New Theory on the Propagation of Light and the Nature of Photons

[Epiménides]

Spanish/English:

 

http://propagaciondelaluz.blogspot.com/

[Klaynos]

Can you post a summary here.

 

Preferably explaining how your "theory" results in Maxwell's equations, because they're so well tested it MUST, and how your theory could be proven over current electrodynamic theory?

[Epiménides]

Maxwell himself asserted it was his purpose to translate light phenomena to math (Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism). Physics is not an ancilla mathematicae. Physics must be supported by reason and human logic, not by mathematical calculus. For example, infinitesimal calculus is mathematically useful, but it is logically false, as Leibnitz himself admitted.

[ajb]

That is not really the modern way of thinking Epiménides. If anyone is going to listen to what you have to say you will have to mathematically relate it to Maxwell's equations.

[swansont]

Maxwell himself asserted it was his purpose to translate light phenomena to math (Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism). Physics is not an ancilla mathematicae. Physics must be supported by reason and human logic, not by mathematical calculus. For example, infinitesimal calculus is mathematically useful, but it is logically false, as Leibnitz himself admitted.

 

Physics must be supported by empirical data. There are many instances where logic and reason fail. (QM and relativity). Physics is supported by calculus, because we make mathematical models to describe how nature behaves.

[ajb]

I read the "abstract" and the "overview" now where is the theory? You have confused the notion of a theory (which is mathematical by definition) and a "hand-waving" idea, (which could be the germ of a theory).

 

Anyway, what you seem to be hinting at is photon scattering and/or absorption and emission. I think this is reasonably well understood in quantum optics.

[Epiménides]

Science is based on ideas, then on logical, coherent and reasonable ideas, y then, but not before, on falsification (Popper) and observational precision proves (for example, mathematics). I have no mathematically precised explanation (at least yet).

[D H]

From the link,

Trying to understand how photons can travel through a glass, I found that the propagation of light doesn’t work in the way we think, according to classical physics as well as post-newtonian physics.

It works quite fine. Your job as a proponent of an alternate explanation is to find some observed electromagnetic phenomenon that is not explained by the standard model of physics. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean its not true.

This paper is based on theoretical thoughts.

Theoretical physics uses mathematics to describe observed phenomena. You have no mathematics, therefore you have no theory.

 

It is not possible for me to conceive that the photon which touches the observer’s retina (O) is the same one that left from the light incident or reflecting emitter (E) going through glass or water.

Once again, just because you don't understand some theory does not mean that the theory is not valid. All it means is that you don't understand it.

 

Thread moved to pseudoscience. It can be moved back to a non pseudoscience forum when (if) this is made a bit more concrete and preferably backed up with experimental observations.

[Epiménides]

You are right: I've never been able to understand nor conceive classical and non-classical explanations about transparency phenomena and you don't either. Neither of us. We can understand it mathematically, not in any other way. It is not enough for me to understand some equations. A theoretical explanation must provide a coherent, reasonable representation. That's what I'm looking for. That's what I try to provide. Science cannot be reduced to equations.

 

Mathematics is just a tool, not the "Referee of the Truth". Science is NOT mathematics: mathematics is a tool for Science.

 

Your ghostly "massless" photon is pseudoscience (you should move it to Magic).

[Pangloss]

Your ghostly "massless" photon is pseudoscience (you should move it to Magic).

 

You were doing better when you were just talking about exploring ideas. Nothing wrong with that, but declaring experimentally demonstrated concepts invalid without any evidence undermines credibility even more than unsupported declarations.

[mooeypoo]

You are right: I've never been able to understand nor conceive classical and non-classical explanations about transparency phenomena and you don't either.

If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean no one understands it. It also doesn't mean it's not true.

 

Neither of us. We can understand it mathematically, not in any other way. It is not enough for me to understand some equations. A theoretical explanation must provide a coherent, reasonable representation. That's what I'm looking for. That's what I try to provide. Science cannot be reduced to equations.

 

Math is PART of science. It's not being "reduced" to anything. Mathematical explanations are the crux of physics; our 'philosophical' explanations, our WORDS, are limited tools that explain the observable laws of the universe that are described by math.

 

Math is not just there to help us 'understand' it, it helps us make PREDICTIONS (correct ones!) about our universe. That's extremely powerful.

 

Mathematics is just a tool, not the "Referee of the Truth". Science is NOT mathematics: mathematics is a tool for Science.

