Challenging the Role of Photons in Explaining Light's Particle Behavior

[Dale]

With Frame c a relativistic inertial reference frame (RIRF), what physical problem arises from your lack of satisfactory transforms?

Without the transforms "frame c" is not even clearly defined, and the form of the laws of physics in it are completely unknown. No experimental predictions may be made and the results of experiments cannot be compared to their expected values.

 

[Faradave]

Without the transforms "frame c" is not even clearly defined...

OK. But isn’t it true that you have no problem with Frame<c, even with v very close c, where path length may contract down to a Planck unit? For all we know, that is sufficiently close for “contact” - transfer of energy and momentum or even annihilation. So I've given you a, "renormalization solution". I've redefined "contact" so that it exists in a Frame<c that we can all live with.

I have no problem with that. I just feel that pinholes offer a much more tangible explanation for the particle aspects of light than “photons”. Everywhere you have a photon impact, I have a "real contact".

The difference is that pinholes predict annihilations with light between electron and positron and photons don’t. Pinholes also offer equally tangible explanations for many other phenomena where we only have descriptions now. And the wave aspects of pinholes are not mutually exclusive, the way duality is.

 

[George Jones]

Physics Forums Rules,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

in part, say

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

Personal theories are not allowed here.