# A Model for the Propagation of Visible Light and Other Rays

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by yaldonTheory, Nov 8, 2016.

1. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
"Comply" = "integrates with"

"Compile" = "converts a higher level computer language, such as Fortran or Flex into a machine specific assembly of more rudimentary operations like load accumulator."

I hope you don't depend on spell checkers to provide one meaning where another was meant or intended. Do you have a version of your theory that was NOT spell checked? What a waste of an otherwise palatable theory that would be.

3. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,492
Just to add to my question about discrimination between current theory and your new one, it occurs to me that since your yaldons are said to have mass, they should presumably:-

(a) have a mass that can be measured in some way, separate from any molecules - can this be done? - and
(b) they should presumably carry away momentum and energy continuously from any of the molecules in motion that they surround, as they will constantly be making collisions with the atoms. Is this what we observe?

P.S. a further thought: how would this theory account for selection rules and other symmetry effects in spectroscopy? For example, nitrogen has no IR spectrum, due, according to current theory, to its lack of a transition dipole. How would yaldons explain this?

Last edited: Dec 3, 2016

5. ### yaldonTheoryRegistered Member

Messages:
53

Scientists today detect the existence of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. We state in YT: The Propagation of Rays, that yaldons fill the universe with an average speed of $s_y$, and a mass of $m_y$. Then the energy of a single yaldon in the universe will be $E_y$.

We can formulate this into the following equation:
$E_y=m_y s^2_y$ (this is the energy of a single yaldon)​

In this way, the Yaldon Particle Theory can satisfy the existence of dark matter and dark energy as both matter and energy.

7. ### yaldonTheoryRegistered Member

Messages:
53
Currently you are avoiding the issue and committing the "straw-man" logical fallacy. We asked that you would simply point out a mistake that we have made in these 30 pages.

Apparently, you can not.

Instead, you are creating an unrelated argument in order to divert attention. If you really feel we are mistaken, then logically find our fault within these 30 pages. For the integrity of this thread, we ask that you no longer "harp" on the issue of word choice, since this issue is unrelated to Physics or Math.

You are basically acting as a "stumbling block," hindering the progress of this thread. Currently, these 30 pages address about 15% of our entire theory. We no longer feel that this is the most suitable environment to discuss the rest of our theory. Thank you.

danshawen likes this.
8. ### yaldonTheoryRegistered Member

Messages:
53
All of this pertains to the other 85% of our theory, and we are unable to discuss that here and now. Especially since this will require a lot of dialogue and illustration. Thank you.

9. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,951
And so is the rest of science.

Thank you.

10. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Seems you are going to re-write Physics. Can it be considered as Theory of Everything?

In your theory, you say Yaldons surround an atom and these atoms vibrate. I have some questions:

Why the atoms vibrate?
What is the principle following an atom interacts with an yaldon?
What is the name of the entity of "an atom surrounded by yaldons"?

11. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,492
Ah I see. So you have a long way to go before you can really offer a replacement for current theory.

My strong suspicion is that you will fairly rapidly find your theory does not work, when you try to apply it to such things.

12. ### yaldonTheoryRegistered Member

Messages:
53
Only time will tell.

It is already understood that molecules and atoms vibrate. It is written in several Physics books, and also one can find this fact in wikipedia.

"When light of a certain frequency hits a molecule that has a vibration whose motion corresponds to the same frequency then the light gets absorbed into the molecule and the energy from the light causes the bonds to move in that specific vibrational motion."
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibrations

If you are asking us to explain the phenomenon of, "Why atoms and molecules vibrate?" This will be explained in later works, since this question, as well as the other several questions you asked, does not pertain to The Propagation of Rays. Thank you.

13. ### yaldonTheoryRegistered Member

Messages:
53
We take this as a compliment, when you state that, "...you will fairly rapidly find your theory does not work, when you try to apply it to such things."

This means that you admit our current model for The Yaldon Particle Theory: The Propagation of Rays works for what we have addressed within these 30 pages. In the same time, you also admit that the rest of The Yaldon Particle Theory, that has not yet been addressed, is hard for you to realize. Thank you.

14. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,889
So it is just not physics - you do not understand english either.

15. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,492
Look, my training is in chemistry rather than physics. So my interest is in seeing what happens when one tries to account for the properties and behaviour of molecules and atoms using your theory. I do not pretend I have done more than skim-read your material, but I do see a lot of apparent difficulties when I try to apply it to what I know of physical chemistry. You should not take my focus on this aspect as either endorsement or condemnation of the other physics you have tried to deal with. That is not my speciality.

As I am sure you realise, when you come forward on a science forum with something that tries to overturn or replace the massively successful structure of chemistry and physics that is built on the current quantum theory, you have to be able to account for all the phenomena that the current theory explains. So far, you seem to be saying that you either cannot or do not intend to deal those I have raised. I find that significant. If it is work in progress, i.e you have not got round to thinking about such things, then fair enough, Rome was not built in a day, but you can take my queries as examples of issues that sooner or later you must address if you are going to get anywhere. Your undertaking is massive: QM pervades the whole of physical science, so your alternative ideas will have implications all over the place, from spectroscopy to the photo-electric effect and the specific heat of gases.

16. ### yaldonTheoryRegistered Member

Messages:
53
We haven't asked anyone to apply our theory to the properties and behavior of molecules and atoms, at this current stage of development. We only want people to become familiar with this new model for the propagation of rays.

Apparently, we care currently dealing with a subject matter that is not your specialty.

That is why we need to explain several other concepts prior to explaining chemical reactions. Please be patient while we work. Thank you.

17. ### yaldonTheoryRegistered Member

Messages:
53
There is a type-error on our previous post.

We wrote "care." We meant to write "are." Thank you.

18. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,492
Sure. I certainly will not be holding my breath. I wanted to see how well worked out your theory was. The answer seems to be "not very".

Since you have not thought about the issues I raised - or at any rate not enough to offer an answer - I merely draw to your attention that focusing only on the propagation of rays will not get you far, if you cannot also account for all the other phenomena that the current QM theory of light deals with so well.

19. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Good luck to you.

As you are re-writing physics, I thought your answer will be different from the currently existing Physics.

Is this answer different from existing physics.

I read the first page of your thesis and wanted to know whether your ideas are any different from the current physics.

20. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
I'm going to rip into this.

make me wonder about this putative "particle", how can it interact with anything if it has no charge, or spin? You say it does have mass, but mass is something that can be observed and measured; the mass of your particles should have some measurable effect, so why hasn't it been observed?
Also this:
, suggests perhaps a little bit of contempt for current theories, except current theories do explain things, a lot of things.

Then this:
Do you have a Newtonian version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect? Or superconductivity?

And I have to agree with danshawen's objection: you appear to be postulating the existence of something that can never be detected physically. According to physics something you can never detect has no physical existence, that's a big problem for your theory, even dark matter has some physical evidence for its existence, via astronomical observations.

Your theory seems to amount to little more than handwaving, with a dash of "modern physical theories are science fiction" added.

Last edited: Dec 6, 2016
21. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
One other major objection I can think up: if your particle only has mass and is "perfectly elastic", it can't possibly interact with photons. "Theorising" that light is delayed by these particles over large distances has that problem, a major problem.

What you seem to be describing is in fact, dark matter, or some model of it. Dark matter is "dark" because it doesn't interact with light, it has mass so can only have gravitational effects.

Ed: Oh yikes, I actually just read some of your article. It seems to be saying that photons are these yaldon things (with no charge, no spin, but with mass) propagating. That has to be bollocks, photons have no rest mass, and they are spin-1 quanta. Moreover, they are understood to be gauge particles with an associated gauge field, gauge symmetry (Maxwell's equations), and so on.

I'm afraid the ideas in that article contradict at least a century of observations.

Last edited: Dec 7, 2016
22. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
What is the novelty in your theory?

23. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,492
This will be interesting, as it will bring into play Statistical Thermodynamics, as well as Quantum Theory. You guys are nothing if not ambitious.