[General] photon definition

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Thu Jul 7 16:06:18 PDT 2016


Another answer is that atoms act like resonant antennas and the Em 
radiation is absorbed from a larger area

and is seen as a point interaction and falsly assumed to be a point like 
particle. The randomness would come from noise in the detector and 
Sommerfeld's Loading theory which says the atoms are preloaded randomly 
and then pushed over to absorption. Depending upon the EM wave intensity.

Eric is trying to prove this with his experiment, I have some problems 
with his experiment analysis but the concept looks good and it gets rid 
of both wave particle duality and fundamental randomness.

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 7/7/2016 9:29 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Q: What can do that?
> A:  Possible answer:  classical particles surfacing waves.  Especially 
> likely when the wave character can be seen only in the behavour of an 
> ensemble (statistically); and, all single detections are point-like.
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 06. Juli 2016 um 07:07 Uhr
> *Von:* "Eric Reiter" <unquant at yahoo.com>
> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] photon definition
> Hello Nature of Light...  people.
> My two cents.  Concerning the photon as seen by Einstein.  I expect 
> you to agree that Bohr can be trusted to relay Einstein's definition 
> of the photon.  This is from Bohr's book, Atomic Physics and Human 
> Knowledge, 1958:
>
>     "If a semi-reflecting mirror is placed in the way of a photon,
>     leaving two possibilities for its direction of propagation, the
>     photon may either be recorded on one, and only one, of two
>     photographic plates situated at  great distances in the two
>     directions in question, or else we may, by replacing the plates by
>     mirrors, observe effects exhibiting an interference between the
>     two reflected wave-trains."
>
> So you see, the model of the photon is not just about acting like a 
> particle, it is simultaneously about acting like a wave.   Now what 
> can do that?  It is inherently paradoxical and contradictory. 
>  Particles do not act like waves and waves do not act like particles. 
>  The photon is a model that is not understandable.
> I attached a scan from the book so you can see for yourself.  I have a 
> terrific library at home.
> For what it is worth,
> Eric Reiter
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* "af.kracklauer at web.de" <af.kracklauer at web.de>
>     *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>     *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>     <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, July 5, 2016 4:14 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
>     objective realities
>     Hi:
>     My 2 cents:  It would be good if participants in discussion of
>     this nature FIRST focused on the purely lexicographical issues.
>      Some disagreements result form disparate uses of specific terms.
>       "Photon" is the classic expample.  Einstein meant more or less
>     discreet chunks of niddle radiation whereas many QM-mechanicens
>     nowadays mean mode of the free E&M field (no neddles, just
>     chunks).   Also, the term "field" has no meaning except in terms
>     of how it is measured; i.e., what is the "test charge".  And so
>     on.  Any meaning might be useful, but without
>     explicite definitions, readers are left to/required to imagine
>     what is/are the subject(s).  Just by accident they will very
>     seldom be the same.
>     For what it's worth,  Al K
>     *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 05. Juli 2016 um 23:21 Uhr
>     *Von:* "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>     *An:* "phys at a-giese.de" <phys at a-giese.de>, "Nature of Light and
>     Particles - General Discussion"
>     <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     *Betreff:* Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
>     objective realities
>     Albrecht and interested others:
>     I am sorry, I do not want to spend time refuting “experimental
>     validations”, one by one. To, me that is not a productive
>     approach.  That is a never ending game without a possible final
>     conclusion. Bohr-Einstein debate never reached a final conclusion
>     even though political decision was made that Bohr one it; which I
>     do not believe!  I am trying to use Einstein’s own public
>     pronouncements and arguments well after he had been canonized as
>     the most famous physicists to develop my model of thinking that
>     would allow me to -- ride on his shoulder to increase my knowledge
>     horizon -- (a la Newton!). Einstein was the best scientist of the
>     20^th century because he never gave up the natural and spontaneous
>     evolution of his own enquiring mind. Here are some examples that
>     keeps me inspired constantly.
>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    [My
>     papers are available from: http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/ ]
>     *1.**On “measurements” and “unified field theory”: *Einstein
>     repeated many times that a theory dictates and defines the
>     measurable parameters. So, we design experiments to “fulfill our
>     desires to find it.” When a theory has captured a partial segment
>     of nature’s ontological reality; the recorded results may
>     corroborate the theory. That does not mean that the theory has
>     definitively captured the reality. Since we already know by
>     following the evolution of diverse scientific theories that none
>     are; and none of them can be, the final theories; it is better to
>     train some out-of-box thinkers to keep on challenging the
>     foundational postulates and keep on iteratively re-constructing
>     better theories with greater and greater capacity to integrate
>     more and more phenomena. This is the true mind set of scientist.
>     So, Einstein developed the concept of “unified field theory”.
