maths, geometry, etc.).

 

Sayonara:

 

"The alternative is that as you walk around (or indeed stay still) your eye collides with stationary photons which somehow relay information about your surroundings"

 

Yes, basically that's what I said.

 

You are right when you say: "I don't think that the conclusion "photons do not travel" can be supported by the observation "a photon leaving A might not be the same photon which reaches your eye"."

I have no proof. My reason/logic/common sense doesn't allow me to accept that a the particle left A going through glass is the same particle that reaches my retina. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't accept it. It is not convincing to me. If there were any definitive proof about, well: I'll accept it. At the moment, there is nothing that proves photons go through glass. I don't want to impose my ideas on anybody. All what I do is offer some new ideas about a non-decisively-resolved problem.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Epiménides
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

But I can test against the background, I can turn off (or move) the emitter, and then turn on (or move the detector, or place a mirror in the way) and see how this alters the signal.

 

particle left A going through glass is the same particle that reaches my retina.

 

It's not.

 

The photon whilst travelling threw glass is absorbed and emitted thousands (probably more) times. But due to the nature of glass at optical frequencies the photon that reaches your eye is identical in every way (but slightly later due to the time taken for absorption and emission) to the photon that left the source. There are quantum mechanical arguments for this, it's probably worth reading about fermi's golden rule...

 

You can change these photons, if you pass a photon threw certain liquid crystal cells, for example, you can twist the polarisation state of the photon.

 

Also if you can't test to see if something is different (it's identical before as after the process you've applied there's no way to distinguish a true of false test so it's not science.

[Epiménides]

Klaynos :

 

 

I think If you turn off the emitter, you can't observe anything, you lost any signal.

 

 

You're right, this is the accepted theory:

"The photon whilst travelling threw glass is absorbed and emitted thousands (probably more) times."

But...don't you think it is too much complicated?

Simplex sigillum veri (what is simple is sign of being true). I think that what I propose is not only less complicated but more natural too.

In that sense, my theory (mere idea, if you prefer) is so hard to refute as the accepted theory.

 

 

"[...]the process you've applied there's no way to distinguish a true of false test so it's not science."

You are right too: I haven't got yet any way to falsificate it (in Popper's conception). But at the same time, the accepted theory (I mean: the photon that left A is the same ...) has not a sharp, clear way to distinguish a true of false test (whether photons are moving or not).

Edited December 19, 2008 by Epiménides

[mooeypoo]

Okay, Epiménides, it seems you should redefine light instead of redefining photons, seeing as photons are pretty much defined by their *MOVEMENT* (speed of light, energy, etc etc).

 

If you think that the 'particles of light' (call them whatever you wish, it's your theory), don't move, you will need to redefine the particles of light. And light itself.

 

And you will need to start referencing your work if you want anyone to take you seriously. We're a science forum, not a philosophical mythology forum; we require proof, and we require substantiation. So far you repeat your explanation but you give absolutely NO corroborating evidence.

 

Claiming the current theory is incorrect does not make yours correct. Even *IF* you manage to prove the current theories incorrect, you are STILL in dire need of proving your own theory to make it a valid alternative.

 

~moo

[Klaynos]

Is there any chance you can use quote tags, click "Quote" at the bottom of a post, it just makes things a bit easier for people to work out.

 

Klaynos :

 

 

I think If you turn off the emitter, you can't observe anything, you lost any signal.

 

 

You're right, this is the accepted theory:

"The photon whilst travelling threw glass is absorbed and emitted thousands (probably more) times."

But...don't you think it is too much complicated?

Simplex sigillum veri (what is simple is sign of being true). I think that what I propose is not only less complicated but more natural too.

In that sense, my theory (mere idea, if you prefer) is so hard to refute as the accepted theory.

 

 

"[...]the process you've applied there's no way to distinguish a true of false test so it's not science."

You are right too: I haven't got yet any way to falsificate it (in Popper's conception). But at the same time, the accepted theory (I mean: the photon that left A is the same ...) has not a sharp, clear way to distinguish a true of false test (whether photons are moving or not).

 

Science unfortunately doesn't care much for simplicity. The process I described is backed up by evidence, it's also a result of quantum mechanics which is an amazingly supported theory.

 

If you release a photon and then detect a photon a few moments later and the two events ALWAYS coincide with the same time delay, (taking into account the transition threw a material which we can do classically using refractive indexes) then there is no other mechanism which is supported by other evidence that shows this as happening.

[swansont]

Science unfortunately doesn't care much for simplicity.

 

Right. It cares only to the extent that the simpler explanation is still correct. If it isn't, being simple doesn't matter at all.

[Klaynos]

Right. It cares only to the extent that the simpler explanation is still correct. If it isn't, being simple doesn't matter at all.

 

Yes I should have been more explicit here.

[swansont]

Epiménides, please start using the "quote" function to separate what you are posting from what others have said. It will help reduce confusion. The button is at the lower right of each post. It will automatically quote that post, and you can reply below it.

 

Thanks

[Epiménides]

Science unfortunately doesn't care much for simplicity.

 

I'm not talking about simplicity in a scientific sense but in a comprehensive, rational sense: I mean a clear and comprehensive rational representation. That transmission process (absorption-emission-absorption and so forth, at 270.000 ms/s) doesn't seem to be very natural. It seems to me that my idea is more natural and comprehensive: a glass is full of photosensible particles, and every particle is "activated" in a sort of "chain reaction" and so on. Instead of absorbing-emiting-absorbing-emiting photons, I think that there is a "relay process", a "retransmission process". It seems to me that it is more natural and reasonable to think that there is a photoconductive medium instead of thinking there were an absorbing-emiting medium. That's all.

[mooeypoo]

What is "rational" for you is not rational for others, necessarily. That's why math exists; it's the most rational of all -- there's no interpretations or personal bias, just a straight forward way of proving things fit reality.

 

Rational Representation is meaningless if it is done out of your own personal understanding and interpretation. In short, you need to provide substantiations and proofs to your claims because things are not always the way they seem. In fact, they rarely are.

[Klaynos]

It may not seem natural, but it is. Humans have not evolved to be good at understanding these things, it's never been an evolutional advantage. So natural it may not seem but true it is. Would you rather know a fairy tale or how things really work?

[Epiménides]

If you release a photon and then detect a photon a few moments later and the two events ALWAYS coincide with the same time delay, (taking into account the transition threw a material which we can do classically using refractive indexes) then there is no other mechanism which is supported by other evidence that shows this as happening.

 

Even if you were right and have "under detection" just one single photon, that photon always was in the same spatial point even before you emitted it --that's what I can say according to my theory (and nobody can prove that I were wrong).

[Klaynos]

Even if you were right and have "under detection" just one single photon, that photon always was in the same spatial point even before you emitted it --that's what I can say according to my theory

 

But you've no evidence, or derivation so it falls down against the existing theory. How can I emit a photon from -----------------> over there and detect it over here and the emited photon to have ALWAYS been at the detector, surely the emitter would have to magically tell the photon to get detected now...

 

There are other issues with this, if photons don't propagate then EM forces cannot act over distance and they do.

 

(and nobody can prove that I were wrong).

 

And that is why it's not a theory. Theories HAVE to be falsifiable. Quantum mechanics certainly is, and no ones managed it yet...