[General] What a model of photons must do

[Richard Gauthier]

Hi John and others,
    I think this is an excellent critique of the limitations of the bouncing drop model of de Broglie wave-particle model. Still, it’s quite amazing that the bouncing drop model is as good as it is. I will leave comments on the rest of your post to others.
  I have a question about the pilot wave model for the electron. If the electron is a spin 1/2 charged photon, this predicts single-slit and double-slit interference patterns based on the electron’s de Broglie wavelength, derived from the charged photon model, that are identical to the double-slit diffraction interference patterns produced by coherent light passing through a single or double slit.  But a beam of normal photons with a specific average energy density has an associated quantum wave function (derived from its E and B fields) that predicts the photon number density at interference patterns produced by a double slit. Is anyone claiming that photons are guided to the screen by their associated wave function? Not as far as I know. So why should electrons (which may be circulating charged photons), whose interference patterns are mathematically the same as that of photons in a corresponding double-slit experiment, require guidance to the places where the electrons hit the screen to form a wave-like double slit interference pattern of dots on the screen while photons require no guidance from their wave function to form exactly the same wavelike double-slit pattern of dots at the screen as that of electrons? In other words, why should the pilot wave explanation apply to electrons passing through a double slit but not to photons? 
        Richard
    
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:
> 
> Richard,Albrecht
> I suggest a “unity” requirement to help identify light’s character. 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 big of cosmology, the small of light and particle physics, and the classical of our size domain. The corollary is that the weird quantum assumptions should beg for another explanation following the observations in the cosmological and classics domains.
> I like to think from observations to model other observations.
> Cosmology suggests that matter (discrete, extended, with edges) warps “space” (continuous or infinitely divisible, gravitational ether, plenum, quantum vacuum, fills between matter particles) and “space” directs particles. Therefore, the de Broglie–Bohm theory of 2 components of our universe 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 equation because real waves direct the particles.
> The source of the wave field that directs the particles is still a problem for the de Broglie–Bohm theory if we insist the speed of the waves is c or less. Thomas van Flandern has championed the idea the speed of gravitational waves is much (billions of times) faster than c. If only matter is limited to c, the instruments measurements would be the same. But that doesn’t make the “space”, gravitational ether, plenum, or quantum vacuum any less real.
> Afshar suggested his low intensity diffraction experiments were measuring single photons. I have some difficulty with this because laser light is stimulated emission light in pulses. However, the “walking drop” experiments show diffraction effects with only a single drop. (Linking the walking drop with de Broglie–Bohm theory seems to be becoming popular.) The unity postulate suggests the forces governing the drop may be similar to the forces governing light. Therefore, considering a single photon in the experiment at a time and the photon being directed when it is between the mask and screen is required. How does the de Broglie–Bohm theory develop the wave coming through the slit? Well, it doesn’t - oops.
> The walking drop produces a wave as it drops then bounces off the surface. But an object staying in the medium does not produce a wave that can interfere with other waves unless in bounces in a direction perpendicular to the medium’s surface. What direction is perpendicular to the medium (space) the photon is in? The unity principle suggests only 3 directions. 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 energy externally for the walking drop. The analogy is breaking down. A boat traveling along the surface of water produces waves to the side, a relatively flat surface behind and no waves in front as the boat expends all its forward energy. This is not a good analogy for a diffraction pattern exerting force on photons. An object can produce sonic waves as it moves through fluids by cavitation. But this expends tremendous energy. Indeed, this may be the reason the photons have limited speed. Over all this (producing an interference wave) is another oops. This is the cause of creating the Huygens- Fresnel wavelet idea. This principle is another violation of the unity principle and a cause of weirdness.
> Examine the walking drop experiment again (see Johnn Bush “The new wave of pilot-wave theory” in Physics Today Aug 2015. There are also several 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 of the strobing) and another part goes through the slit. This creates a standing wave that directs the drop. Quantum mechanics require not just the y but also 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 mechanics like the y* of the Transaction Interpretation. Other models have to assume the intensity is y*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 and blue lines on the right side entering the region near the slit. These lines cross and so that the red lines are mostly on the right and blue lines are mostly on the left beyond the slit. If photons are particles, their stream can cross.
> The Airy patterns formed by each star through a telescopes aperture seem to not interfere. Peng, Barootkop, Roychoudhuri explored this in their Non-Interference of light (NIL) papers. If light within a beam of light from a single star can interfere, why doesn’t light (photons) interfere when the beams are coincident (yeah I know, but hold on a minute). Now consider the light from one star. It is coherent because it does from diffraction patterns when passed through a slit. Further, the light consists of several colors (energy of photon) and each color is diffracted. But the pattern has colors separated on the secondary peaks of the diffraction pattern. Each color is coherent but the multiple colors are in the beams and apparently not acting coherently as NIL suggests. Light from an incandescent source (black body radiation of a star) is not coherent initially but become coherent as it travels long distances or passes through a slit. The NIL experiments suggest coherent light can be made to be incoherent with a Fresnel lens. What makes light (photons) coherent? It cannot be the energy level of a photon because laser light is also coherent. Because each energy level photons create a slightly different diffraction pattern (different frequency), each color must produce a different frequency wave. The NIL energies is experienced in the classical world by common radios and TVs. Different frequency waves in a medium do not interfere or resonate. This implies a photon has structure and may not be the smallest thing in the universe (speculation: just because electromagnetic pulse travel at the speed of light doesn’t means the particles conveying the energy is photons - it could be these smaller particles). What characteristic of a photon determines its energy? The E=mc^2 relation has m as inertial energy.
> The Equivalence Principle is still a postulate not a derived relation. What is the structure of the photon that (warps space) produces gravitation and inertia? When a particle reaction has energy released and the mass (m) decreases, radiation in the form of photons is released. That is, photons comprise particles. If photons comprise particles, then of course particles also diffract. Then the structure of the particles and the structure of the photons must have some means to limit their velocity to less than c.
> What makes the energy levels of photons not only different but also discrete (a characteristic of matter not a continuous medium)? Perhaps it is the number of sub-photon matter that makes the photon have discrete level. The continuous field can have discrete influences because the waves in the field have low energy troughs that the field pushes the particles into. 
>  
> Now think of single model that meets all these issues. A single 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 richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20151106/32ee1b6c/attachment.htm>