>     Neither Einstein, nor  his followers, have yet succeeded in this
>     dream. My analysis behind this continuing failure is that we are
>     too scared to create new foundational steps (postulates) that can
>     harmoniously integrate all the theories. If we maintain that the
>     foundational postulates behind the successes of SR, GR, QM, QED,
>     QCD, etc., are all sacrosanct and “untouchable”; then we are never
>     going to succeed. Because each set of “successful set of
>     postulates” helped define a “successful” but fairly rigid
>     mathematical logic. We cannot keep on superficially manipulating
>     the mathematical logics of different theories on the peripheries,
>     out of religious respect and/or out fear of being ostracized; but
>     we will not succeed in merging them into one harmonious theory.
>     For that we need to start with a one single harmonious field, like
>     Complex Tension Field, with a new set of postulates that allows
>     both the perpetually propagating linear waves and localized
>     “stationary” oscillations as particles that can move under the
>     influence of secondary gradients (forces) generated by the
>     particle-oscillations themselves. Fortunately, our web
>     participants are trying to do that. So, I am happy.
>     **
>     2.*On “photon”:*After 50 years of brooding, Einstein was still
>     unhappy about this own model of “indivisible photon”. In spired by
>     this statement, I have initiated the conference series, “The
>     nature of light: What are photons?” starting in 2005, the
>     centenary of Einstein’s miraculous year. And, I am grateful that
>     all of you have become persistent contributors and have expanded
>     the conference into modeling particles also. So, this group is
>     doing truly next generation physics; even though I am not as good
>     as most of you in theoretical physics.
>          I am also now convinced that all atoms and molecules radiate
>     “photons” at the moment of quantum transition with the exact
>     “quantum cupful” of energy, as prescribed by QM; but they evolve
>     into classical wave packet propagating out diffractively that is
>     modeled by Huygens-Fresnel’s diffraction integral. There are no
>     other guiding equation for propagating light through optical
>     instruments that is better than this HF integral. Radio antenna
>     (“Hertz oscillators) directly keep on radiating EM waves as long
>     as the oscillator is kept fed by electric current (energy).
>          So, we modeled “photons”, after the “h-nu” quantity of energy
>     is released, as dominantly-exponential wave packet that propagates
>     out following the HF integral. This model also corroborates
>     Lorentzian natural line width of atomic sources as a physical
>     consequence of the exponential pulse. This also required me to
>     develop a causal formulation of spectrometry by propagating a
>     finite pulse envelope through spectrometers. These are all in my
>     book, “Causal Physics” (CRC, 2014). I am attaching relevant older
>     (2006) paper on the shape of an evolved “photon”. [If you google
>     for my book, you might find a couple of web sites that allow you
>     to down load the book free.]
>     *3.**On Ether: *While the entire world had bought “ether does not
>     exist”, Einstein gave talks and written comments, that ether as
>     form of cosmic field, must at the foundation of the of the
>     universe. Unfortunately, Einstein never attempted to re-construct
>     the founding postulates of the QM that could be allowed by the
>     novel field (modified ether) and model for particles as
>     manifestation of the same field which would have completely
>     removed the fallacy of staying stuck with the Michelson-Morley
>     experiments.
>     *4.**Time: *As far as I remember reading here and there, it was
>     Minkowski who introduced the concept of time as the “real” fourth
>     dimension of nature. The concept of dimension in mathematics and
>     in the physical nature are very different. We already know that
>     from the five to thirteen dimensional string theories going
>     nowhere after some 30/40 years of endeavor by some the best and
>     the brightest of physics; What waste of human talent!
>     **I consider only those parameters in a theory as physically
>     meaningful and can be related to nature’s functional behavior
>     which can be related to the physical processes that facilitates
>     the relevant phenomena to emerge as some measurable data. No
>     physical entity display the capability of keeping track of the
>     running time, “t”. Simply on this argument, I believe that running
>     time “t” cannot be a physical dimension of nature. Our perception
>     of time and its inclusion in our theories arise because every
>     interaction process has a finite reaction time, and a “rate of
>     change” , [d(parameter)/dt] during the interaction process. Also,
>     note that the parameter “frequency” is ubiquitous in nature.
