Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

You are beginning to sound at home in the ISU

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Photon Wave-Particles have Mass in my Hobby-Model

Photon Wave-Particles have Mass in my Hobby-Model

Above I said that photons are particles with a tiny amount of mass; a controversial statement perhaps. Never-the-less, since a photon is observed to display behavior consistent with wave-particle duality, and wave-particles have mass because their particle nature requires high density spots as defined previously in my model, I apply my methodology of speculation to arrive at the following steps to describe a summary level discussion of the photon's wave-particle duality, mass, and the speculation about some mechanics and a duration associated with photon emission.

My reference to the electron orbital space, the electron wave function, and the photon wave function are generalizations for the convenience of my layman level speculations. Quantum Mechanics, as it is, doesn't reveal any continuous action like what I predict is taking place; only measurements and interpretations. I'm open to better ways to describe the physical wave action that takes place, but there must wave mechanics for everything that I include in my hobby-model.

The following are those steps for discussion:

1) To further describe the concept of photon mass from the layman perspective of my hobby-model, I have hypothesized that, in terms of wave-particle duality, there are high density spots within the photon particle's complex gravitational wave pattern that give the wave-particle its particle nature. In addition to the high density spots, note that the photon displays a wave nature as well, which is the result of the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy (GWE) component of the standing wave particle, that can be said to be emitted from the particle boundary; it would be a continuous out flow from the photon's continuously changing location in space, and can be said to be emitted in all directions at all points in time.

2) The photon mass includes a number of quanta (measured in high density spots) relative to the energy of the particle. The number of quanta are defined in terms of the number of high density spots occurring as gravitational waves intersect within the particle space at any instant. The location of the spots is continually refreshed as the inflow and out flow are continuously occurring and the contained energy is working its way through the particle space.

3) In terms of the inflowing and out flowing GWE components of particles in my model, because the photon travels at the speed of light, it must get all of its inflowing GWE from the direction of motion. Also, since the out flowing wave travels at the speed of light from the particle's boundary frame of reference, and the photon particle space travels at the speed of light relative to its point of emission frame of reference, the particle keeps up with the wave front of the out flowing spherical wave in the direction of the photon's motion. The way I picture it, I imagine a complex moving wave pattern, and when viewing the spherically out flowing wave energy component from outside the particle space as it passes, the out flow might appear flattened orthogonally to the direction of motion (length contracted), making the wave front of the out flow look broadened out and much wider than the particle itself in the direction of motion :shrug:. I have to contemplate what one would see from the perspective of the photon particle itself. Looking back from where the photon came I think you would see the universe standing still, but in the direction of motion, maybe everything would look natural; what do you think?

4) The wave nature of a single photon allows it to interfere with itself because the spherically out flowing wave energy component creates a wave front of a photon that is much broader than the particle itself, and though the particle can go through only a single slit in a two slit experiment, the broadened wave front can go through both slits.

5) When the wave-particle concept is applied to the photon, my model "generalizes" by speculating that the photon is part of the electron's mass that is emitted out of the electron's orbital space (wave function) at the speed of light. The electron's orbital is a volume of space that contains the electron, and where it is in that space is stated in terms of a wave function. Each point in the orbital space represented by the wave function has a probability value of being the location of the electron.

6) In my model, the generalization is that the orbital is a cloud that contains the total energy of the electron even though it can be said to have a specific location within the cloud. When the electron emits a photon, though it physically has location and momentum when it emerges from the cloud, we don't know where it originates in the cloud. I generalize and say it doesn't come from a particular location in the orbital space, but instead it comes from the whole volume of space defined as the orbital space. Said differently, the photon is said to emerge from the electron's probability wave function (orbital space) and establishes the photon's wave function (particle space) upon emission.

7) That explanation allows for the photon to emerge from the orbital space at the speed of light. However, I speculate that its velocity ramps up to the speed of light as it ramps up to its full particle mass. As the electron orbital emits the photon at the speed of light, the electron finds its new orbital/wave function location.

8) That allows for a change in the size and location of the orbital space from its pre-emission wave function to its post-emission wave function, to take place over a finite duration of time, at the speed of light presumably, as opposed to occurring instantly in a jerk from one orbital to another. There is no instantaneous quantum leap in my model.

9) As the location of the orbital space changes during photon emission, the amount of energy in the orbital space changes to reflect the energy emitted as a photon.

10) The speculation about a duration for the change in the position of the orbital equates to a duration for the quanta of the photon to become positioned within the orbital space before it breaks out at the speed of light. The speculation is that the photon energy "gathers" from within the orbital space during the same period of time that the orbital changes position; a very brief event, but finite in time. This is a generalization because we can never fully observe both the physical location and the momentum of a particle.

