Corpuscles

1. Photon-Wave duality 2. Isaac Newton Corpuscular theory The photon-repeater concept eliminates the duality perception, and revives Isaac's "photon" model. What is/are the statistical odds of a new concept, photon-repeater, destroying the wave concept, while reviving Newton's? RE: " Factual knowledge has to be learned " Quite true, but the learners tend to "stone you" with their beliefs before it is learned, or understood. Note - Photon-Repeater concept is based upon physical concepts.

Topic is about describing photon motion...there are off-topic questions. One respondent attempts to use current accepted concepts, which are not relevant in this topic. Further, since manuscript has not been published, its whole content should not be exposed. Bonus - Photon-Wave duality is a misnomer when the concept of photon-electron interactions are perceived as re-propelling photons. As mentioned in previous topic(1), "Feynman partially explains that a photon will follow a predetermined path which is a choice of one of many possible paths." It is these atomic units, not the photon, that is determining these photons trajectories. Wiki author further states, "These chosen paths form the pattern; in dark areas, no photons are landing, and in bright areas, many photons are landing." Consequently, these photons are involved in creating these bright/dark areas, but these bright/dark areas are due to atomic units redirecting photons trajectories. Just like in refraction, these atomic units are redirecting photons trajectories....so it is with wave displays...atomic units are responsible, not the photons. Thus, until physicists come to terms with atomic units "rebroadcasting, re-transmitting, or re-propelling" photons, their thinking is based in 19th century empiricism, while the mathematicians found solutions, not based upon atomic units acting as photon repeaters. Photon Repeater - A photon repeater is an atomic unit (atom, molecule, ion, electron, etc) that receives a photon and retransmits it in some direction. In closing, since Nadezda Panarina (andp.201800241) has rejected my manuscript, I guess there will be no enlightenment, and physics will be stuck in 19th century empiricism. 1.

Footnotes - Since today's physicists generally are clueless about Isaac Newton's corpuscular theory, here is a Wiki snip: " The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v). " Isaac's assumption was not based upon photons being re-propelled after leaving the "emitting object" (source). Newton's "hot bodies" concept was logical, in that time, but when photons are being re-propelled within a medium, "hot bodies" represent the source emitter, but all atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions) that are re-propelling photons along a pathway must also be considered. Consequently, when Netwon's model is revisited, in terms of f (x) = c equation at each photon-atomic unit collision, his model accounts for expected experimental results of light traveling a pinch less than c in say Earth's atmosphere. The pinch less time is due to photon-electron events at each molecule a traveling photon hits. Inverse Compton Effect demonstrates photons being re-propelled via electrons...this also happens in atomic units....end of discussion.

Last Comments - Particle re-propulsion concept nullifies theoretical underpinnings based upon source emitter concept. Inverse Compton Effect demonstrates photons being re-propelled via electrons....refraction exhibits photons being re-propelled...chemistry's emission concept indicates photons are being re-propelled...photons slowing down in a medium, and then speeding back up to c in vacuum shows photons being re-propelled. Wave/QED is based upon source emitter concept, not multiple atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions) re-propelling photons in a pathway. A gun analogy represents the source emitter concept, but photons are being re-propelled along its traveling path in a medium. Inverse Compton Effect validates re-propulsion concept, and my equation, f (x) = c , explains why light can slow down in a medium, and speed back up to c in vacuum; when my model is explained. So, either photons are propelled via single source (source emitter), or they are re-propelled along their pathway via atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions). Current thinking does not address multiple sources of photon re-propulsion. Hence, current thinking is baseless when re-propulsion concept is accepted. ORCID identifier is 0000-0003-4536-0088

Understood, but I do not consider this "speculation."

OP inquired: " When light strikes a surface does it instantly jump off" I'm just adding what I perceive to be relevant details. Journal: Annalen der Physik Editor: Nadezda Panarina (andp.201800241) But keep this in mind for another journal, "Since the launch of pss‐RRL as a stand‐alone journal, approximately 650 submissions have reached us. Of these, 31% have been accepted for publication while 51% were rejected by the Editors. The remaining 18% were ultimately withdrawn by the authors either following editorial recommendation or due to critical referee judgements, some with later re‐assignments as Original Papers to pss (a) or (b). These figures speak for a very careful and thorough editorial selection process which is summarized by the three terms: novelty, importance, and quality." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssr.200850067 What evidence do you have that this model is not valid? Until re-propulsion details are explain, objections are premature. No one has requested for it to be explained.

