The unambiguous proof of light actually traveling - does it exist?

[Billy T]

exactly.....we do agree...but it must always be remembered that they are just that postulated models and nothing more until proven otherwise. If a postulated model has evidence to support it in the sense I am talking about it no longer is just a postulated model and gain a greater degree of reality.

I never agreed to or said that (part I made bold)!

The "photon model” is one of the best tested in all of science. I have personally measured the length of photons (by dual path interferometer - as path difference is increased the interference pattern fades out. Each photon "feels" / "passes thru" [what ever you want to say as it is outside of human experience, so language other than math is inadequate] both paths the “head” of that single, self-interfering, photon going the longer path falls behind its tail going the shorter path. I have done photo electric effect experiments, dual refraction in Iceland spar, spectral line broadening in dense plasmas, where a collision comes to soon for the emission to be completed. (Shorter time or length is less cycles and that in the Fourier transform is a wider frequency spread (many photons average), time of flight Kerr cell experiments, and many others, including the grading equations measure of wavelength.

There is fantastic amount of observational evidence ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHOTON. So much so that I know of nothing in physics better confirmed to exist. No one calls it the "photon theory" as many still call the "atomic theory" or "nuclear structure theory" , "big bang theory" etc. There is no alternative model for photons, they are as real as it gets. You have nothing to even postulate as replacement for the extremely well supported and understood photon.

I did not yet read rest of your post as was and am on way to bed but had to respond to misrepresentation of my POV.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I never agreed to or said that (part I made bold)!

The "photon model” is one of the best tested in all of science. I have personally measured the length of photons (by dual path interferometer - as path difference is increased the interference pattern fades out. Each photon "feels" / "passes thru" [what ever you want to say as it is outside of human experience, so language other than math is inadequate] both paths the “head” of that single, self-interfering, photon going the longer path falls behind its tail going the shorter path. I have done photo electric effect experiments, dual refraction in Iceland spar, spectral line broadening in dense plasmas, where a collision comes to soon for the emission to be completed. (Shorter time or length is less cycles and that in the Fourier transform is a wider frequency spread (many photons average), time of flight Kerr cell experiments, and many others, including the grading equations measure of wavelength.

There is fantastic amount of observational evidence ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHOTON. So much so that I know of nothing in physics better confirmed to exist. No one calls it the "photon theory" as many still call the "atomic theory" or "nuclear structure theory" , "big bang theory" etc. There is no alternative model for photons, they are as real as it gets. You have nothing to even postulate as replacement for the extremely well supported and understood photon.

I did not yet read rest of your post as was and am on way to bed but had to respond to misrepresentation of my POV.

but you do agree that the model is just that a model yes?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Look, the reason I really had in asking this question is that I needed to confirm that the evidence I seek is unavailable thus any work I do in other areas is not a waste of time.
As the photon effect can not be differentiated as to whether free running particle or reflector mass event it affords me some small confidence that I am not steaming ahead whilst strong hard evidence is available to show that the photon is indeed free running.
There are aspects of photon theory or should I say spin offs from photon theory that do cause problems as far as proofs are concerns one such being the inability to prove that time is relative [ I am not talking about time dilation but absolute or relative NOWS ]
As relative time is a major outcome of photon theory it places an incredible barrier to understanding things such as quantum entanglements etc which by nature would require absolute time. [ unless you wish to assume relative velocity would disallow quantum entanglement ]

And because of the very nature of relative time and the way it is presented via SRT relative time is unprovable as is also the free running nature of the photon.
However relative time notions are by far more significant to my field of research than justifying a photon model. As the free running nature of a photon has not been prov-en the "must be so" nature of time is no longer able to be supported other than being only a model that stems from a very convenient photon model.

There is no doubt that Photon theory or model is very very close to revealing ultimate physical truths about universal physics. No doubt about it.
IMO photon model leads to relative time [ due to free running photon nature] which logically leads to the impossibility of inertia. [ and we know inertia exists]
Which I find to be a rather intriguing outcome

 

[Quantum Quack]

The idea I am working with is that when we consider the EM effect on an object of mass [ reflector ] we are possibly taking the time delay and applying it incorrectly to the distance [ free running photon ] instead of the of time delay in the changes to the object of mass reflector.

So instead of considering that the time is due to the EM's need to travel it may very well be the time needed to change the reflector. Hence the issue of inertia comes to the fore.
By exactly what mechanism this alternative use of d/t occurs I have yet to explore adequately.
So the question of whether we are witnessing a photon event or a reflector event seems to be a valid one, as there is no unambiguous proof that shows our photon as free running and able to be differentiated from the reflector.

I apologise if my wording is unconventional and lacking in the correct terminology.

Whilst we canot prove the existance of a photon as free running we CAN prove the existance of a Reflector. And intuitively if one assumes no knowledge of a photon one would focus his interests on what he can possibly prove and not what he can not possibly prove.

 

[andbna]

Quantum Quack,
In answer to your first question, can light be detected without a reflector mass, the answer is simply no, infact nothing can be. Because of our senses, everything must be inffered to some extent or another. (ie, a baseball hitting you is

infered through senses suchas the changing of retinal in our eyes being interpreted as the ball moving towards us, and the bioelectrical impulses

of our nerves which we interpret as the pain and feeling as the ball hitting us.)
Thus, this connundrum of which you speak is not mearly a problem with the photon, but rather that of all reality, and really, we know

nothing to be absolutly true.
We have develloped theorys which explain the phenomena we deal with everyday, and allow put it to practical applications (eg, the internet
Multiple theory's can and do of course exist, however in the evolution of them, one theory ends up comming up on top by based on continual

experimentation, (simple example: if we have 2 points of data, one theory may prepose a linear relationship, another a quadratic. If we do another

test and find 2 more points which fit the leaner relationship, but not the qudaratic, we discard the qudratic and thus describe it as linear)

Now the can of worms your oppening has been opened before, and in the 80's it was completely closed again. Most were opposed to Einsteins initial

idea of light being a particle, and developed different theorys to fit the data however they were later disproven, and Einsteins ideas confirmed.

