A Model for the Propagation of Visible Light and Other Rays

This kind of comment will devalue your character, since it is very unkind to those (and to the families of those) who are born with any kind of disabilities. We will reply to your comments now, but in the future we will not reply to such poor behavior; in order to keep the integrity of this thread at a higher level of communication.

Apparently you do not understand the ideas of Physics, since you do not understand the basic concept of a theory.

For your information, a theory provides a model that is able to explain the various phenomena we are surrounded by. The best theory, will be the theory that can explain more of these phenomena while keeping its original assumption.

On the second paragraph of page 2, line 3: We state that the yaldon has a mass. (\(m_y\))

There are many formulas in our work where we implement this mass. For example; equation 6 on page 10, equation 9 on page 21, and equation 10 on page 26. The mass of a yaldon (not "yalden") was implemented throughout the entire derivative for every one of these formulas. The fact that you were unable to comprehend this, demonstrates your poor ability in Physics and Math.

Don't be shy to admit your inability to understand the contents of this theory. Nobody is perfect.

Don't worry, we will make you our VP.

Please refer to the second sentence on page 1, first paragraph. We state; "In order to fully explain all the phenomena, one must first understand what visible light is..." In order to understand this model, one must remove all the models of science-fiction which has polluted the realm of Physics. We will continue to work in order to explain these other forces by using our original assumption without having to rely on models from science-fiction.

As we have continually said, we would like to keep this thread focused on The Propagation of Rays.

The name does not matter. If your last name has a relation to light, then we will use your last name... if that's alright with you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good. What is the value of the mass, or how do you plan to determine that?

If it has no net charge and is not a part of atomic structure, then you will have no means of detecting it or determining its mass. Ever. This much is not an improvement over any previous theories.

That's a tall order, given that those models have been so successful. In what manner are they any more or less "polluted" than Yaldon theory?

The name of your theory surely doesn't matter, but if you are unable to relate any terminology of your theory to the terminology of earlier ones, that's not a plus for most scientists either. It simply demonstrates a willful ignorance on your part.

I can't read any more of your theory, so I suppose that is willful ignorance on my part, but I have also told you why, and you have not given me a compelling reason to believe your theory is any better or goes any further in explaining anything than those which came before it. No apologies there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hang in there YT, your paper presents an exercise in scrutiny and understanding, which makes for spirited debate. One question comes to mind in your response to Wellwisher. It has been my understanding that when light passes from air to a more dense medium like water, the light slows down, but when it passes back from water to air, it speeds back up. Is that correct, and is that consistent with your idea?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is difficult not to conclude that you hold established scientific theories in low regard from this statement. Can you be more specific about this alleged "pollution"? For example, what in particular is it that you take issue with:

1) relativity
2) quantum physics
3) chemistry
4) the standard model of particle physics
5) string theory

Thanks at least for choosing to discuss such matters in the "alternative theories" forum.

And for the record, I do not take issue with scientists that have disabilities, only theories from ones that demonstrate low functional cognitive ability. The theories they hatch cannot help but demonstrate why they should be doing something better suited to whatever other abilities they may possess.

 

What is the advantage of the yaldon model, compared to the standard QM model? Does it account for phenomena that the current model cannot, for example?

Also, what observations could, at least in principle, be made that would discriminate between the two theories?

 

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. This theory has been fairly well-scrutinized, since it has been in development for over 30 years prior to publication. There is also a software simulating the behavior of yaldons that was written 22 years ago on a DOS 6.22.

Yes it is correct, and consistent with our idea that light will speed up when traveling from a high dense substance (water) to a low dense substance (steam or air).

This can be seen in equation 9 on page 21. According to the equation, the parameter that will have the most effect on the speed of the light in that transparent medium will be \(\sigma\).

Where \(\sigma\) will be the density. The density will vary upon the distance between the molecules. The closer (and larger) the molecules are, the greater the value will be for \(\sigma\) (# of yaldons per cubic unit).

For example, the molecules in steam will be farther apart than the molecules in water. According to equation 9, the speed of the propagated ray (\(v_p\)) will be higher in the steam than in water.

In general, the speed of light in transparent mediums will depend on the parameters that are given in equation 9.

 

This is why a theory is needed. In order to propose an object that cannot be detected by any means available.

There is a way to find values for the parameters given in the Yaldon Theory. It is possible by plugging-in suggested values for the parameters of yaldons which can satisfy all the equations provided by YT simultaneously.

As of now, we do not need any of these other theories in order to explain phenomena. If we do... you'll take notice.

 

As we have told danshawen, QM is not needed in order to explain phenomena. We are relying on using more tangible laws (laws of Newton) in order to explain the phenomena.

Quantum Mechanics is only used when physicists fail to explain phenomena using Newtonian Mechanics. If we can explain these phenomena by using Newtonian Mechanics, then why do we need QM?

