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

[D H]

That transmission process (absorption-emission-absorption and so forth, at 270.000 ms/s) doesn't seem to be very natural.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not the way things are.

-that's what I can say according to my theory (and nobody can prove that I were wrong).

And that is why it's not a theory. Theories HAVE to be falsifiable. Quantum mechanics certainly is, and no ones managed it yet...

Excellent point, Klaynos. A scientist should play devil's advocate in at least two ways. First and foremost, they must ask "how could I prove my hypothesis to be false?" Secondly, they must ask "does my hypothesis add any value to the body of science?" One way to answer both is to identify an experiment whose results will conflict with either the new hypothesis or with extant theories.

 

So, Epiménides, what observations does your "theory" indicate will occur that conflict with predictions based on the standard body of physics.

[Epiménides]

But you've no evidence, or derivation so it falls down against the existing theory. How can I emit a photon from -----------------> over there and detect it over here and the emited photon to have ALWAYS been at the detector, surely the emitter would have to magically tell the photon to get detected now...

 

There are other issues with this, if photons don't propagate then EM forces cannot act over distance and they do.

 

 

And that is why it's not a theory. Theories HAVE to be falsifiable. Quantum mechanics certainly is, and no ones managed it yet...

 

1) Sorry: I wanted to mean that the photon you emitted is not the same one you detected. So, you emitted a sort of "chain": the photon you can see in your detector always was in the same spatial point. I should have said:

 

Even if you were right and have "under detection" just one single photon, that photon always was in the same spatial point even before you "emitted" it. The emitted photon and the detected photon is not the same.

 

2) You are wrong: my theory is not falsiable yet. At the moment I haven't got it, but we don't know whether it is not falsiable.

By the way: how can you falsificate the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not travelling anywhere)?

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not the way things are.

 

So, Epiménides, what observations does your "theory" indicate will occur that conflict with predictions based on the standard body of physics.

 

Just because you don't like or don't understand my theory it doesn't mean it is not true.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not the way things are according to my theory.

 

 

Again: How can you falsificate the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not travelling anywhere)?

Edited December 22, 2008 by Epiménides
multiple post merged

[swansont]

Again: How can you falsificate the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not travelling anywhere)?

 

What absorbs and re-transmits the light in a vacuum? In between the atoms in a non-vacuum?

[Klaynos]

Again: How can you falsificate the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not travelling anywhere)?

 

Well I actual work trying to do this.

 

If maxwells equations are found not to hold. Or one of the QM results (absorption lines and the like). Or lasers don't work when you predict they should using QM, then the currently accepted theory would be considered bunk. Also if the EM force didn't work.

 

Your theory I do understand, and it seems similar to the absorption-emission idea, which doesn't jsut happen once in thigns like glass. In air the probability of absorption is significantly reduced. And as swansont says what does the chainreaction in a vacuum?

[Harlequinne]

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.

 

y=x^2 i thought was a cracker in favour of calculus.very subtle!!

[Epiménides]

I feel we don't know very much about vacuum.

First, the "vacuum" is not so empty as we think. It is full of particles (travelling photons or "steady photosensible particles", it doesn't matter) that allows us to see the Sun, galaxies, planets, spaceships and so on. Probably, the particles density in "vacuum" is lower than the particles density in the air:

this is a fact, even if my "steady photons" theory is wrong. So we have a "vacuum" which is full of photons -we don't know whether they are travelling or they are) in a steady state.

When I use the word "full" I mean "as many as is necessary" to see (stars, sun, galaxies).

Edited December 23, 2008 by Epiménides

[swansont]

I feel we don't know very much about vacuum.

First, the "vacuum" is not so empty as we think. It is full of particles (travelling photons or "steady photosensible particles", it doesn't matter) that allows us to see the Sun, galaxies, planets, spaceships and so on. Probably, the particles density in "vacuum" is lower than the particles density in the air:

this is a fact, even if my "steady photons" theory is wrong. So we have a "vacuum" which is full of photons -we don't know whether they are travelling or they are) in a steady state.

When I use the word "full" I mean "as many as is necessary" to see (stars, sun, galaxies).

 

How can the vacuum be full of traveling photons if they don't travel?

[Klaynos]

If the vacuum is full of these "steady photosensible particles", how fast are they moving relative to us and at what point in our orbit is that velocity taken, why does our movement threw them not alter the speed of light. This sounds far far too much like the Luminiferous aether...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

 

Which has been conclusively disproved.

[D H]

You are wrong: my theory is not falsiable yet.