Thus because all other theory's have been disproven, the photon theory only confirmed by experimentation, it is considered to be proven, just as

the idea of an atom and its nucleus and electrons in orbit. I can't give you all the experiments leading to this, there are too many, but you can

researc hthem yourself (and indeed you would have to to pursue your own theory, as it must fit their data) Thus the photon is like the linear

equation in the example above, and these other theory's are like the quadratic. Thus it is my opinion that there is as close to unambiguise proof as possible. You mention that we should only focus on things on something that we can completely proove, so i say this: nothing can be prooven more certainly than the existance of the photon now. Now that scentance does not mean that the photon cannot be disproven in the future, but rather that currently it is as unambiguouse as the existance of the atom.
So, it is in my opinion that this issue stems from 2 things: firstly, that you want too much proof of one thing, yet take for granted another (as you yourself accuse people of doing in the case of the photon.) and secondly, your lack of knowlege of the photon theory (im not insulting you, just that more knowlege of it would lead to greater understanding.)

As for your theory:
Unless i am mistaken: one of the key problems with your idea of use actualy measuring inertia rather than the speed of a photon is that EM radiation is quantized, inertia isnt. Furthur more, in current models relative distance between to objects does not effect intertia. (of course, i correct me if im wrong.)

Im tired now, and perhaps the last parts of this post dont make much sense, but i hope this does at least shed some light on the issue.
-Andrew

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack,
In answer to your first question, can light be detected without a reflector mass, the answer is simply no, infact nothing can be. Because of our senses, everything must be inffered to some extent or another. (ie, a baseball hitting you is

infered through senses suchas the changing of retinal in our eyes being interpreted as the ball moving towards us, and the bioelectrical impulses

of our nerves which we interpret as the pain and feeling as the ball hitting us.)
Thus, this connundrum of which you speak is not mearly a problem with the photon, but rather that of all reality, and really, we know

nothing to be absolutly true.
We have develloped theorys which explain the phenomena we deal with everyday, and allow put it to practical applications (eg, the internet
Multiple theory's can and do of course exist, however in the evolution of them, one theory ends up comming up on top by based on continual

experimentation, (simple example: if we have 2 points of data, one theory may prepose a linear relationship, another a quadratic. If we do another

test and find 2 more points which fit the leaner relationship, but not the qudaratic, we discard the qudratic and thus describe it as linear)

Now the can of worms your oppening has been opened before, and in the 80's it was completely closed again. Most were opposed to Einsteins initial

idea of light being a particle, and developed different theorys to fit the data however they were later disproven, and Einsteins ideas confirmed.

Thus because all other theory's have been disproven, the photon theory only confirmed by experimentation, it is considered to be proven, just as

the idea of an atom and its nucleus and electrons in orbit. I can't give you all the experiments leading to this, there are too many, but you can

researc hthem yourself (and indeed you would have to to pursue your own theory, as it must fit their data) Thus the photon is like the linear

equation in the example above, and these other theory's are like the quadratic. Thus it is my opinion that there is as close to unambiguise proof as possible. You mention that we should only focus on things on something that we can completely proove, so i say this: nothing can be prooven more certainly than the existance of the photon now. Now that scentance does not mean that the photon cannot be disproven in the future, but rather that currently it is as unambiguouse as the existance of the atom.
So, it is in my opinion that this issue stems from 2 things: firstly, that you want too much proof of one thing, yet take for granted another (as you yourself accuse people of doing in the case of the photon.) and secondly, your lack of knowlege of the photon theory (im not insulting you, just that more knowlege of it would lead to greater understanding.)

As for your theory:
Unless i am mistaken: one of the key problems with your idea of use actualy measuring inertia rather than the speed of a photon is that EM radiation is quantized, inertia isnt. Furthur more, in current models relative distance between to objects does not effect intertia. (of course, i correct me if im wrong.)

Im tired now, and perhaps the last parts of this post dont make much sense, but i hope this does at least shed some light on the issue.
-Andrew

Andrew Thanks for your efforts, and I think your post makes plenty of sense. I shows me that I have been unable to explain my self properly and that as with other posters you are still in the dark as to what I am attempting to say.
Of course the responsibility lies with the one doing the communicating and therefore I take that responisbility completely.

Maybe I'll take the time to throw some diagrams together that may help explain the idea I am pursuing and then someone may recognise it and offer an appropriate rebuttal, but so far my failure to communicate it means that any diagram would be an exercise in futility, such is the obvious and expected devotion to such a solid theory [ photon theory]
Any way now that I have cleared up the ambiguity issue I may feel inclined to get to it and attempt once again to explain the possible alternative I have in mind. I might add the alternative must be in accord with all current observations that justify the photon theory as the observational data is not so much in question but what that data represents is.