>     Manifest nature is built out of diverse oscillators with their
>     characteristic frequencies, exp(iwt). The biggest mistake of our
>     QM founders was that they erroneously assumed exp(iwt) represents
>     a “plane wave”. Even for light waves, a “plane wave” does not
>     exist in this universe. Waves are always diffractively diverging;
>     even after we focus them. Yes, at the focal plane, the focused
>     wave does display uniform phase across its focused spot. This is
>     the only transient “plane wave” that exist in nature! There is no
>     wave-particle duality. But, thousands of papers are still being
>     published every month on interference of “single indivisible
>     photon”, proving wave-particle duality. It is futile and
>     meaningless to find mistakes either in their experiments, or in
>     their interpretations. Frozen belief system makes us design
>     experiments and extract theory validating data to realize from the
>     function of beam combiner in any two-beam interferometer that two
>     separate signals from the opposite sides of the beam combiner must
>     be present to “activate” the mathematical superposition relation
>     we all use [I am attaching a short segment out of my book.]  I am
>     sorry to repeat, see my book; or, go to the web to down load the
>     relevant papers : http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/
>     To repeat, I am of the strong opinion that if we keep believing
>     that the foundational postulates of the “working and validated
>     theories” are untouchables; then physics will not progress any
>     further to discover the ontological realities. We will keep
>     telling nature, as we are doing now, how she ought to behave based
>     on human invented mathematical theories and human designed
>     “successful” experiments to validate those “God’s Equations”.
>     These are, of course, the prime tools to advance our scientific
>     understanding, period. But, we are forgetting the third leg of the
>     “stool of investigation”. */It is to keep on iterating the
>     foundational postulates of the working theories to find higher and
>     higher levels of conceptual continuity among more and more diverse
>     natural phenomena (a unified field theory)./*
>     Nature has given us the un-ending challenge so our brain can keep
>     on evolving forever! It is high time for us to re-introduce this
>     original intention of nature in the name of evolution process
>     congruent thinking!
>     This is not philosophy. We have evolved into a thinking species.
>     So, we must learn to master and manage our personal thinking
>     logics. Logically self-consistent set of mathematical symbols
>     cannot do the thinking for us. They are the product of our
>     “limited” thinking. It is high time for us to invigorate our
>     progress in the name of evolution process congruent thinking!
>     Chandra.
>     *From:*General
>     [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>     *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, July 05, 2016 11:00 AM
>     *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>     <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
>     objective realities
>     Chandra,
>     you say: "SR is not even Physics". Don't understand why.
>     If we keep a little distance to the more mystical foundations of
>     Einstein ("space-time"), then relativity is easy and simple. SR
>     comprises the following facts:
>     1.) Oscillations slow down at motion
>     2.) Fields contract at motion
>     Fact 1.) can easily be measured and easily be understood with
>     regard to its cause.
>     Fact 2.) can also easily be understood with regard to its cause;
>     the experimental proof is indirect but existent.
>     All the rest is quite simple logic (like the constancy of the
>     measured "c").
>     That's all, and what is your specific reason to deny it?
>     Albrecht
>     Am 05.07.2016 um 02:27 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
>         Many thanks, Grahame, for the excellent complement on the
>         philosophy of thinking, which I have been developing for over
>         several decades. I am now in the process of applying that mode
>         of thinking (Evolution Process Congruent Thinking)  to
>         political economy and the politics of money-driven elected
>         governments, the model of the West, being imposed on the rest
>         of the world.
>         I will read carefully your thinking on Relativity (SR). I
>         think we are on the same page. SR is not even Physics. In
>         contrast, QM has a lot of valuable physics (captured some
>         realities) that will give us guidance to evolve forward
>         towards a next higher level theory.
>         Chandra.
>         *From:*General
>         [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>         Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
>         *Sent:* Monday, July 04, 2016 7:02 PM
>         *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>         <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>         *Subject:* Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
>         objective realities
>         Hi Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),
>         I have attached at Richard’s request a copy of the first 10
>         pages of my book (after index etc); this comprises the first
>         section of my book, the Introduction.  I believe you’ll see
>         from this my philosophy and my objectives in undertaking my
>         own line of scientific research.  This is not to identify or
>         define a suitable model for a photon-formed electron – though
>         that is to a limited extent an inevitable by-product of my
>         investigations – but rather to resolve what I have come to
>         see, over some years, as inconsistencies, incompleteness or
>         scope for further understanding in the generally-accepted
>         model of physical reality.  [Note that, whilst holding firmly
>         to scientific principles, this book is intended to be
>         comprehensible for the most part by non-specialists; this
>         introduction should be read with that in mind.]
>         Chandra, I was most impressed (I might even say ‘excited’) by
>         your paper presented last year at the SPIE conference, which
>         you have just circulated (I found myself saying “yes!” out
>         loud several times whilst reading it).  I’d like to think that
>         the contents of my book are in the spirit of the
>         outward-looking ‘Perpetual Scout’ scientific approach that you
>         advocate*; I have for some time been concerned by the attitude
>         of science that appears to take the line: “We’ve got it all
>         correct to date, now we just need to fill in the fine detail”
>         (whilst happily accepting the unexplained ‘fact’ of Special
>         Relativity and the unexplained apparent serendipity of Quantum
>         Mechanics).  I’m also very enthused by your view that we need
>         to be thinking NOW about how we can ensure that we’re still
>         around beyond our parent star’s main sequence; alignment with
>         cosmic evolution, rather than trying to force our will on it,
>         seems to be a patently obvious strategy.