Until you can come up with a test of your conjecture, you don't have a "theory". You have what is called colloquially a wild-ass guess.

 

By the way: how can you falsificate the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not travelling anywhere)?

That is not how science works. The test of a scientific hypothesis is how it fares against reality. The standard model of physics has been tested against reality, and so far has passed all such tests. This is not to say some future test (e.g. LHC) won't find a flaw in the standard model. Many physicists hope that it will.

 

You conjecture (and its a stretch to call it a conjecture) has no meat. Develop some mathematics and develop some predictions. Until you do so all you have is vague philosophical ramblings.

[Epiménides]

Klaynos

 

If the vacuum is full of these "steady photosensible particles", how fast are they moving relative to us and at what point in our orbit is that velocity taken, why does our movement threw them not alter the speed of light. This sounds far far too much like the Luminiferous aether...

 

It doesn't matter if we/they are moving or not, in the same way it doesn't matter whether you are seeing through the glass window from a train.

 

Aether is something different. It proposes a kind of quintessence, a sort of "substance". I'm not talking about any substance/new element/ quitessence. I'm just talking about particles.

If you think that particles in vacuum means "aether", then the accepted theory implies an aether too. Because your vacuum is so full of particles as that of mine.

 

The speed of light: the same problems you set out are present in the accepted theory too.

 

 

______________

 

 

D H:

 

You didn't answer my question:

How can you falsificate (in Popper's sense) the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not by travelling)?

 

_______________

 

swansont:

 

You didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that.

[Klaynos]

It doesn't matter if we/they are moving or not, in the same way it doesn't matter whether you are seeing through the glass window from a train.

 

You're proposing that light propagates by a interaction (who knows how that is done) between your photosensible particles, if we are moving threw these particles then the speed of light would change depending on how fast we're moving threw them, so it'd depend on the position of our orbit. This is NOT observed.

 

 

Aether is something different. It proposes a kind of quintessence, a sort of "substance". I'm not talking about any substance/new element/ quitessence. I'm just talking about particles.

 

Which are not there in the vacuum, which is why swansont brought this up.

 

If you think that particles in vacuum means "aether", then the accepted theory implies an aether too.

 

No, because photons do not require any medium to travel threw, this was experimentally discovered before a theory was accepted as to why.

 

Because your vacuum is so full of particles as that of mine.

 

It is? Are you talking about vacuum fluctuations? If so, their lifetime is not great enough to be the cause of propagation of light.

 

The speed of light: the same problems you set out are present in the accepted theory too.

 

No, they're not. Infact the current theories of light propagation have the requirement that they don't need a medium threw which to travel as that has been experimentally proven not to be true.

[Sayonara]

Epiménides, your ideas appear to fly in the face of the evidence.

 

Perhaps you should rethink them?

[granpa]

if we are moving threw these particles then the speed of light would change depending on how fast we're moving threw them, so it'd depend on the position of our orbit.

 

not if the earth shrinks, time dilates, and undergoes a loss of simultaneity as we all accept that it does.

[D H]

It doesn't matter if we/they are moving or not, in the same way it doesn't matter whether you are seeing through the glass window from a train.

 

Aether is something different. It proposes a kind of quintessence, a sort of "substance". I'm not talking about any substance/new element/ quitessence. I'm just talking about particles.

If you think that particles in vacuum means "aether", then the accepted theory implies an aether too. Because your vacuum is so full of particles as that of mine.

That is word salad.

 

 

The speed of light: the same problems you set out are present in the accepted theory too.

What problems are present in the "accepted theory" regarding the speed of light?

 

 

D H: You didn't answer my question:

How can you falsificate (in Popper's sense) the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not by travelling)?

Yes, I did. I'll answer again: You are asking an invalid question.

 

When scientists do compare hypotheses, it is in the sense of developing experiments to distinguish the hypotheses and evaluating the results of the experiments to determine which hypothesis best predicts the observed results.

 

This of course can only be done if both hypotheses are predictive. You do not have a hypothesis yet because as it stands your conjecture has no predictive powers.

 

It is not our job to flesh out your conjecture. That burden falls upon you.

[Epiménides]

That is word salad.

 

Yes, I did. I'll answer again: You are asking an invalid question.

 

When scientists do compare hypotheses, it is in the sense of developing experiments to distinguish the hypotheses and evaluating the results of the experiments to determine which hypothesis best predicts the observed results.

 

This of course can only be done if both hypotheses are predictive. You do not have a hypothesis yet because as it stands your conjecture has no predictive powers.