So I shall see how I go.....and of course it will never be a complete extrapolation as I simply don't have the skills needed to present it properly anyway.[ don't hold your breath ]

just presenting ideas that someone more qualified might find interest in and pursue a little further.....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Posted by anbna

.....equation in the example above, and these other theory's are like the quadratic. Thus it is my opinion that there is as close to unambiguise proof as possible. You mention that we should only focus on things on something that we can completely proove, so i say this: nothing can be prooven more certainly than the existance of the photon now. Now that scentance does not mean that the photon cannot be disproven in the future, but rather that currently it is as unambiguouse as the existance of the atom.

compare with:

posted by QQ

Whilst we canot prove the existance of a photon as free running we CAN prove the existance of a Reflector. And intuitively if one assumes no knowledge of a photon one would focus his interests on what he can possibly prove and not what he can not possibly prove.

Obviously an object of mass has a higher degree of evidence to supoprt it's existance than a photon. Or does it?

"I might be able to see a baseball coming towards me, fly pass me or fly away from me but I have yet to see a photon doing so"

A free running photon, if it actually exists, is beyond sensory perception and not actually able to be witnessed where as a base ball is with in sensory perception and is able to be witnessed.
I fail to see how you could consider them to be equally unable to be proven [ as per the quality of proof rather than the absolute nature of proof]?

 

[Billy T]

but you do agree that the model is just that a model yes?

Yes, in the sense that belief in any part of physic is just a model. Even the existence of a universe is just a model, based on our interpretation of what is surely real (our perceptual experience) - the universe may not exist - it is only inferred to exist from these experiences.

My point was there are many parts of the current understand of physics, IMHO, that attribute or have attributed "real existence" to - things like protons (which we now in some sense no longer do believe are real, having been replaced by 3 quarks) - that are in greater doubt than photons. There are an extremely larger number of very different experiments that confirm the "real existence" of photons.

I think your problem with this may be that photons are quite different from things you can touch and see. These macro things have lead you to firmly believe that nothing can be in two places at the same time,* etc.

You pretend to be very logical, just wanting proof the photon exists, etc. You are extending properties of macro objects to things like photos and electrons, etc. There is no logical justification for this. You are actually being very illogical!

We have strong evidence that electrons can be in two places at the same time, just as we have for photons I.e. The interference effect when the flux is so low that never does more than one free electron or photon exist when another does; yet the interference in a two path interferometer still occurs as they, in some very real sense, inconsistent with your macro experiences, do go by both paths.

Be a little more logical and drop the pretense that you are just being logical by asking for proof of the photon's existence.

By edit: After writing the above, I read Andrew's (andbna) generally good comments, which parallel mine above and earlier, but he did make one error, I think. Inertia or momentum is no more (or no less) quantized than "EM radiation" is. All are impossible to completely describe in the classical sense (location, magnitude, velocity etc.) with zero uncertainty. On a "macro scale" all can be considered to be continuously variable. On a much smaller scale, all are quantized into "packets," even location, as infinite time is not available to measure where anything is exactly. This does not mean that there is some minium difference between two permitted momentum of photons or massive objects values. There is no reason to think that, that I know of. (One simple reason, at least strongly suggesting this is true, is to conceptually change your reference frame for describing these values.)
-------------------------------
*BTW, you already know and accept that this "not in two places at same time" rule does not apply to somethings you can not touch or see. For example the idea that "time is money" can exist in thousands of places at the same time, and probably does.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You pretend to be very logical, just wanting proof the photon exists, etc. You are extending properties of macro objects to things like photos and electrons, etc. There is no logical justification for this. You are actually being very illogical!

[Chuckle].....I could accuse you of doing exactly the same thing....ha

Afterall it is not I who can not make up his mind about the attributes of our photon.

Also I see you have made no comment about this notion:

The idea I am working with is that when we consider the EM effect on an object of mass [ reflector ] we are possibly taking the time delay and applying it incorrectly to the distance [ free running photon ] instead of the of time delay in the changes to the object of mass reflector.

So instead of considering that the time is due to the EM's need to travel it may very well be the time needed to change the reflector. Hence the issue of inertia comes to the fore.
By exactly what mechanism this alternative use of d/t occurs I have yet to explore adequately.
So the question of whether we are witnessing a photon event or a reflector event seems to be a valid one, as there is no unambiguous proof that shows our photon as free running and able to be differentiated from the reflector.

I apologise if my wording is unconventional and lacking in the correct terminology.

maybe you would care to discuss such a notion and how it can be proven to be invalid...

 

[Billy T]

...it is not I who can not make up his mind about the attributes of our photon.
Also I see you have made no comment about this notion: { a vague undeveloped "theory" not yet shown to }
maybe you would care to discuss such a notion and how it can be proven to be invalid...

I have my mind well "made up" about "the attributes of our photon." I presume by your comment that you are referring to fact that in some experiments the human experience with macro sized objects seem to be occurring and in other experiments the human experience with waves seems to be the better way to understand the experiment. Is this what you are suggesting is some conflict in the nature of the photon?

Well, it is not any conflict of the photon; instead it is, as I told you in last post, your illogical extension of human experience into a realm where experiments have already shown it does not apply. This is not the photon's fault / mistake, but yours. It knows its "attributes" very well, and never fails to exhibit them. I.e. never appears to be a particle, even when only one is existing at any time and it is passing thru both of the separated paths of a two path interferometer, it always makes the interference pattern in the interferometer. Likewise, it always recoils as a particle off a delicate balance pan that reflects it. It is not confused; you are just illogical in wanting it to conform to your experience with macro objects and waves.

On your other point, I did comment, twice, but both times you have ignored my comments. Briefly for the third time, if the events at the reflector are the only "real things" and there is no photon traveling at constant speed back to the source, why and how is it possible that the time between the reflection event at the reflector and the detection event back at the source depends linearly upon the separation between the reflector and the detector?