 

I have no effective counterargument for this idea, other than you are looking at a lot of theoretical rework. Thirty pages doesn't even scratch the surface. So, why are you doing this again? Do you expect you will be able to make predictions that other physics can't, other than accounting for cosmological red shift in an improved manner?

Newtonian mechanics combined with an invariant speed of light does indeed explain E=mc^2 very capably.

You realize that 21st century physics can see atoms doing what they do in real time, right? Also chemistry, along with Pauli's exclusion principle, has allowed us to determine electron configurations of all of the elements, verified to be accurate to within 1 part per billion using spectroscopic analysis. This is the same spectroscopic analysis that allows us to determine the exact chemical composition of red shifted starlight for as far as we can detect it.

Didn't see anything like a Yaldon anywhere in there. Doesn't a Yaldon have an effect on atomic spectra? If it didn't that would be odd, wouldn't it? If it interacts with atomic structure at all, it would have some sort of effect other than to obscure it, wouldn't it? Something like an absorption spectrum would be expected.

They didn't see any Yaldons when atoms were smashed apart with the LHC either; just quarks, gluons, electrons, W and Z bosons, neutrinos, their antiparticles, and, oh yes, the Higgs boson and a more massive related particle. The exact masses of every one of these are already known. Where exactly does that leave your theory? How would it fit in, if it could?

Sad that you don't have enough funding to afford your own atom smasher yet. Keep working on it.

 

Everything you have stated above has nothing to do with YT or QM. Do not think that the entire YT is contained within these 30 pages, this is only about the Propagation of Rays. Please be patient while we continue to work

We have stated that the propagation of rays originates from the vibration of the atoms, which is governed by Simple Harmonic Motion. Due to atoms being surrounded by yaldons, the atoms will propagate rays made of yaldons while they are oscillating.

Rays are not propagated by electrons changing the level of its orbit. Some physicists believe that electrons are a cloud around the atom... how can a cloud change its level?

By the formulas that we have provided, and will provide in the future, there is no need to waste billions of dollars to find the size and the mass of a yaldon.

 

Light is emitted by the acceleration (or vibration, if you prefer) of ELECTRONS, not atoms.

A simple apparatus to demonstrate this consists of a mostly evacuated glass sphere, a heated cathode as a source of thermal electrons (Einstein's photoelectric effect), an accelerating voltage in the KV range, and a strong constant magnetic field.

The electrons trace a circular trajectory perpendicular to the applied constant magnetic field within the vacuum sphere, emitting synchrotron radiation similar to that emitted by an operational cyclotron.

A circular trajectory (for the electrons) is one that undergoes constant acceleration, even by Newton's laws. But Newton's laws do not predict synchrotron radiation from FREE electrons that are accelerated.

While it is true that bound electrons in atomic structure also absorb and emit photons, being bound is not necessary for accelerated electrons to emit photons, and neither is a "vibrating atom". Free electron lasers operate by means of the same principle, and are also not bound by atomic structure.

Explain to us how Yaldons would explain the same effect.

 

OK I take that to mean that you think you can account for the same phenomena more simply, rather than accounting for more phenomena, right? A bit like Copernican astronomy compared to Ptolemaic. Fair enough. (I might challenge you later on how you account for some of the classic evidence for QM, but not now.

But what about my second question? What experiment or observation can you envisage that would, at least in principle, discriminate between the two theories, i.e. would show your theory is right but the conventional one is wrong?

 

First of all, your question does not apply to the subject matter contained within the 30 pages of The Propagation of Rays. This is taking us out of order, but we will answer anyway.

We are going to explain this as simply as we can.

A good starting point is to consider the flow of electricity in electrical conductors (copper wire) in the same manner as light traveling through a fiber-optic wire. Some materials will be able to conduct light (transparent materials), and others will not (bricks, metal, wood, etc.). For electricity, some materials will be able to conduct electricity (metals) and others will be an insulator for electricity (air, glass, etc.).

Equation 10 on page 26 of YT: The Propagation of Rays can still be used to determine conductivity for light or electricity. This equation shows that one can determine the conductivity of substances by \(f_1\) (the natural frequency of that substance), and \(f_2\) (the frequency of the propagated ray which is traveling through that substance).

YT holds the claim that the atoms are surrounded by a kinetic cloud of yaldons (which is currently considered an electron). When a stationary copper wire is placed in a permanent magnetic field, there will be no current or voltage produced (depending on whether the circuit is opened or closed). When a variable magnetic field is applied to the stationary copper wire, the magnetic field will agitate the molecules of the copper wire. As the molecules of the copper wire becomes agitated, they will propagate a group of yaldons.

When the atom loses part of the yaldon cloud that surrounds it, this void must be filled due to the Law of Conservation of Momentum. The force applied in order to fill this void is \(F=\frac{v_p \sum m_y}{t}\). This force creates an illusion of a charge. In the same manner, when an atom has extra yaldons over its steady-state status, it will radiate yaldons (\(F=\frac{-v_p \sum m_y}{t}\)).