 

It is not our job to flesh out your conjecture. That burden falls upon you.

 

As you like it. But science is not religion. A scientific accepted theory is not a dogma.

There is only one burden: to know the truth, to achieve a better (if not the best) knowledge of the universe. Nobody knows how to falsificate "(in Popper's sense) the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and retransmission and not by travelling". As long as you can't falsificate that, the burden is upon you too.

 

Epiménides, your ideas appear to fly in the face of the evidence.

 

Perhaps you should rethink them?

 

I'll do it as many times as it is necessary. But I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not predicting facts, but explaining them.

[Sayonara]

As long as you can't falsificate that, the burden is upon you too.

If it can't be falsified, it is not a scientific theory.

 

I'll do it as many times as it is necessary. But I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not predicting facts, but explaining them.

If you cannot predict the effects of a given system, you have not explained it.

[Epiménides]

You're proposing that light propagates by a interaction (who knows how that is done) between your photosensible particles, if we are moving threw these particles then the speed of light would change depending on how fast we're moving threw them, so it'd depend on the position of our orbit. This is NOT observed.

 

 

...photons do not require any medium to travel threw, this was experimentally discovered before a theory was accepted as to why.

 

 

 

It is? Are you talking about vacuum fluctuations? If so, their lifetime is not great enough to be the cause of propagation of light.

 

 

 

No, they're not. Infact the current theories of light propagation have the requirement that they don't need a medium threw which to travel as that has been experimentally proven not to be true.

 

I didn't say that photons requiere anything. I just talked about other view/explanation of the propagation of light. I said vacuum is not empty. So, there is no "empty vacuum". Everything in the universe is on the vacuum, but we can't find "anything empty". Everything seems to be "full of something". However, we have different densities of particles in the universe. This is the reason why I think that my theory ("conjecture" , if you want) about photoconductive particles is less problematic. Because of a "not-empty vacuum", I propose it instead of streams of millions and millions of travelling photons everywhere.

 

If it can't be falsified, it is not a scientific theory.

 

 

So: how can you falsificate (in Popper's sense) the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not by travelling)?

[Sayonara]

So: how can you falsificate (in Popper's sense) the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not by travelling)?

You can remove "instead of" and everything that follows it from that sentence. Falsification of one hypotheses does not inherently lend support to another hypothesis.

 

To answer your question, you would falsify the accepted theory by designing an experiment that breaks its predictions.

[swansont]

swansont:

 

You didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that.

 

What is it that you didn't say? You said that photons don't travel, and yet you say that the vacuum is full of traveling photons.

 

Don't try and claim you didn't say these things. You did. I don't understand the apparent contradiction. You need to clarify.

[Epiménides]

How can the vacuum be full of traveling photons if they don't travel?

 

I said: "I feel we don't know very much about vacuum.

First, the "vacuum" is not so empty as we think. It is full of particles (travelling photons or "steady photosensible particles", it doesn't matter, [ I meant: in the accepted theory it is full of travelling photons, in that of mine it is full of "steady ..." ]) that allows us to see the Sun, galaxies, planets, spaceships and so on. Probably, the particles density in "vacuum" is lower than the particles density in the air:

this is a fact, even if my "steady photons" theory is wrong. So we have a "vacuum" which is full of photons -we don't know whether they are travelling or they are) in a steady state.

When I use the word "full" I mean "as many as is necessary" to see (stars, sun, galaxies). "

 

___________

 

You can remove "instead of" and everything that follows it from that sentence. Falsification of one hypotheses does not inherently lend support to another hypothesis.

 

To answer your question, you would falsify the accepted theory by designing an experiment that breaks its predictions.

 

If you cannot falsify it, that means that you think/believe photons trasmit light by travelling (instead of transmiting light in the way I said --by chain-reaction and not by travelling).

[D H]

Epiménides, as it stands, your "theory" is little different from fairy dust. It has no substance. One more time, it is not our responsibility to come up with ways to reject your non-hypothesis. It is your responsibility to bolster your non-hypothesis to the stage of a true hypothesis. Your persistent use of invalid logical arguments does not satisfy this responsibility.

[swansont]

I said: "I feel we don't know very much about vacuum.

 

You said a lot of things.

 

 

First, the "vacuum" is not so empty as we think. It is full of particles (travelling photons or "steady photosensible particles", it doesn't matter, [ I meant: in the accepted theory it is full of travelling photons, in that of mine it is full of "steady ..." ]) that allows us to see the Sun, galaxies, planets, spaceships and so on. Probably, the particles density in "vacuum" is lower than the particles density in the air:

this is a fact, even if my "steady photons" theory is wrong. So we have a "vacuum" which is full of photons -we don't know whether they are travelling or they are) in a steady state.

