Model of a photon (split from A wave of what? )

[robert1978bp]

what do you guys think of David LaPoint's model of the photon?
forward to 3:35 if the embedding did not

 

[exchemist]

58 minutes ago, robert1978bp said:

what do you guys think of David LaPoint's model of the photon?
forward to 3:35 if the embedding did not

 

Tell us about it and we can comment. (It's a rule of the forum that topics should not require participants to go off-site to another web address in order to find out what the topic is about.)

Since physics has a satisfactory model of the photon already, perhaps the quickest way to elicit interest would be for you to describe what advantages this model has compared to the established one. 

[swansont]

What is the model, and what is the evidence that it’s correct?

[robert1978bp]

I can only give you my interpretation of it based on the video... might not be accurate, things will probably get lost in translation.. first see the attached illustration, it sums it up..

The model describes the photon as sort of a point (green disk on the diagram) with no definite boundaries where flow of energy is concentrated, accelerated.  Outside photon, where energy is not concentrated and is weaker can be describe as the photon's field.  During interaction with other particles/matter the photon itself might miss the collision and not get absorbed, but its field would still interact, hence changing its direction depending on the wavelength like in the case of the prism experiment.  

Besides the prism experiment, he claims to have the age old double-slit experiment "finally" solved, and gives seemingly reasonable explanation also on how light seems to slow down in certain mediums... These both are demonstrated in the video..

His model does not collide with the mainstream idea of photons having different energies measured by wavelength/frequency, it is just that he the idea of how the photon is built up is pushed further, in a manner that might not be a dead end street.  His model to me is lot more elegant than say describing the behavior of light with quantum mechanics.

"What is evidence that this is correct?"  What would qualify as such?..  Based on my knowledge on what I know about the photon, I could not simply refute it hence asking the forum's opinion..

[exchemist]

11 minutes ago, robert1978bp said:

I can only give you my interpretation of it based on the video... might not be accurate, things will probably get lost in translation.. first see the attached illustration, it sums it up..

The model describes the photon as sort of a point (green disk on the diagram) with no definite boundaries where flow of energy is concentrated, accelerated.  Outside photon, where energy is not concentrated and is weaker can be describe as the photon's field.  During interaction with other particles/matter the photon itself might miss the collision and not get absorbed, but its field would still interact, hence changing its direction depending on the wavelength like in the case of the prism experiment.  

Besides the prism experiment, he claims to have the age old double-slit experiment "finally" solved, and gives seemingly reasonable explanation also on how light seems to slow down in certain mediums... These both are demonstrated in the video..

His model does not collide with the mainstream idea of photons having different energies measured by wavelength/frequency, it is just that he the idea of how the photon is built up is pushed further, in a manner that might not be a dead end street.  His model to me is lot more elegant than say describing the behavior of light with quantum mechanics.

"What is evidence that this is correct?"  What would qualify as such?..  Based on my knowledge on what I know about the photon, I could not simply refute it hence asking the forum's opinion..

It sounds as if this person has fallen into the old trap of the  "Star Trek Fallacy", of thinking energy is a substance: some kind of "stuff".

It isn't. Energy is merely a property of a physical system of some kind. So it's meaningless to say the photon is a flow of energy, unless he can say the energy of what, and what kind of energy it is. 

So I'm afraid it looks like run-of-the-mill crank physics, from someone who does not know much physical science, and thus not worthwhile for me to watch the video.

 

[studiot]

I presume this is not David Lapoint the baseball player, but David Allen Lapoint the man who has an application US Patent for a Controlled Fusion Reactor  !

 

https://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/Controlled-fusion-reactor/WO2023172373A2.html

[swansont]

3 hours ago, robert1978bp said:

His model to me is lot more elegant than say describing the behavior of light with quantum mechanics.

Elegant is not really a consideration. The model has to work, i.e. describe how nature behaves. It's like Huxley's comment about a beautiful theory being slain by an ugly fact.