Can Quanta Change Color?

[RandallB]

May I suggest you go to a library, and read Ref. [1] and [2], unless you prefer to be stuck in the dark ages.

[1] D. Benredjem et al. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. v.34, p.1369 (2001).
[2] L. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett v. 44, p.1599 (1980).

Unfortunately the Libraries I have access to only have online access to the past 12 months of those Pubs.
I’m sure the details on “Doppler Shift and Freq. redistribution …” must do a good QM job of explaining the changes in photons without “incorrectly” referring to stretching of photons as some physicists sometimes do. Notably as astrophysicists Lineweaver and Davis of Mount Stromlo in Australia did in Scientific American March 2005. In their sidebar on page 41 where the correctly refute “Tired Light”.

Although they are not commenting on QM. I accept the result of “individual photons get stretched (thereby losing energy)” as the best description we have, AND a paradox, until a more complete description than QM, can be found. In my opinion it's only from inside QM that this can be seen as not a paradox.

So in that search for a more complete or even correct description of Physics, I simply choose work from the view of those “Dark Ages”. As in the Opinion by Lee Smolin “Why No New ‘Einstein’?” Physics Today June 2005 p56; we need a few more people outside the box questioning the foundation of QM, which I do. I believe a new approach with the objective of combining Quantum and Classical Physics without the uncertainty of QM has the best chance of solving the Paradox’s. Although just making up some “Meta-Physics” seems to be an easy and rather popular thing for many to do these days. I’d rather see a scientifically testable well thought out solution to the issue. Proving to be a bit of a challenge I admit. Still, I’m betting on me and I feel good about my chances and my approach.

RB

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Well, I'm sure we all look forward to toasting your success.