[General] What a model of photons must do

[davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]

John H
Nice summary.
Here are a few of my more lucid notes.
Within our universe, there appears to enough uniformity that a ToE might be possible. This immediately eliminates multiverses or the space in between universes. Are they all related? Until shown otherwise, yes. 
I like the idea of photonic cavitation that limits the velocity to c. While not implemented yet on ships, fluid supercavitation permits higher velocities in water than a hard surface bow. Spacetime cavitation may be the solution to faster than light travel. Using phat photons or a phat photon laser, spacetime supercavitation may be possible although I would expect that locally, one would have to exceed the Schwinger limit or at least use some sort of broadband parametric amplification. 
>A single experiment that is unexplained falsifies a proposed photon model.
That statement needs some qualification. Popper falsification is limited in application as the method only applies to unbounded domains in physics, an attempt essentially to reasonably reduce a Monte Carlo analysis of infinite proportions. The general approach for falsification is to look to the least likely to be confirmed. While useful at times, beyond physics there are difficulties...for example, in biological science, evolution cannot be Popper Falsified. 
The general assumption is that one can measure what they are experimentally looking for with precision and accuracy. The assumption is they known what they are looking for and at the same time, there are no emergent properties or hidden variables affecting the analysis. So the Uncertainty Principle defines in part the limits imposed by the tools we have. Since physics is still on the hunt for a ToE, a single experiment may not be enough especially when one only understands 5% of the universe.
Best
David






 
      From: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com>
 To: "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 10:30 AM
 Subject: [General] What a model of photons must do
   
Richard,Albrecht
I suggest a “unity” requirement to help identify light’scharacter. Our universe is one entity. Therefore, all in it must be related.Science is questing after a Theory of Everything (ToE) that must unite the bigof cosmology, the small of light and particle physics, and the classical of oursize domain. The corollary is that the weird quantum assumptions should beg foranother explanation following the observations in the cosmological and classicsdomains.
I like to think from observations to model other observations.
Cosmology suggests that matter (discrete, extended, withedges) warps “space” (continuous or infinitely divisible, gravitational ether,plenum, quantum vacuum, fills between matter particles) and “space” directsparticles. Therefore, the de Broglie–Bohm theory of 2 components of ouruniverse seems much more likely to yield a ToE than the weird duality notion.It helps that the de Broglie–Bohm theory can derive the Schrödinger equationbecause real waves direct the particles.
The source of the wave field that directs the particles isstill a problem for the de Broglie–Bohm theory if we insist the speed of thewaves is c or less. Thomas van Flandern has championed the idea thespeed of gravitational waves is much (billions of times) faster than c.If only matter is limited to c, the instruments measurements would bethe same. But that doesn’t make the “space”, gravitational ether, plenum, orquantum vacuum any less real.
Afshar suggested his low intensity diffraction experimentswere measuring single photons. I have some difficulty with this because laserlight is stimulated emission light in pulses. However, the “walking drop”experiments show diffraction effects with only a single drop. (Linking thewalking drop with de Broglie–Bohm theory seems to be becoming popular.) Theunity postulate suggests the forces governing the drop may be similar to theforces governing light. Therefore, considering a single photon in theexperiment at a time and the photon being directed when it is between the mask andscreen is required. How does the de Broglie–Bohm theory develop the wave comingthrough the slit? Well, it doesn’t - oops. 
The walking drop produces a wave as it drops then bouncesoff the surface. But an object staying in the medium does not produce a wavethat can interfere with other waves unless in bounces in a directionperpendicular to the medium’s surface. What direction is perpendicular to themedium (space) the photon is in? The unity principle suggests only 3directions. How are the multiple, interfering waves generated from the photon?Is the photon agitated - what is the source of the energy for this? Gravity,the mass of the drop, and the external vibration of the medium produce energyexternally for the walking drop. The analogy is breaking down. 
A boat travelingalong the surface of water produces waves to the side, a relatively flatsurface behind and no waves in front as the boat expends all its forwardenergy. This is not a good analogy for a diffraction pattern exerting force onphotons. An object can produce sonic waves as it moves through fluids bycavitation. But this expends tremendous energy. Indeed, this may be the reasonthe photons have limited speed. Over all this (producing an interference wave)is another oops. This is the cause of creating the Huygens- Fresnel waveletidea. This principle is another violation of the unity principle and a cause ofweirdness. 
Examine the walking drop experiment again (see Johnn Bush“The new wave of pilot-wave theory” in Physics Today Aug 2015. There are alsoseveral U-Tube videos). The bouncing drop casues a wave outward from the drop.The barriers of the slit reflect the wave (this is difficult to see because ofthe strobing) and another part goes through the slit. This creates a standingwave that directs the drop. Quantum mechanics require not just the y butalso a y*.The conjugate could be a wave directed toward the photon. Here we have analogy- reflected wave in the unity argument and y* in quantum mechanicslike the y*of the Transaction Interpretation. Other models have to assume the intensity isy*y -more weirdness. Quantum mechanics also has a “no crossing” rule(assumption). Figure 5c in Bush’s paper shows red lines on the left side andblue lines on the right side entering the region near the slit. These linescross and so that the red lines are mostly on the right and blue lines aremostly on the left beyond the slit. If photons are particles, their stream cancross.
The Airy patterns formed by each star through a telescopesaperture seem to not interfere. Peng, Barootkop, Roychoudhuri explored this intheir Non-Interference of light (NIL) papers. If light within a beam of lightfrom a single star can interfere, why doesn’t light (photons) interfere whenthe beams are coincident (yeah I know, but hold on a minute). Now consider thelight from one star. It is coherent because it does from diffraction patternswhen passed through a slit. Further, the light consists of several colors(energy of photon) and each color is diffracted. But the pattern has colorsseparated on the secondary peaks of the diffraction pattern. Each color iscoherent but the multiple colors are in the beams and apparently not actingcoherently as NIL suggests. Light from an incandescent source (black bodyradiation of a star) is not coherent initially but become coherent as ittravels long distances or passes through a slit. The NIL experiments suggestcoherent light can be made to be incoherent with a Fresnel lens. What makeslight (photons) coherent? It cannot be the energy level of a photon becauselaser light is also coherent. Because each energy level photons create aslightly different diffraction pattern (different frequency), each color mustproduce a different frequency wave. The NIL energies is experienced in theclassical world by common radios and TVs. Different frequency waves in a mediumdo not interfere or resonate. This implies a photon has structure and may notbe the smallest thing in the universe (speculation: just becauseelectromagnetic pulse travel at the speed of light doesn’t means the particlesconveying the energy is photons - it could be these smaller particles). Whatcharacteristic of a photon determines its energy? The E=mc^2 relationhas m as inertial energy. 
The Equivalence Principle is still a postulate not a derivedrelation. What is the structure of the photon that (warps space) producesgravitation and inertia? When a particle reaction has energy released and themass (m) decreases, radiation in the form of photons is released. That is,photons comprise particles. If photons comprise particles, then of courseparticles also diffract. Then the structure of the particles and the structureof the photons must have some means to limit their velocity to less than c.
What makes the energy levels of photons not only differentbut also discrete (a characteristic of matter not a continuous medium)? Perhapsit is the number of sub-photon matter that makes the photon have discretelevel. The continuous field can have discrete influences because the waves inthe field have low energy troughs that the field pushes the particlesinto.   Now think of single model that meets all these issues. Asingle experiment that is unexplained falsifies a proposed photon model. 
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151106/c14e4f39/attachment-0001.htm>