As far as commenting on your "theory" until it is better developed and can quantatively predict at least one thing, (for example the spacing between lines in an interference pattern or separation of the rings that a Fabry Perot produces), what is there to comment on? Hundreds of things the current photon theory, if you must call it tht rather than the photon fact, are well understood. Not one false prediction indicates need for the new theory you say you are working on.

IMHO, you should be trying to rid your self of the tendency to extend macro observations into realms where they have been demonstrated not to apply. I.e. work on you logical error instead. I admit it takes most people at least several months of effort to rid themselves of this tendancy to think every thing must behave as do macro scale events do, but try to be logical and not extend your macro experience into the micro world where they clealy do not apply.

 

[Quantum Quack]

hey Billy T since when is "Notion" a theory?
Since when is a question contrued as a hypothesis?

I am suggesting the notion that the d/t that is used to determine 'c' is being applied to vacant space/photon when it possibly could be applied to the actual reflector mass as that reflector mass changes as time passes.

Now have I used the word "theory" or even "hypothesis"?

I am suggesting the notion that the space between masses could be actually non-existant for a massless object. That d=0 for EM transmissions.
That two objects will resonate with appropriate time delays ['c'] and give the false impression that distance for that massless particle/wave exists. If this were the case then all available test data would still remain in accord however the interpretation of that data would change.

The inherant inertia of both masses would then determine 'c' and not the d/t or traveling through vacant space.

Now I repeat this is just a notion I wish to put to the board. Certainly not a theory. It even fails as a hypothesis.

And because there is no unambiguous proof of a photon actually traveling it allows such a notion to be put forward for comment.

Effectively what this notion suggests is that the distance between say Earth and the moon is actually zero for massless objects. The mirrors on the moon only resonate thus reflect the luna laser with time delays relative to distance [ as needed by objects of mass to travel that distance ] by virtue only of the mirrors inherant reflective surface inertia.

So the distance only exists for objects of mass. and thus the mirror on the moon being such an object experiences delays due to the distance/time that it's mass would require to travel.[ if it were needed to do so]

In thinking that d/t is zero for Em and considering the resonance notion there is a possibliilty that all acquired data about the photon would remain in accord except the interpretation of that data would change. All that is happening is removing an uneccessary photon and it's model from the picture. [ excuse the pun]

note: I didn't spend a lot of time composing this post and you can appreciate that this notion is far from adequately put.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thus a photon could be considered as neither particle or wave, that in fact it is demonstrating the resistance to change of the reflector. Thus not a particle and not a wave yet exhibiting qualities that give that impression if distance is considerd as actual for that photon.

If you look at the double slit experiment with this in mind how would you interpret the data? Obviously the need to consider wave or particle is no longer as strong.

I personally have no idea how the interpretation would be effected but fully intend to give it some thought......

 

[andbna]

Quantum Quack,
What i was trying to get at was that mass is simply intuitivly obviouse to us, thus it is easier to accept the idea of atoms, protons, electrons, etc... rather than the concept of a photon, which our brain says we cannot detect (ironicaly, the EM force is the only thing we use to detect objects). So what I'm saying is 'no' an object of mass does not have a higher degree of proof than a photon, its just easier to understand.

Now as for your idea, it could of course be possible to create a model without the photon as such you describe, and it can be considered more unambigously proven than the photon if it better fits the data, (like relativity replacing newtonian physics) and it can be considred less proven if it does a worse job of modeling it. If the first case is true, new problems will always have to be described in physics and it will experience the same chopping block the photon is on now.
I do find the concept your proposing intriguing, however to me it is less comprehendable than the photon (distances negated in the case of the EM force, but not others?!?)

Ultimately the goal should be to better describe what we observe, so if your proposed idea could try and explain something the photon model cant, then I say yes it would be worth the time of following it, even if it ends up leading to nothing.

And just a final though, what about the CMB, as it is remnants of inflation and particles which no longer exist in preasant time, it is pretty good proof of traveling photons, less I be mistaken(probably am.)

And yes a photon is neither a particle nor wave, it is rather both (wave-partical duality) an electron too i know also has this duality, which you seem fine with this theory.

I hope i touched better upon the issue this time.

Billy T
Thanks for correcting me, and i apologize if I am repeating your ideas, 8 pages is allot to read and retain

-Andrew

 

[Billy T]

To QQ:

I think you can understand me, but I can not understand what you are trying to say. Consequently I can not even call it “non-sense.” I am sincerely trying to understand you. Lets not worry about terms like notion, theory, hypothesis, etc. OK? In fact I drop one in quoting you as saying:

“I am suggesting that the space between masses could be actually non-existent for a massless object. That d=0 for EM transmissions. That two objects will resonate with appropriate time delays ['c'] and give the false impression that distance for that massless particle/wave exists. ”

What I think you are suggesting is that some how the “resonate delays” of or in the reflector are linearly proportional to d and this is why I (mistakenly from your POV) think something is traveling with the DAB/T = Dab/t always the same, c, (As in my earlier post, the capitals refer to one experimental (larger) separation of the reflector and the detector than the lower case (non-capital) designations which refer to another experimental separation case. Fact that these two ratios are what is called the speed of light is not my point. My point is they are the SAME for all the various separations. Across the lab or to the moon and back!

I do not see how the “resonate delays” in or on the reflector can adjust to all these various separations to make this true but I can not show that this is impossible either. Thus, I want to suggest we consider a different experiment, one in which there is never any change in the geometry (distances) to cause any change in your “resonance delays.” They only thing that changes or is different (from my POV) is related to the so called “wavelength” of the photon but nothing changes from your POV as these “photons” do not exist.