Just layman speculations as I try to evolve my hobby-model of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reality is an orbital space?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Speculatively.

 

This position on the photon is perplexing I must admit. I might add it is little wonder given the confusion science seems to have over it's most utilized "object" in theoretical science.

If we draw a circle and claim this to be a photon sphere of a single "wave":

• How many particles does this photon wave contain?
• What is the sum energy available from this wave in total?
• How can this spherical wave possibly have a value other than massless and still make sense?

To me it is incredible that mainstream professional scientists can maintain credibility over such an unquantified yet theoretically popular object as a photon.

The average energy of a photon in the visible spectrum is: 0.6um = 2.0663EV
re: http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/energy-of-photon

So when the photon sphere expands to say 5 ly from source, is that energy distributed evenly through out the 10ly diameter sphere (shell) or is it available where ever you place a detector(s) to take your sample? ( just that one particular photon wave)

The whole issue of the existence of a photon needs to be re-assessed and further qualified and quantified so that it follows the scientific method IMO
So to say that

is only compounding the problem IMO.

Proposed Gedanken:
Do the double slit experiment at multiple location on the one photon sphere and see what results you get...

 

re: Problematic issues in science:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

then perform the double slit experiment at at least three "same wave" locations

 

I failed to communicate effectively what a single photon is like in my model.

Your posts lead me to believe you see a single photon as an expanding sphere from the point of origin. If so, your concern is that a single photon of 2.0663EV, after it expands spherically for any meaningful amount of time, would have so little energy across its wave front that we may as well forget about it, right?

That is not what a single photon is like in my model. A single photon travels in a single direction at the speed of light. If a single photon is emitted at 2.0663EV, and travels uninterrupted through a vacuum for 5 LY, it will still have 2.0663EV, and will still be the same size as it was when it was emitted.

What you are perhaps envisioning is a constant source of photons that emits billions and billions of individual photons every instant, and in that case, they go in all directions, creating a spherical source of trillions and trillions of individual photons in the spherical volume of space around the source. A distant star is an example of such a light source. You can see individual photons coming at you no matter where you are around a sphere at great distances out away from the source.

I also failed to communicate effectively about the nature of a particle in my model. It is my bad, but do you realize I am saying that the presence of a single particle like a photon is maintained by directionally inflowing and spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy? The directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy is coming from other particles and objects. The spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy travels through space and becomes the directionally inflowing wave energy of other particles and objects. The particle that is being maintained by that inflow/out flow is referred to as a standing wave pattern, with inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components, and some amount of contained energy within the particle space at all times as well.

If you think you have a better view of what I hoped to convey, go back and read the Photon wave-particle post again and see if this explanation helps. If not, come back and ask again, and I will try to be more helpful. Also let me know if you have read and thought about the posts from #414 to present, and if so, I would say that I have failed to communicate my hobby-model to you.

 

nah... what I am saying is that currently held mainstream understanding of the photon is incredibly confused and that your interpretation just addles it even more...
I ask you this:
How can a TOE ever be achieved when the fundamental premises (aka: Photons) are so unscientific?

The scientific method has not been applied properly to any known description of the photon and this is what is perplexing me.

As far as your hobby model is concerned feel free to grant any particle, any value you wish, after all it is only a hobby model is it not?
It is not that much different to what mainstream appears to be doing with regards to photons IMO. so go for it...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That is true, except for the part that I am adding to the addle, lol. I expect Spellbound to ask, "Reality isn't addled?".

My speculations and hypotheses are expressed as a hobby-model because the members don't like layman speculation presented that doesn't carry a disclaimer that makes it clear that I know it isn't science. It is in fact a hobby, and presented for discussion of the areas where, as you put it, the mainstream and characters like me have it all "addled".

You are kind to point out that my hypotheses and speculations about particles, particularly the photon, are not taking my hobby-model in the right direction, but now I'm looking to you to give me something that might turn me the right way. How about a clue?

 

I'm on a balcony at the beach this morning, looking at and listening to the waves, and in a contemplative mood. Last night it was almost pitch dark out here. The difference is that this morning the sun is bright, and light is bouncing off of everything in the whole wide panorama.

Aside from the amazing ability of my eyes to see and my brain to process and present it sensibly to my consciousness, if I knew nothing about what science says, I would be able to make some conclusions from the evidence.

What I see this morning and what I couldn't see last night, tell me that the sun is lighting up what would otherwise be out there in the dark. And the detail of what I see is very fine. I could come up with a concept that a photon exists, and is very tiny. That fits the view of the photon that I gave you in post #447. The photon would be nothing like the image in post #446, but seems more like an individual particle, traveling straight from the sun, bouncing off the waves, and continuing on to my eyes.

