Ether model

[exchemist]

If, as you and standard-theory quantists theorize, the double slit experiment has no question marks, and the photons behave consistently, then why, if you shine a flashlight in a dark room, the part of the room where the light beam is pointing also gets illuminated to some degree? If the whole story about light transmission by photons is correct, how did photons arrive to the rear of the flashlight?

I submit that photons have a slight mutation compared with their parent electrons, which makes them to some degree dynamically unlike electrons, and that there are always photons in any dark or lit area, even after sunset.

Reflection, obviously, from the surface they illuminate.

The fact that the surface illuminated by the beam looks brighter than the surroundings indicates it is reflecting photons back into your eyes. So it will also reflect photons onto whatever surface there may be behind the beam.

 

[Michael Anteski]

Particles do not "mutate" an electron and photon are different things

Pinball, you haven't fully digested my model. In my posts, I claimed that photons originated creationally. (If you' are firm that standard theory, which denies both an ether and creational (non random) universe, my model won't apply for you.

My model's idea is that originally, before the appearance of a sapient creational entity, there existed a post-first-causal etheric macrocosm, within which existed zones of intense and sometimes-linear, and thus partially-quantized, radiations, in one of which a creational entity arose, capable of projecting quantum forces into the ether to produce chain-reactions in the ether that produced our universe. Initially, the available quantum forces were protons and electrons. By projecting electrons into the ether, it would have resulted in vast quantities of protons, more electrons, and atoms. In this Model, photons appeared later to provide visibility of the outside forces. Just a single electron could have been used to emplace a tiny mutational variation, making the new unit (photon) slightly different from electrons. Just one such "prototype photon" could have then been chain-reactionally multiplied in the ether, to produce a whole universe full of photons.

 

[James R]

Michael:

If, as you and standard-theory quantists theorize, the double slit experiment has no question marks...

I don't think I said the double-slit experiment has "no question marks". I'm not sure what that means, actually.

I said that quantum mechanics can make testable predictions about the outcomes of a double-slit experiment, and experimental observations show that these predictions are correct. Not only that, but quantum physics makes quantitative predictions, not just qualitative ones.

Can your ether theory make any quantitative predictions of anything? How can your theory be tested experimentally? Is it falsifiable?

If the whole story about light transmission by photons is correct, how did photons arrive to the rear of the flashlight?

Reflection off the walls of the room, or the screen, or whatever, as exchemist said. That has nothing to do with the double slit experiment.

I submit that photons have a slight mutation compared with their parent electrons, which makes them to some degree dynamically unlike electrons, and that there are always photons in any dark or lit area, even after sunset.

I don't know what you mean by "mutation" in this context. I also don't really know what you mean by "parent electrons". In what sense is an electron the "parent" of a photon?

I agree with you that photons are different from electrons. So does standard physics.

There are always photons in a "lit" area. "Lit" means the area contains light, and light is made of photons, so that's a no brainer.

As for dark areas, how dark are we talking? Are we talking darkness as in a complete absence of light? If so, then no light means no photons, by definition (unless you restrict the meaning of "light" only to those photons that are in the visible range). If, on the other hand, by "dark" you just mean "dimly lit", then we're back to the "lit" condition, discussed above.

 

[Pinball1970]

Pinball, you haven't fully digested my model. In my posts, I claimed that photons originated creationally. (If you' are firm that standard theory, which denies both an ether and creational (non random) universe, my model won't apply for you.

My model's idea is that originally, before the appearance of a sapient creational entity, there existed a post-first-causal etheric macrocosm, within which existed zones of intense and sometimes-linear, and thus partially-quantized, radiations, in one of which a creational entity arose, capable of projecting quantum forces into the ether to produce chain-reactions in the ether that produced our universe. Initially, the available quantum forces were protons and electrons. By projecting electrons into the ether, it would have resulted in vast quantities of protons, more electrons, and atoms. In this Model, photons appeared later to provide visibility of the outside forces. Just a single electron could have been used to emplace a tiny mutational variation, making the new unit (photon) slightly different from electrons. Just one such "prototype photon" could have then been chain-reactionally multiplied in the ether, to produce a whole universe full of photons.

Zero evidence for any of that, that is the bottom line.
Some scientific words in there like electron and photon but none of it makes any sense.

 

[Michael Anteski]

Zero evidence for any of that, that is the bottom line.
Some scientific words in there like electron and photon but none of it makes any sense.

A suggestion, Read up on the most recent archaeoastronomic researxh evidence on the beginning of the universe, thinking of how protons, electrons, and photons could have entered into it, and my ether model for it.

 

[Michael Anteski]

Michael:

I don't think I said the double-slit experiment has "no question marks". I'm not sure what that means, actually.

I said that quantum mechanics can make testable predictions about the outcomes of a double-slit experiment, and experimental observations show that these predictions are correct. Not only that, but quantum physics makes quantitative predictions, not just qualitative ones.

Can your ether theory make any quantitative predictions of anything? How can your theory be tested experimentally? Is it falsifiable?

Reflection off the walls of the room, or the screen, or whatever, as exchemist said. That has nothing to do with the double slit experiment.