For this experiment, consider the simples possible spectrograph, one which has only a concave mirror that has the “diffraction grading” ruled directly on its surface and a narrow “entrance slit.” The “detector” is just some photographic film. Unfortunately, wiki is ignorant of this “Roland circle” spectrograph design. So I must describe it: Basically the entrance slit and the film plate are both on same circle and the concave mirror grating is at the circle’s center with the mirror radius of curvature same as circle radius, so at some point on the circle, all the slit’s light will form a sharp image of the slit in “white light” as if there were no ruling on the concave mirror. At other locations on the circle a sharp image of the entrance slit is also formed, but only in one color (wavelength) of light entering the slit. For example, the yellow sodium vapor light comes for two slightly different atomic transitions and thus differs in wavelength very slightly and forms two separated images.*

Now my question to you:
Since nothing with mass has changed, or even moved, why are these two lines separated on the film if photons do not exist?

To explain my earlier "time of flight" directly proportional to distance of travel, you assert that the "resonate delay" some how is a function of the distance, but now all distances between objects with mass are constant in this grading experiment, so no changes in these "resonances" and yet the spectral lines images on the film are not at the same place! The light is traveling different paths to arrive at these different locations. You can not have it both ways. In one case c is keep constant because the separtion distance change the "resonances" you say. In the other case no distances change, yet the photons (Or at least their effect on the film.), changes position, exactly as the "grading equation" predicts it would with the wavelengths measured by say an interferometer pattern.
----------------------
*We had a Roland circle spectrograph at JHU with about a 50 foot diameter circle which separated the two “sodium D” lines many centimeters. One worked in the dark inside the spectrograph to set up the photographic plates, which were like very large microscope slides, you clamped against the continuously curved “plate holder,” which was exactly on the circle. (You could tell which side to turn towards the grating by fact the film emulsion side was slightly sticky to the lips. And the focus was so sharp that if the wrong side was turned inward, the image would be degraded / blurred by being less than mm too far way for true focus!) Really a very high resolution instrument - with narrow slit, long exposure, perhaps you could measure wavelengths to about eight significant figures! Red and green spectral lines form images meters apart! How is this possible if nothing with mass has moved or changed in any way in terms of your theory/ idea/ suggestion? You can even stand in the path of only one of these colors and block it. - Surely something is traveling along that path. I'll continue to call that "something" photons.

 

[Montec]

Hello Quantum Quack

How would you explain "velocity aberration of light" in your "notion"?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack,
What i was trying to get at was that mass is simply intuitivly obviouse to us, thus it is easier to accept the idea of atoms, protons, electrons, etc... rather than the concept of a photon, which our brain says we cannot detect (ironicaly, the EM force is the only thing we use to detect objects). So what I'm saying is 'no' an object of mass does not have a higher degree of proof than a photon, its just easier to understand.

Now as for your idea, it could of course be possible to create a model without the photon as such you describe, and it can be considered more unambigously proven than the photon if it better fits the data, (like relativity replacing newtonian physics) and it can be considred less proven if it does a worse job of modeling it. If the first case is true, new problems will always have to be described in physics and it will experience the same chopping block the photon is on now.
I do find the concept your proposing intriguing, however to me it is less comprehendable than the photon (distances negated in the case of the EM force, but not others?!?)

Ultimately the goal should be to better describe what we observe, so if your proposed idea could try and explain something the photon model cant, then I say yes it would be worth the time of following it, even if it ends up leading to nothing.

And just a final though, what about the CMB, as it is remnants of inflation and particles which no longer exist in preasant time, it is pretty good proof of traveling photons, less I be mistaken(probably am.)

And yes a photon is neither a particle nor wave, it is rather both (wave-partical duality) an electron too i know also has this duality, which you seem fine with this theory.

I hope i touched better upon the issue this time.

Billy T
Thanks for correcting me, and i apologize if I am repeating your ideas, 8 pages is allot to read and retain

-Andrew

Ok , Thanks for your response and for taking the time to question seriously.

In response to :

Ultimately the goal should be to better describe what we observe, so if your proposed idea could try and explain something the photon model cant, then I say yes it would be worth the time of following it, even if it ends up leading to nothing.

hmmmmm....yes it would describe what we observe better or more importantly remove effects that we cannot observe such as notions of relative time [ not refering to time dilation] as put forward by SRT.
It means also that discoveries of instantaneous relationships across vast areas of space can be properly entertained and understood.
It also means that gravity and the nature of energy can be explored properly. And that garvity may prove to exists instantaneously universally. [ forget about ftl problems.]
So it has potential to radically open doors to future understandings that are currently blocked due to the limitations of a relative time universe as required if a photon is free running. Our understanding of what matter is and how we can use that knowledge. Understanding inertia and how the universe actually ticks.
All of these things are seriously blocked from our perceptions simply because we have a model that builds those barriers.
But here we are getting ahead of ourselves a little.

I must admit I am impressed that the idea or notion is starting to be understood. This in itself is a small miracle, and one I didn't quite expect , given my poor use of terminology and lacking in any math support.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Billy T To QQ:

I think you can understand me, but I can not understand what you are trying to say. Consequently I can not even call it “non-sense.” I am sincerely trying to understand you.