When I use the word "full" I mean "as many as is necessary" to see (stars, sun, galaxies). "

 

 

By vacuum I was referring to the absence of matter, so the presence of photons is irrelevant. In the absence of particles to absorb and release photons, how can the energy be transmitted without photons moving? How can one detect these "photosensible particles" if they are not matter like atoms? What are the implications of moving with respect to these particles? I agree with an earlier comment that this sounds a lot like the aether.

 

 

Anyway, light travel at c is a prediction of Maxwell's equation, which has been repeatedly tested. We do experiments where electromagnetic energy is transferred over some distance. We have quantum electrodynamics, which is likewise a well-tested theory.

[Epiménides]

Epiménides, as it stands, your "theory" is little different from fairy dust. It has no substance. One more time, it is not our responsibility to come up with ways to reject your non-hypothesis. It is your responsibility to bolster your non-hypothesis to the stage of a true hypothesis. Your persistent use of invalid logical arguments does not satisfy this responsibility.

 

A new logical argument: slander as a substitute for answer.

 

_________

 

You said a lot of things.

 

By vacuum I was referring to the absence of matter, so the presence of photons is irrelevant. In the absence of particles to absorb and release photons, how can the energy be transmitted without photons moving? How can one detect these "photosensible particles" if they are not matter like atoms? What are the implications of moving with respect to these particles? I agree with an earlier comment that this sounds a lot like the aether.

 

 

Anyway, light travel at c is a prediction of Maxwell's equation, which has been repeatedly tested. We do experiments where electromagnetic energy is transferred over some distance. We have quantum electrodynamics, which is likewise a well-tested theory.

 

Since the beginning of time there was a plenty of particles everywhere. This doesn't contradict neither the BigBang cosmology nor the Newtonian cosmology (infinite-eternal universe). I don't know where is vacuum. Maybe vacuum "is present" in a sort of "porosity" that regulates the density of matter. So these "particles everywhere" constitute the light conductivity.

 

My "photosensibile particles" are massive. They are atoms. It is impossible to conceive something massless. In physics it is a delirium.

 

You can see my photosensible particles in air, glass, water, and so on. We can see them, but we can't falsify our points of view about the problem whether they travel or not (at least yet).

 

Implications of moving with respect to these particles: you are right, even it could imply the famous "aether wind". But the same problems are present in the accepted theory too. I say that considering those streams of millions and millions of travelling photons everywhere that the accepted theory states.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Epiménides

[mooeypoo]

Criticizing your theory is not slander. It's criticism of your THEORY.

 

that's what is done in a peer review process, Epimenides, we criticize a theory to see if it holds in reality. We would be neglecting our scientific obligations if we didn't. And you will encounter much more (and much harsher) of this criticism when you come out to the world with your theory.

 

Please remember the following:

1. The burden of proof is on you.

The current theories are proven over and over again. They make clear (and true) predictions. They work in reality. We are not the ones who need to prove the current theories. You, as the one offering an alternative, should provide proof for YOUR theory.

 

2. Proving one alternative is false does not mean a SINGLE alternative is therefore true.

Even if current theory is false, that doesn't mean your theory is true. For example, if I prove that pink elephants don't exist, that doesn't mean that purple ones exist necessarily. Your attempt to poke holes in the current theories is notable, but it's insufficient in proving your theory as true, even if you do succeed.

 

3. If you're not ready to take criticism on your theory, you should rethink your readiness in publishing it.

We are a science forum with very smart, accomplished people. Some are PhDs, some aren't. We're all rigorous in our scientific demands. But we are not as rigorous as the *ACTUAL* peer review process. You shouldn't take criticism so personally, you should take it as a preparation for a real peer review. Think of it this way: If your theory fails our peer review, what do you think the result would be for a formal peer review?

 

Welcome to a mini peer review.

Good luck.

 

~moo

[Epiménides]

You're right, but I'm ready to take criticism on my ideas.

You're right too, but the burden of proof is not only on me. The burden of proof is only on me if I wanted to impose my theory (if I wanted to substitute the accepted theory). I just showed other view, other idea, other explanation about.

A jugde cannot defeat/reject a new clue in an investigation just because the witness who brought the clue doesn't have any proof/evidence. I think science should work in the same way.

That's all.