Last I knew, mathematical means attempt to describe events, and depend upon the event being observed correctly. Particle re-propulsion concept would nullify thinking based upon source emitter proposition. My "proposal" (aka hypothesis) has not been delineated; its underpinnings have not been explained. FWIW: Wiki - " The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant..." Hence... the perceived perception of light's constant speed.

I would say there are mathematical expressions for describing events, but understanding events is questionable, in some cases. For instance, "Feynman partially explains that a photon will follow a predetermined path which is a choice of one of many possible paths. These chosen paths form the pattern; in dark areas, no photons are landing, and in bright areas, many photons are landing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle#Huygens'_theory_and_the_modern_photon_wavefunction My forum focus here in this topic, not current thinking, has been focused on events within this path, and I have suggested photo-atomic and photo-electron events are re-propelling photons along this path. What this implies is the "source" emitter concept becomes meaningless as a photon travels along a path while interacting with atomic matter. For instance, in Inverse Compton scattering, photons are emitted via original source, but when they collide with electrons, they are re-emitted via these electrons. Hence, when a laser beam is directed at a beam of moving electrons, there are two "emitters," one being the source (laser), and the other being when photons "bounce" off these moving electrons. When the concept of "re-propulsion" is considered, and I have cited several examples, at each photo-atomic or photo-electron collision, then the perceived perception of light's constant speed must be re-evaluated. When evaluated from this perspective, re-propulsion, in f (x) = c equation, x represents an incoming photon's speed, and c represents the outgoing speed at each electron-photon collision, with respect to that electron's coordinates. QED does not address particle re-propulsion, btw. I am the author of the unpublished manuscript called Heuristic Photon Model. The source emitter concept is erroneous, which has caused blunders in scientific reasoning.

Photon-atomic understandings are not fully understood. I would not use a term like "spin it." Electrons are "spinning" around in atomic structures. In Inverse Compton scattering, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering#Inverse_Compton_scattering , electrons collide with photons, and are re-transmitted at a higher energy. From this understanding, it could be suggested, like in scattered spectra (chemestry) or transmitted light, that photons "ride" on an electron for a period of time (aka transient time) before it is ejected...But, I'm not aware of this thinking in physics today. There is this topic in the news: June 28, 2018 Spectral cloaking could make objects invisible under realistic conditions ... ... Most current cloaking devices can fully conceal the object of interest only when the object is illuminated with just one color of light. However, sunlight and most other light sources are broadband, meaning that they contain many colors. The new device, called a spectral invisibility cloak, is designed to completely hide arbitrary objects under broadband illumination. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180628120102.htm

Good examples....Reflection, fluorescence, and chemistry's "emission, absorption, and scattered spectra" all show photons being rebroadcasted at different time intervals (transient times); but as I noted above, physicists have not considered this as an re-propulsion event. Even in Compton scattering (see Fig. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering those X ray photons are being re-propelled several times, but physicists have not considered this as photons being re-propelled.

For non-ionizing radiation, this stick time could be represented as an "photon-electron" event. For the frequencies that "pass thru" (transmitted ) a given molecule, and which have a reduced linear speed, they too would have a "transient time" ("stick" time). As an off-topic side note, Corpuscular theory of light (1637) was based upon particles called "corpuscles, which were perceived as having straight line motions. Descartes and Newton were not aware of particles, now called photons, interacting with electrons. For instance, in chemistry today, emission, absorption, and scattered spectra represents electron-photon events. Nor would they have perceived of particles being re-propelled via electrons, which is what happens with emission and scattered photons. If there was an interest in this line of thinking, I could post an unpublished work with details on re-propulsion aspect. Previous particle and wave explanations do not account for electron-photon re-propulsion events...if they did, the light paradox would not exist.