And I sincerely appreciate your eforts and tolerance Billy T

Lets not worry about terms like notion, theory, hypothesis, etc. OK? In fact I drop one in quoting you as saying:

“I am suggesting that the space between masses could be actually non-existent for a massless object. That d=0 for EM transmissions. That two objects will resonate with appropriate time delays ['c'] and give the false impression that distance for that massless particle/wave exists. ”

What I think you are suggesting is that some how the “resonate delays” of or in the reflector are linearly proportional to d and this is why I (mistakenly from your POV) think something is traveling with the DAB/T = Dab/t always the same, c, (As in my earlier post, the capitals refer to one experimental (larger) separation of the reflector and the detector than the lower case (non-capital) designations which refer to another experimental separation case. Fact that these two ratios are what is called the speed of light is not my point. My point is they are the SAME for all the various separations. Across the lab or to the moon and back!

I do not see how the “resonate delays” in or on the reflector can adjust to all these various separations to make this true but I can not show that this is impossible either.

Ok I think I understand here that you can not see how a reflector when placed at any distace from a light source would indicate the time delay in it's inherant inertia and show it as exactly as it would if we assume a photon. yes?

Regardless of the distance the resonant delay ia always determined by the intensity or strength of the resonant dischord. The strength of need to change is determined by the distance. All instances of measurement woudl show exactly the same as if photon s were involved.
Similarilly if we place an object of mass in a gravity-well, it too will show the strength of gravity relative to distance from the source. In all instances. And I ask does this prove gravity is made up of free running particles? the only differecnce is in the effect of a shadow as far as I can tell which only means that gravity is not a vibration that generates a resonance and is something else again.

Thus, I want to suggest we consider a different experiment, one in which there is never any change in the geometry (distances) to cause any change in your “resonance delays.” They only thing that changes or is different (from my POV) is related to the so called “wavelength” of the photon but nothing changes from your POV as these “photons” do not exist.

For this experiment, consider the simples possible spectrograph, one which has only a concave mirror that has the “diffraction grading” ruled directly on its surface and a narrow “entrance slit.” The “detector” is just some photographic film. Unfortunately, wiki is ignorant of this “Roland circle” spectrograph design. So I must describe it: Basically the entrance slit and the film plate are both on same circle and the concave mirror grating is at the circle’s center with the mirror radius of curvature same as circle radius, so at some point on the circle, all the slit’s light will form a sharp image of the slit in “white light” as if there were no ruling on the concave mirror. At other locations on the circle a sharp image of the entrance slit is also formed, but only in one color (wavelength) of light entering the slit. For example, the yellow sodium vapor light comes for two slightly different atomic transitions and thus differs in wavelength very slightly and forms two separated images.*

Now my question to you:
Since nothing with mass has changed, or even moved, why are these two lines separated on the film if photons do not exist?

To explain my earlier "time of flight" directly proportional to distance of travel, you assert that the "resonate delay" some how is a function of the distance, but now all distances between objects with mass are constant in this grading experiment, so no changes in these "resonances" and yet the spectral lines images on the film are not at the same place! The light is traveling different paths to arrive at these different locations. You can not have it both ways. In one case c is keep constant because the separtion distance change the "resonances" you say. In the other case no distances change, yet the photons (Or at least their effect on the film.), changes position, exactly as the "grading equation" predicts it would with the wavelengths measured by say an interferometer pattern.
----------------------
*We had a Roland circle spectrograph at JHU with about a 50 foot diameter circle which separated the two “sodium D” lines many centimeters. One worked in the dark inside the spectrograph to set up the photographic plates, which were like very large microscope slides, you clamped against the continuously curved “plate holder,” which was exactly on the circle. (You could tell which side to turn towards the grating by fact the film emulsion side was slightly sticky to the lips. And the focus was so sharp that if the wrong side was turned inward, the image would be degraded / blurred by being less than mm too far way for true focus!) Really a very high resolution instrument - with narrow slit, long exposure, perhaps you could measure wavelengths to about eight significant figures! Red and green spectral lines form images meters apart! How is this possible if nothing with mass has moved or changed in any way in terms of your theory/ idea/ suggestion? You can even stand in the path of only one of these colors and block it. - Surely something is traveling along that path. I'll continue to call that "something" photons.

I shall endeavour to understand the rest of your post BillyT But it may take a while....post soon. [ thanks very much though for your efforts ]

ps do you have any link to diagrams of the Roland Spec. would help. Or any diagrams to explain the set up. Would be useful for futher discussions if you did...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hello Quantum Quack

How would you explain "velocity aberration of light" in your "notion"?

At this point in time I cannot answer this question. Except that the notion of an object not being where it is seen to appear due to time delays is not one that should negate the notion. [ I am assuming this is what you mean by Velocity aberration of light ] As the delay in resonance would give exactly the same effect. But I really haven't had the opportunity to apply the notion to every issue. Being too busy just getting the idea understood is challenging enough at present.

 

[Billy T]

...ps do you have any link to diagrams of the Roland Spec. would help. Or any diagrams to explain the set up. Would be useful for futher discussions if you did...

First a word or two about gravity. There is reasonably wide belief that gravity may be due to the exchange of "something" (usually called gravitrons) as if it should be possible be possible to construct such a theory, then all four of the known forces would have very similar theoretical structures and all "action at a distance" would better understood. Unfortunately, great efforts by people order of magnitudes better in math physics than me, have failed - if anything as I understand it, they have nearly concluded that such an approach is doomed. Thus, I think your POV (and Einstein’s) is more correct for gravity. The critical test is about to be done. There are several LGIs (That is not correct acronym, but words gravity laser and interferometer are in it, but I think one letter is missing. Later by edit: perhaps it is "B" and LB is long Base Line? LBGI?) now nearing completion to look for gravity waves. If found, the idea that something is propagating will be strengthened, if not found, that idea will be set back a lot, I think.)