>         [* The concept of reverse engineering both physical reality
>         and the evolutionary process is one that I believe has been
>         central to my research.]
>         Richard, no matter how much I try I can't find any common
>         ground between our respective understandings of the terms
>         ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ as applied to material reality.
>         For me the term ‘subjective’ is crystal clear in its meaning:
>         it relates to a situation, event or scenario as experienced by
>         an individual or group (possibly a very large group) of
>         individuals – including ‘experience by proxy’ through
>         instrumentation. In this situation the sensors of this/those
>         individual(s) – including possibly electromechanical sensors –
>         mediate that experience and thereby provide input to (i.e.
>         variation of) that experience over and above the actuality of
>         the (objective) event or scenario being experienced.
>         By contrast the term ‘objective’ refers to the object – the
>         situation, event or scenario itself.  With regard to that
>         object it matters not one iota what people think – even a
>         great number of highly intelligent people – it will not
>         re-shape itself to conform to their thoughts.  For example,
>         everyone in the world could think that the earth was flat, it
>         would make absolutely no difference to the shape of our planet
>         – but it *would* make a great deal of difference with respect
>         to their effectiveness in navigating from one place to another!
>         If a mathematician proposed that one plus one was equal to
>         two, would you dismiss that as just a personal philosophy of
>         mathematics?  I’m not in any way suggesting that my view of
>         reality is the right one, or the only possible one – but I
>         *am* absolutely adamant that if we regard subjective
>         impressions as convertible to objective truth just by sheer
>         weight of numbers then the future of science is doomed.
>         That’s a major reason why I don’t participate in discussing
>         the pros and cons of various models of the electron, as you
>         say you’d wish me to – it’s not actually possible for me to
>         separate ‘my philosophy’, as you call it, from my perception
>         of what constitutes a better or less good model. You’ve
>         proposed (below) that I “point out any defects or limitations
>         in different models” – surely that’s what I’ve tried to do,
>         totally consistently, in a logical way that hopefully doesn’t
>         give offence?  But it seems that’s what you object to, since
>         you regard my approach as simply my [personal] philosophy of
>         science and therefore (presumably) not acceptable as a valid
>         contribution to this discussion.
>         I’ll continue to participate in this debate, in the only way
>         that makes sense to me (and hopefully makes some sense to some
>         others). If that doesn’t work for you, fine, give it a miss –
>         but I’m afraid I can’t set aside what I see as facts just to
>         join in a conversation on any model that, for what seem to me
>         to be very good reasons, I can’t believe in.
>         Best regards,
>         Grahame
>
>             ----- Original Message -----
>             *From:*Richard Gauthier
>             *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>             *Sent:*Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:01 PM
>             *Subject:*Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
>             objective realities
>             Hello Grahame,
>             You seem unwilling to present the first few pages of your
>             book to help give us more background and context to your
>             particle model and approach. So I think I’ll pass for now
>             on commenting on your distinction between subjective and
>             objective realities, which is more of a statement of your
>             philosophy of science, and how to know what is “real” in
>             physics. Physicists try to interpret, understand and
>             predict aspects of the physical world, based on ideas,
>             concepts, mathematics, models and objective physical
>             measurements and observations. I think we are all engaged
>             in this in one way or another, despite any differences in
>             our philosophies about the nature of reality.
>             I think your model of the electron and other particles
>             should be separable from your particular philosophy of
>             science, so that others who may not share your philosophy
>             of science, as well as those who do, may be able to decide
>             if your model is useful or better than other physical
>             models, for “doing physics”. One way is to look at the
>             models themselves quantitatively and to compare and
>             contrast one model with other models to see how well these
>             models (all relating to photons and particles in our
>             discussion group) stand up to critical scrutiny as well as
>             to experimental support. I think that’s partly what this
>             discussion group is about. I hope you are willing to join
>             in this effort, to point out any defects or limitations in
>             different models, to encourage improvement of weaker
>             models, and to acknowledge any strengths in these or other
>             models, since none of them is perfect.
>                 Richard
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>
>         <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>         <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
>         Click here to unsubscribe
>
>         </a>
>
>     Image removed by sender.
>     <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>     	
>     Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>     <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>     _______________________________________________ If you no longer
>     wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
>     Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click
>     here to unsubscribe
>     <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>     _______________________________________________
>     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>     Light and Particles General Discussion List at unquant at yahoo.com
>     <a
>     href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>     Click here to unsubscribe
>     </a>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish 
> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles 
> General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to 
> unsubscribe 
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20160707/ec0cf450/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160707/ec0cf450/attachment.jpeg>


More information about the General mailing list