Well, the universe has laws we can observe and attempt to explain; we depict them using math. Yes, it's a tool, but it's a tool to depict physical laws. Saying it's "just a tool" is just like saying the brain is "just a tool" for processing thought.

 

 

Your ghostly "massless" photon is pseudoscience (you should move it to Magic).

uh.. where did you study your physics, my friend? Photons are massless for a reason. Claiming that's pseudoscience just because you don't understand something doesn't make it pseudoscience.

 

Seeing as the depiction of a photon as massless not only WORKS in explaining the universe, it also works in *MORE THAN ONE THEORY* that makes *TRUE* predictions about the world, you are in dire need of proving this above statement.

 

Good luck with that. Personally, I'm curious to see how you do this. If you succeed, it's going to change physics as we know it, and seeing as I'm going to work in the field in a few years, this is going to create more jobs for me to hunt. Very exciting. Good luck with that.

[Epiménides]

Listen:

I said: photons don't travel anywhere. Essentially, that's all what I said. Then I try to provide an explanation, that's all.

 

So why don't you think about that instead of disqualifying my paper?

 

Whay don't you investigate if my premise ("photons don't...") is true or false instead of investigating how much I know about physics?

 

_______

 

"Saying it's "just a tool" is just like saying the brain is "just a tool" for processing thought."

Newton didn't discover gravity by using mathematics. Mathematics was a tool to precise his idea.

Darwin didn't write The Origin of Species because of maths.

Eratostenes: he had an idea on how to measure the Earth, then he use Maths to measure the Earth. And so on.

[Klaynos]

Listen:

I said: photons don't travel anywhere. Essentially, that's all what I said. Then I try to provide an explanation, that's all.

 

So why don't you think about that instead of disqualifying my paper?

 

Whay don't you investigate if my premise ("photons don't...") is true or false instead of investigating how much I know about physics?

 

_______

 

"Saying it's "just a tool" is just like saying the brain is "just a tool" for processing thought."

Newton didn't discover gravity by using mathematics. Mathematics was a tool to precise his idea.

Darwin didn't write The Origin of Species because of maths.

Eratostenes: he had an idea on how to measure the Earth, then he use Maths to measure the Earth. And so on.

 

Because it's well neigh impossible to disprove a hand wavy argument, where as solid mathematical predictions are easy to disprove...

[mooeypoo]

Listen:

I said: photons don't travel anywhere. Essentially, that's all what I said. Then I try to provide an explanation, that's all.

 

So why don't you think about that instead of disqualifying my paper?

 

Whay don't you investigate if my premise ("photons don't...") is true or false instead of investigating how much I know about physics?

Because you came to us suggesting a theory that contradicts all we know about physics.

 

Unlike what you would like to believe, the burden of proof is on you, not on us, and you're not holding up to it.

 

"Saying it's "just a tool" is just like saying the brain is "just a tool" for processing thought."

Newton didn't discover gravity by using mathematics. Mathematics was a tool to precise his idea.

Darwin didn't write The Origin of Species because of maths.

Eratostenes: he had an idea on how to measure the Earth, then he use Maths to measure the Earth. And so on.

First off, use quotes, like we do, there's a special button for it and it's rather easy. Otherwise, we can't understand what you're talking about or who said what (and in what context!).

 

Newton is the creator of calculus. CALCULUS! Mathematics! He discovered the laws of physics THROUGH his work on defining mathematical principles of calculus.

 

Darwing didn't specify physics, he specified biology, which is different. He did, however, rely his ENTIRE theory on *OBSERVATIONS*.

 

Eratosthenes *CALCULATED* the circumference of the Earth using geometry and MATH (sin/cos, length of shadows, etc). That is *ABSOLUTELY* using math.

If you make the distinction of "having an idea" and THEN "using math", then I urge you to do the math now, seeing you already had an idea.

 

It appears you need to do some history reading, too.

 

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Or, in short:

 

How would we know if your hypotheses are correct? We can test if our equations are right. What could prove or disprove your explanations?

 

That's all that is needed.

[Epiménides]

You said:

 

"Because you came to us suggesting a theory that contradicts all we know about physics.

 

Unlike what you would like to believe, the burden of proof is on you, not on us, and you're not holding up to it."

 

We are in equal conditions. Nobody ever saw photons traveling anywhere.

 

_________

 

Newton: he discovered gravity by thinking, then he states laws by using Math.

 

Darwin: observation is not maths. It includes thought.

 

Eratosthenes: you said he "*CALCULATED* the circumference of the Earth using geometry and MATH (sin/cos, length of shadows, etc). That is *ABSOLUTELY* using math."