I have my money on your and Einstein’s POV, namely there is nothing going between Earth and moon, keeping them together as they jointly go around the sun. I.e. although I no longer can do the tensor math of the "warped space" theory, I like that POV. Mass "distorts" space its self, giving the illusion of gravity. But as I said, I think nature/ God (what ever you like) had at least two ideas and gravity is not the same as the other 3 forces in it basic "exchange of something" to produce "action at a distance," but I am quite ignorant about all this.

As far as a drawing of the Roland circle spectrograph, I have none. I was astounded that Wiki only has two paragraphs on all "spectrographs" and only one small drawing which contains error in that the slit (small blue line on the entering light path of Wiki' top drawing in their very brief confused article.) is not shown parallel to the lines on the grading, as it must be to function. (Properly shown it would just be a dot, as slit should be sticking up out of the paper - guess they did the best they could in 2D, but should have note telling the correct orientation.) Do this to make one:

Draw as big a circle as you can on sheet of paper (the Roland Circle, here after, RC.). At the center of RC, with the same setting of the compass, or same soup bowl if you have no compass, draw a small arc of this same circle (that is the Mirror/Grading, MG, here after). Note that the center of the MG circle, if it were the full circle is on the RC. Call that center point of the MG circle "A."

Now note that all the light that leaves point A and hits the MG reflects and come back to point A. I.e. it re-focuses at A. Now a little distance from A, but still on the RC, mark point "S." (That is the entrance slit) All wavelengths of light ("White Light" , WL, in other words) from S reflected by the MG will again focus on the RC, but the location will be on the other side of point A by the same distance that S is removed from A. I'll call that point S'. Now except for placing the film strip, always on the RC exactly, you are done. At points other than S' each different wavelength will form a sharp image of the silt exactly on the RC.

Can skip this entire paragraph as not important for you, but I just mention: We do not want the WL focused at S' to scatter and lower the sensitivity of the film elsewhere, so we place some absorber there (a WL trap). High quality work uses film emulsion on thin glass plates that can bend to conform exactly to the RC, for reason I will not explain unless asked - has to do with film shrinking uncontrollable amounts during development. The larger the RC the greater any two different wavelengths will be separated on the film. - Easier to measure wavelenths accurately. The "spherical aberrations" will also be less important if RC is large. Also a really great instrument has MG that is an "off axis paraboloid" with a "blaze" to concentrate the light mainly into one "order" - but I skip these last details and will not explain, even if asked.

Now again repeating this new challenge for your "no photons" idea:

Since there is no movement of any object with mass and “photons” do not exist, why does each of the wavelengths of light form sharp images of the entrance slit on the film AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS?

Something is clearly traveling from the MG to the RC along different paths as I can stand between the MG and RC and cast a "shadow." - i.e. the lines (colors of light) that need to go thru me to get to / refocus on the RC will not be found on the film.

Saying this, I realize that it would be equally effective to just ask you:

If "no photons" nothing traveling between light source and film, how can shadows be formed in the shape of the silhouette of the object interposed between the source and the film? Specifically, I would like to hear how you explain a partial eclipse of the moon, with no photons traveling.

All I have done with my more complex spectrograph question is to establish that this "something" is composed of many differ types of something - same thing the greatest hero of physic who ever lived, Newton, did with glass prism and a small slit in his window blinds on a sunny day in a dark room many years ago.

I am reminded of my post in the "birds in a truck" thread, which gave me one of those rare opportunities to demonstrate that James R was in error. I made a complex variant with mile hig truck, evacuated interior, electromagnetic rail gun, etc. and proved James was wrong. A few post later, some one noted that an Elephant jumping up and down inside the truck would also show that the weight of the truck, as measured by the scales it was sitting on, is definitely not a constant as James had stated. As noted there: I have been a physicist too long to be always very simple in my explanations / proofs of someone else's errors, but as you can see from the large type question above, I am slowly learning how.

Also simple question, and very destructive of your “no photon” ideas, is a film camera. How does the 2D image form on the film, looking exactly as the photographed scene, if nothing is going between?

PS do not feel bad to be wrong. Keep trying to find new ways to understand things. Problem is you were born after many great thinker have already died. Valid new ideas ain't as easy to do now. BTW, the Greeks had light all wrong. They thought some invisible radiation with no mass shot out of the eyes, to "feel" the effect of sunlight on the objects it struck. They were closer to the truth than you as at least they could explain shadows.

 

[Quantum Quack]

First a word or two about gravity. There is reasonably wide belief that gravity may be due to the exchange of "something" (usually called gravitrons) as if it should be possible be possible to construct such a theory, then all four of the known forces would have very similar theoretical structures and all "action at a distance" would better understood. Unfortunately, great efforts by people order of magnitudes better in math physics than me, have failed - if anything as I understand it, they have nearly concluded that such an approach is doomed. Thus, I think your POV (and Einstein’s) is more correct for gravity. The critical test is about to be done. There are several LGIs (That is not correct acronym, but words gravity laser and interferometer are in it, but I think one letter is missing. Later by edit: perhaps it is "B" and LB is long Base Line? LBGI?) now nearing completion to look for gravity waves. If found, the idea that something is propagating will be strengthened, if not found, that idea will be set back a lot, I think.)

I have my money on your and Einstein’s POV, namely there is nothing going between Earth and moon, keeping them together as they jointly go around the sun. I.e. although I no longer can do the tensor math of the "warped space" theory, I like that POV. Mass "distorts" space its self, giving the illusion of gravity. But as I said, I think nature/ God (what ever you like) had at least two ideas and gravity is not the same as the other 3 forces in it basic "exchange of something" to produce "action at a distance," but I am quite ignorant about all this.

