<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><span>John H</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr">Nice summary.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr">Here are a few of my more lucid notes.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr">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. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr">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. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><span>></span>A single experiment that is unexplained falsifies a proposed photon model.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr">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. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr">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.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr">Best</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr">David</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13886" dir="ltr"><br></div><br> <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13703"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13702"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13701"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13885"> <hr size="1" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_15234"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13884"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Hodge John <jchodge@frontier.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> "general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, November 6, 2015 10:30 AM<br> <b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_16503"><span style="font-weight: bold;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_16502">Subject:</span></b> [General] What a model of photons must do<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13700"><br><div id="yiv9200667423"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13744"><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446833930782_13743"><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6855">
</div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6906" class="yiv9200667423">Richard,Albrecht</div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6906" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6903" class="yiv9200667423">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.</div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6903" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6904" class="yiv9200667423">I like to think from observations to model other observations.</div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6904" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6910" class="yiv9200667423">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.</div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6910" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6912" class="yiv9200667423">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 <i class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6914">c</i> or less. Thomas van Flandern has championed the idea the
speed of gravitational waves is much (billions of times) faster than <i class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6916">c</i>.
If only matter is limited to <i class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6918">c</i>, the instruments measurements would be
the same. But that doesn’t make the “space”, gravitational ether, plenum, or
quantum vacuum any less real.</div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6920" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6920" class="yiv9200667423">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. </div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922" class="yiv9200667423">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. </div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922" class="yiv9200667423">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. </div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6924" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6924" class="yiv9200667423">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 <span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6926" style="font-family:Symbol;"><span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6928" style="">y</span></span> but
also a <span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6930" style="font-family:Symbol;"><span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6932" style="">y</span></span>*.
The conjugate could be a wave directed toward the photon. Here we have analogy
- reflected wave in the unity argument and <span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6934" style="font-family:Symbol;"><span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6936" style="">y</span></span>* in quantum mechanics
like the <span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6938" style="font-family:Symbol;"><span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6940" style="">y</span></span>*
of the Transaction Interpretation. Other models have to assume the intensity is
<span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6942" style="font-family:Symbol;"><span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6944" style="">y</span></span>*<span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6946" style="font-family:Symbol;"><span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6948" style="">y</span></span> -
more weirdness. </div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6950" class="yiv9200667423">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.</div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6952" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6952" class="yiv9200667423">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 <i class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6954">E=mc</i>^2 relation
has <i class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6956">m</i> as inertial energy. </div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6958" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6958" class="yiv9200667423">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 (<i class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6960">m</i>) 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 <i class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6962">c</i>.</div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6964" class="yiv9200667423"><br></div><div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6964" class="yiv9200667423">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.<span class="yiv9200667423" id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6966" style=""> </span></div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6968" class="yiv9200667423"> </div>
<div id="yiv9200667423yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6970" class="yiv9200667423">Now think of single model that meets all these issues. A
single experiment that is unexplained falsifies a proposed photon model. </div><div dir="ltr">
</div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a ymailto="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div></body></html>