I said: "he had an idea on how to measure the Earth, then he use Maths to measure the Earth."

So: he had an idea on how to measure the Earth, then he uses Maths to CALCULATE the Earth by using MATH and geometry (*ABSOLUTELY*). Well, now are you happy?

 

 

Human mind and Science works in this way:

-problem or question

-idea or aswer

-coherent idea or coherent aswer

-proves, precision, and so on.

 

 

You don't know anything about epistemology. You should read Alan Charlmers, Popper, Kuhn, even Einstein's autobiography.

 

A tool (maths) is useful and necessary if we have an idea or plan.

Even the number is an idea, as Pythagoras said.

[mooeypoo]

First off, USE PROPER QUOTES! There's a"Quote" button, it really isn't that hard, and it's quite rude otherwise, seeing as our words are put out of context and restated by you otherwise.

 

Second, ideas are worthless unless they are proven to actually obey the laws of reality, and predict how objects/phenomena behave.

 

That is done with math.

 

Regardless of your blatant distortion of history (Newton was, first and foremost, a mathematician, whether you like it or not), your own theory lacks any kind of proof, substantiation or basis that it is even remotely plausible.

 

On top of that, the "alternative" theories - the physics theories of our current day - answer all the above questions, manage to predict phenomena, and just work a lot better than yours. So there's no reason for us to consider your theory if you don't meet the burden of proof. Even a minimal one. Which you don't.

 

Now stop arguing about whether or not you should try to prove your theory and start proving it, otherwise just admit you have nothing and stop wasting our time.

[ajb]

You have fallen into the trap of appealing to authority by quoting famous scientists and philosophers. This nearly always means your ideas are defunct.

[Tom Vose]

Spanish/English:

 

http://propagaciondelaluz.blogspot.com/

 

Whatever. I am glad to see this in speculations. Not a shred of mathematics to back it up. Electromagnetic theory is a major mathematical theory, if not the best in the world.

[swansont]

Newton: he discovered gravity by thinking, then he states laws by using Math.

 

You have neglected the testing part that is required. Math allows for precise predictions, as Klaynos has already explained.

[Epiménides]

I said photons don't travel anywhere. That's my conclusion after having thought about it.

 

You didn't ever see any photon travelling anywhere. That is what I'm talking about.

 

You said I had no proof: you have no proof either that photons travel.

Please, I want you to show me these proves. You have the proves -ok so I want to see them.

[Klaynos]

I've a photon emitter, I've a photon detector, they are spacially separated, I release a photon from the emitter, the detector detects a signal... seems like evidence to me...

[mooeypoo]

I said photons don't travel anywhere. That's my conclusion after having thought about it.

 

You didn't ever see any photon travelling anywhere. That is what I'm talking about.

 

You said I had no proof: you have no proof either that photons travel.

Please, I want you to show me these proves. You have the proves -ok so I want to see them.

Einstein proved it already.

Actually, whenever you look at the sun, you prove it; the mere fact (FACT! proven!!!) that it we see the sun the way it WAS 8 minutes ago (and the moon as it was 4 seconds ago), PROVES photons are 'travelling'.

 

Since you're the one claiming they're not, you not only need to prove your statement, you need to prove it FITS the current observations (of time-lapse between distant stars/objects, and more).

 

We follow PROVEN facts. The burden of proof is on you.

[Epiménides]

To Klaynos: It is not true. You have no proof to say "spacially". Your detector shows a kind of break or interval (this is time, not space). You didn't see any isolated photon. Besides, it was made in order to detect one single photon (another photons are not detected).

 

To Mooeypoo: there was a chain-reaction photons from the Sun to the Earth (8 minutes). It is not a proof.

[mooeypoo]

To Klaynos: It is not true. You have no proof to say "spacially". Your detector shows a kind of break or interval (this is time, not space). You didn't see any isolated photon. Besides, it was made in order to detect one single photon (another photons are not detected).

 

To Mooeypoo: there was a chain-reaction photons from the Sun to the Earth (8 minutes). It is not a proof.

 

claims claims.. empty claims..

 

Have you ever picked a physics book? These things you dismiss so quickly have been proven for centuries. You don't seem to understand that you don't convince ANYONE by making empty claims without evidence.

 

Don't forget: You came to *us*. You should stand for the burden of proof, which is on YOU.

 

So far you're not even close to showing any sort of credence to your claims.

 

~moo