Further, since I see colors, I could surmise that light carries all colors. When I look directly at the sun is it pure white, and so there is something related to the reflection of light off of the the beach and waves that sorts out color from the white. Maybe I would be able to suspect that the white light is hitting the waves and the beach, and they are absorbing part of the white light and reflecting only certain colors. From that I might figure out that particles and objects can absorb certain colors and not others. I might even figure out that there is some tiny light particle that gets absorbed by something like the sand, and heats them up, because it is easy to realize that the sand is hotter in the sun light. So I might equate that to energy being carried by the photons ... we humans come equipped to be able to figure out the invariant laws of nature.

I could go on, but the point is that science knows an awful lot about light, and the mainstream science is pretty good. Wave-particle duality is mainstream, and the consensus of how it works is where we might say that science does not yet fully agree on the explanation. That is why I am posting my speculation about wave-particle duality it in my hobby-model. My view is up for discussion.

 

Tell me why you think consciousness is somehow different to "seeing"?

 

I think it is the difference between seeing, and being aware of what we are seeinig.

 

so when you shut your eyes what do you see?

 

The ISU.

Do you have a point in your questions; or are these clues re. post #449?

 

yes very much so...
Do you see the volume of space or are you conscious of it?
Your eyes are not just for you to be light conscious...
Space of course emits no light yet we are very conscious of it. (Air for example is transparent and emits no light and so too for inter-stella space )
So we "see" what we are conscious of with our eyes including that which does not emit light.
If we saw only light, we would see nothing else. Our eyes would be full of photons so to speak...
What does that tell you about light?
What does that tell you about your eyes and their capabilities?
What does it tell you about scientific understanding of light, consciousness and our eyes?
Rhetorical questions...

 

Yes.

Yes, I'm with you so far. Note: You may have picked up on this, but it applies here. In my model there is geometric space which is (potentially) infinite in three dimensions, and there is the medium of space that fills all geometric space and carries gravitational waves. The distinction is that geometric space can be said to be empty, and the medium of space is always filled with gravitational wave energy traversing it. Of course we can't see gravity.

I get what you are saying but I am not clear about the distinction between seeing light, and perceiving space. Light seems to define the location of objects in space, and we perceive the "empty" space as those places where there are no objects, speaking loosely about what we mean by "empty".

Tell me what it tells us about all of those things.

 

The question is

"How are we able to "see" vacant space if it emits no light?

What part of our brain or body allows us the capacity to see vacant space? [ volume in 3 dimensions ]

As proved historically, there is no point in my offering a possible solution. You need to work it out for yourself.

 

And my individual conclusion is that we learn spatial perception. As infants we reach out and touch our toes and realize they are close enough to touch. We reach out to touch something across the crib and realize we have to crawl over to it to touch it, and we reach out to touch something across the room, and we cry because we can't reach it, lol.

So it is experience that allows us to "see" vacant space; experience is a natural part of learning spatial perception from birth.

 

What is the difference between perceiving and seeing in your opinion?

"We can see space because it is over there in the distance somewhere but we can only see light because of photons in our eyes...!!??"
makes a heap of sense... yes?
In my universe the space is where I see ( are conscious of) it to be and so to is the light where I see it to be...and I have no reason to believe other wise other than incomplete photon wave, massless, massive particle models.
Next thing you will be advocating gravitational waves? [chuckle]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"...and gravitron waved at the photon as it flew past in a rush to nowhere and realized that not only was the photon a hallucination but so too was gravitron" hee hee...

just stir-ing...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't understand, or at least when you add "yes" to the end, if you are being facetious or serious, since you faked me out with that style before

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Now that looks like legitimate material about your universe. Let's call it a model to make it seem more OK for me to call my universe a model. Can you go along with that?

Am I going too far to interpret your view of space as something of an inert zone between where you see light to be. And light, the place where you see it is at the object itself, and not an image being carried to you by anything, certainly not some mainstream convenience particle with impossible characteristics?

There, that would be a mainstream convenience particle, right. You did warn me that I might find it hard to understand your model unless I could start fresh. I don't have any trouble with that.

Yes, stir-ing you are. I do have the concept that light is not what mainstream says it is. I agree with the wave-particle duality but the mechanics are what I hypothesize about. Photons, as particles with mass, getting all of their inflowing gravitational wave energy from the direction of motion, with their out flowing gravitational wave component emitted spherically while traveling along and behind, would act like the science community has described, but for different reasons. And yes, I have fallen to the depths of enablement (adding condiments to the mainstream pot and stirring, so to speak) by basing my entire hobby-model on something that has never once been detected, gravitational waves and the medium of space, so I am guilty as implied by your chuckle.