I don't know what you mean by "mutation" in this context. I also don't really know what you mean by "parent electrons". In what sense is an electron the "parent" of a photon?

I agree with you that photons are different from electrons. So does standard physics.

There are always photons in a "lit" area. "Lit" means the area contains light, and light is made of photons, so that's a no brainer.

As for dark areas, how dark are we talking? Are we talking darkness as in a complete absence of light? If so, then no light means no photons, by definition (unless you restrict the meaning of "light" only to those photons that are in the visible range). If, on the other hand, by "dark" you just mean "dimly lit", then we're back to the "lit" condition, discussed above.

Physics references consider photons dynamically similar to electrons, so in a creationist model it's reasonable their origin would have been connected in some way.

Using the familiar standard quantum model of physics, "light" means the behavior of quantum -order photons, only, and there is no underlying ether process involved.

Our eyes are atomically structured, so obviously the way we observe light is quantum/atomically mediated.

By saying that photons are always "present" even in a dark room, I was referring to the picture of light transmissions using the ether model. An underlying etheric impulse initiates the dynamics which, when they pass through an intermediate, or "etheroidal," stage, reach the quantum level and photons, produce the light as we see it. With my ether model, the "real" origin of a light transmission is not visible to our eyes, because it is in the ether. -Photons are "present" in a dark room in the form of sub-quantal, or "etheroidal," units having a photonic ether-vibratory pattern that, because of a slight creational change in the photon, are interacting with the sub quantal and etheric forces of objects normally there.

 

[DaveC426913]

A suggestion, Read up on the most recent archaeoastronomic researxh evidence on the beginning of the universe, thinking of how protons, electrons, and photons could have entered into it, and my ether model for it.

Why would you think Pinball1970 isn't already very familiar with Big Bang and Inflationary Cosmology?

 

[James R]

Michael:

Physics references consider photons dynamically similar to electrons, so in a creationist model it's reasonable their origin would have been connected in some way.

I don't know what you mean by "dynamically similar", but maybe that's not particularly important. As for "creationist model", when I see the word "creationist" my mind tends to jump to religious Creationists, who certainly aren't doing any science. But again, perhaps your use of that word is unimportant here.

Standard cosmological models do connect the origin of photons and electrons "in some way". Specifically, we have a model that involves both photons and electrons being created in the big bang that started the universe off. Also, quite importantly, electron/positron pairs can be formed due to the interactions of high-energy photons, and the inverse process also occurs: photons are created when matter and antimatter particles annihilate.

Using the familiar standard quantum model of physics, "light" means the behavior of quantum -order photons, only, and there is no underlying ether process involved.

Yes. Introducing an ether does not seem to be necessary to explain any experimental observations.

Our eyes are atomically structured, so obviously the way we observe light is quantum/atomically mediated.

Yes. Our eyes contain photoreceptor cells that absorb photons and use the energy to produce electrical signals, which are then interpreted by the brain.

By saying that photons are always "present" even in a dark room, I was referring to the picture of light transmissions using the ether model. An underlying etheric impulse initiates the dynamics which, when they pass through an intermediate, or "etheroidal," stage, reach the quantum level and photons, produce the light as we see it. With my ether model, the "real" origin of a light transmission is not visible to our eyes, because it is in the ether. -Photons are "present" in a dark room in the form of sub-quantal, or "etheroidal," units having a photonic ether-vibratory pattern that, because of a slight creational change in the photon, are interacting with the sub quantal and etheric forces of objects normally there.

I really don't care about any of that. I am completely uninterested to learn about any qualitative "mechanism" you imagine happens in your ether model. I will remain completely uninterested unless and and until you can show how your model can make at least one testable, quantitative prediction.

So far, you seem to have produced nothing on that front.

 

[Michael Anteski]

Michael:

I don't know what you mean by "dynamically similar", but maybe that's not particularly important. As for "creationist model", when I see the word "creationist" my mind tends to jump to religious Creationists, who certainly aren't doing any science. But again, perhaps your use of that word is unimportant here.

Standard cosmological models do connect the origin of photons and electrons "in some way". Specifically, we have a model that involves both photons and electrons being created in the big bang that started the universe off. Also, quite importantly, electron/positron pairs can be formed due to the interactions of high-energy photons, and the inverse process also occurs: photons are created when matter and antimatter particles annihilate.

Yes. Introducing an ether does not seem to be necessary to explain any experimental observations.

Yes. Our eyes contain photoreceptor cells that absorb photons and use the energy to produce electrical signals, which are then interpreted by the brain.

I really don't care about any of that. I am completely uninterested to learn about any qualitative "mechanism" you imagine happens in your ether model. I will remain completely uninterested unless and and until you can show how your model can make at least one testable, quantitative prediction.

So far, you seem to have produced nothing on that front.

This has been a lengthy Thread, so you may not recall that the subject of setting up a quantifiable field test for eliciting an etheric effect has come up a number of times before. As I said then, the test would be expensive.

 

[DaveC426913]

For sale $60.00 Guelph ON