We prefer to leave the discussion of the magnetic field for later.

 

Can you please be more case-specific with your question? And is this question part of the 30 pages of The Propagation of Rays.

 

Your "Yaldons" do not obey Pauli's exclusion principle.

No explanation of valence electrons, nor can your theory explain proportions of elements to mix to produce chemical compounds, setting science back at least a millennia. In order to do that would require an understanding of both atomic numbers and atomic weights, as well as numbers of valence electrons. Yaldons are not paired, entangled or otherwise. Yaldons are not charged. Yaldons are a fiction. YOUR fiction.

You are trashing the entire science of chemistry with no compelling motivation for doing so.

The Yaldon theory is what deserves to be trashed, and for good. As far as I am concerned, discussion of the matter is ended.

And for the record, Newton also was a lousy chemist. An Alchemist, perhaps, but not even an accomplished one of those. If you are following Newton's lead on this, you should probably forget about science and do something you are actually good at.

 

The current reply we are giving is not meant for danshawen, but for those who are watching this thread.

The Yaldon Theory considers that the electron is made from a kinetic cloud of yaldons that are "buzzing" about the atom, while maintaining the conservation of momentum of yaldons in the universe. As the yaldons approach the atom, they will become more dense (crowded together) with a slower speed. As one can see, according to the Yaldon Theory, the electron is composed of a cloud. There are no orbits.

Since the foundation of the quantum theory is built off of the principle of electron orbits around the atom, and the Yaldon Theory does not, then everything else that has built-up from this principle of electron orbits will not compile with the Yaldon Theory.

As a result, anything from Pauli's exclusion principle, or other quantum concepts like it, will not have any rule over the Yaldon Theory. Especially when we account for the emission and absorption lines in low pressure gases without having to rely on electron orbits. Please refer to YT: The Propagation of Rays, starting from page 22. Equation 10 on page 26 will show the absorption of the emission lines in low-pressure gases. An experiment to validate this concept will be a radiometer.

Yaldon Theory can still be able to explain the chemical reaction between substances, and totally compiles with the periodic table of elements.

 

"complies" Compilers are for conversion of high level computing languages to machine specific executable code. The spell checkers here are not trustworthy and I find myself correcting spelling that I typed correctly the first time constantly. Another waste of effort, unfortunately.

Who am I kidding? I'm acting as a spell checker for your theory. Only it's not the words that are wrong; it's the ideas that produced the words. You need a brain checker.

Yaldons theory does not even comply with Coulomb's law, which is tantamount to not complying with Newton's Law of gravitation, or much of anything else. If it is not a physical theory, I don't know what it is, but it is not science. Perhaps the pseudoscience forum would be better suited. Is there a forum for science fiction wanting to replace actual science?

How someone wakes up in the morning, looks at the world around them and decides "science must be bunk" or "the world is flat", or "the atomic age never happened", or "science didn't take us to the moon and return us safely to the Earth", I don't know, but here is one of them, so go ahead and ask him. Perhaps Yaldon theory can explain it all better. Probably involves hitting yourself in the head repeatedly with a large stone or something.

The oral surgeon who repaired my brother's bridgework (minus the teeth) after I removed four of them with a single right hook, and also implanted the titanium peg now securing my own front tooth had a surname "Yalda", and she was extremely capable. Have you ever considered becoming a dentist or an oral surgeon? With theories like Yaldons, you are likely eventually to require oral surgery of some sort. Try out your theory out on a physical chemist who has invested eight plus years of education in the established theories you are proposing to trash and see if you don't. Or ask an astronaut what they think of the flat earthers who accost and berate their profession constantly. The experience is going to be like losing some teeth.

True story, by the way. Just so we all learned something, preferably the easy way.

 

There is no type-error, we meant to say "compile" as a colorful form of speech to declare that yaldons can integrate with the periodic table of elements.

If you can find a mistake within these 30 pages of YT: The Propagation of Rays, please let us know so we can provide a better service for all. Thank you.

 

I don't think I need be more specific. I am simply asking what predictions your theory makes which differ from those of the current one. If you were ever to put your theory to the test, to see whether yours was more successful, we would need something that discriminates between the two.

Or are you saying that yours is a different formalism that gives predictions identical in all respects to those of current theory?

 

I don't agree that a Yaldon exists, the way you describe it, but I do think there is a Yaldon-like effect that has a key role in the propagation of light. Out of appreciation for YT and for keeping the thread content specific to the 30 pages linked in the OP, I will simply reference a new thread, in AltTheory, where I will mention some details about the Yaldon-like effect, but without the Yaldon particle.

An Alternative to Yaldon Theory: A Wave Particle Suggestion