As far as a drawing of the Roland circle spectrograph, I have none. I was astounded that Wiki only has two paragraphs on all "spectrographs" and only one small drawing which contains error in that the slit (small blue line on the entering light path of Wiki' top drawing in their very brief confused article.) is not shown parallel to the lines on the grading, as it must be to function. (Properly shown it would just be a dot, as slit should be sticking up out of the paper - guess they did the best they could in 2D, but should have note telling the correct orientation.) Do this to make one:

Draw as big a circle as you can on sheet of paper (the Roland Circle, here after, RC.). At the center of RC, with the same setting of the compass, or same soup bowl if you have no compass, draw a small arc of this same circle (that is the Mirror/Grading, MG, here after). Note that the center of the MG circle, if it were the full circle is on the RC. Call that center point of the MG circle "A."

Now note that all the light that leaves point A and hits the MG reflects and come back to point A. I.e. it re-focuses at A. Now a little distance from A, but still on the RC, mark point "S." (That is the entrance slit) All wavelengths of light ("White Light" , WL, in other words) from S reflected by the MG will again focus on the RC, but the location will be on the other side of point A by the same distance that S is removed from A. I'll call that point S'. Now except for placing the film strip, always on the RC exactly, you are done. At points other than S' each different wavelength will form a sharp image of the silt exactly on the RC.

Can skip this entire paragraph as not important for you, but I just mention: We do not want the WL focused at S' to scatter and lower the sensitivity of the film elsewhere, so we place some absorber there (a WL trap). High quality work uses film emulsion on thin glass plates that can bend to conform exactly to the RC, for reason I will not explain unless asked - has to do with film shrinking uncontrollable amounts during development. The larger the RC the greater any two different wavelengths will be separated on the film. - Easier to measure wavelenths accurately. The "spherical aberrations" will also be less important if RC is large. Also a really great instrument has MG that is an "off axis paraboloid" with a "blaze" to concentrate the light mainly into one "order" - but I skip these last details and will not explain, even if asked.

Now again repeating this new challenge for your "no photons" idea:

Since there is no movement of any object with mass and “photons” do not exist, why does each of the wavelengths of light form sharp images of the entrance slit on the film AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS?

Something is clearly traveling from the MG to the RC along different paths as I can stand between the MG and RC and cast a "shadow." - i.e. the lines (colors of light) that need to go thru me to get to / refocus on the RC will not be found on the film.

Saying this, I realize that it would be equally effective to just ask you:

If "no photons" nothing traveling between light source and film, how can shadows be formed in the shape of the silhouette of the object interposed between the source and the film? Specifically, I would like to hear how you explain a partial eclipse of the moon, with no photons traveling.

All I have done with my more complex spectrograph question is to establish that this "something" is composed of many differ types of something - same thing the greatest hero of physic who ever lived, Newton, did with glass prism and a small slit in his window blinds on a sunny day in a dark room many years ago.

I am reminded of my post in the "birds in a truck" thread, which gave me one of those rare opportunities to demonstrate that James R was in error. I made a complex variant with mile hig truck, evacuated interior, electromagnetic rail gun, etc. and proved James was wrong. A few post later, some one noted that an Elephant jumping up and down inside the truck would also show that the weight of the truck, as measured by the scales it was sitting on, is definitely not a constant as James had stated. As noted there: I have been a physicist too long to be always very simple in my explanations / proofs of someone else's errors, but as you can see from the large type question above, I am slowly learning how.

Also simple question, and very destructive of your “no photon” ideas, is a film camera. How does the 2D image form on the film, looking exactly as the photographed scene, if nothing is going between?

PS do not feel bad to be wrong. Keep trying to find new ways to understand things. Problem is you were born after many great thinker have already died. Valid new ideas ain't as easy to do now. BTW, the Greeks had light all wrong. They thought some invisible radiation with no mass shot out of the eyes, to "feel" the effect of sunlight on the objects it struck. They were closer to the truth than you as at least they could explain shadows.

ha...BillyT please give me a little credit....ha.....I am not proposing an idea or notion as if I was a primary school kid....[chuckle]
Whilst I am not a physicist I am an old guy who in his younger years worked as an A grade, Automotive technician running a couple of businesses so I am familiar with some of the basics of electricty, engineering etc etc. For example the technology to 4 wheel vehicle wheel alignment is similar to what you are questioning or the use of osciloscopes on variable timed ignition systems etc...so yes I have a certain familiarity with certain principles...limited I must admit. Auto matic transmission diagnostics, overhaul and assembly. Amazing what a highshool drop out can learn from a trade like this.

I am also very aware that I am "way out there" with the notion and even though I feel absolutely silly in doing so I am a stubborn idiot who sees something that aint right and refuses to let go of it until I see it right.

I am going to draw a diagram of this RC as you call it and maybe even get Wiki to publish it and fix their glaring ommission of detail. With your help if you can.

A shadow is created because the vibration is absorbed by the mass leaving a shadow behind it. I am not talking about "action at distance" in the classical sense.

However the issue of color and refraction through a prism has me intrigued. I long ago worked it out but at this moment I have to search through all my notes and drawings to find what I should be able to remember with out a problem. In fact one of the first question I asked myself when exploring this notion was about how a straight piece of timber could appear bent when emmersed in water. Or how a rainbow would appear in the sky or from a prism.

I shall get back to you, but I do recall that at the time I was satisfied enough to continue my investigation.

The logic is actually very simply but it is so easy to get confused given the need to compare both concepts simultaneously [ photon and resonance notions] and this confusion can make one appear to be simple minded but of course this is not the case.
I shall clear my mind and get back to you....