- #1
McQueen
- 256
- 0
You might like to check out this site. It has some interesting ideas.
http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight
http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight
Originally posted by NeutronStar
The particle nature of light only comes into play when light interacts with matter.
Originally posted by Tom
In any case, it is the wave nature of light that is illusory. Light only seems wavelike when the number of photons in the beam is >>>1. Reduce the intensity, and you are forced to go with the quantum description.
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Hold on. If you do the double-slit experiment one photon at a time, doesn't the light still act like a wave? Granted, you need many trials to see clearly the emergent wave phenomena, but it was my understanding that even single photons possesses this mathematical wave-like nature. Otherwise, we would expect single photons passing through the slits to accumulate in patterns associated with particle behavior.
Originally posted by DrChinese
I think that is exactly the same thing that Tom said.
On the other hand, it takes doing the experiment with many repetitions (i.e. >>>1) to see the wave pattern emerge. This is due to the fact that a single photon interaction with the film (or whatever is used for recording) is all that can be registered, even though then expectation value at that point is much less than 1.
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Right, but doesn't the fact that the expected value at any given point is much less than 1 indicate something wave-like about how the particle moves? While the measurement indicates a particle, it still doesn't act like a particle.
If I am not mistaken that is where the trouble all started.Originally posted by hypnagogue
Hold on. If you do the double-slit experiment one photon at a time, doesn't the light still act like a wave?
My point is that you can't say anything definitive about how the particle moves, because you can only collect data on it by stopping it. Specifically, you can only collect data on it by stopping it in an interaction with matter.I think there is something in the article about fields of force actually being made up of 'linked' (connected ) photons. And that the photon exhibits wave like properties because of these associated fields. As far as I cam make out the author claims that because current is made up of photons , how can there be electric fields. It is not possible , right. Anyway
Originally posted by Tom
Specifically, you can only collect data on it by stopping it in an interaction with matter.
Originally posted by NeutronStar
That's really the only point that I was making.
What right do we have to claim that light itself is corpuscular when all we can ever measure is it's interaction with matter?
All we can ever say about light is that light interacts with matter in a corpuscular way. This could actually be solely due to the nature of matter and not at all due to the nature of light.
I have held this view since I first learned of these interactions. And it seems to me that the article that McQueen pointed to suggests that this may very well be the case.
Whether it is or not we may never know for sure. But I'm certainly comfortable with a theory that suggests as much.
P.S. I never really got into optics much. But isn't it true that light can interact with other light in a more continuous fashion? Seems to me that if it can then this would pretty much prove the point, and the case can be closed that light is indeed a wave. Then the corpuscular properties would necessarily belong to matter.
What can be the significance of something which is undetected? Seems to me that you would be pretty much free to speculate without having to worry about any nusicence data. Sounds a bit like something that you would find in a church! I think this thread has stepped over the line. Off to Theory Development.
The reason I had brought this new theory to the attention of the forum is exactly because it brings to light (pardon the pun ) many new ideas:-Originally posted by DrChinese
However, I would still ask this question: how does this "new" interpretation yield any testable predictions which differ from the standard interpretation? This goes to the core of most "interpretations" of QM: what is new and interesting?
Yes, really interesting ideas!Originally posted by McQueen
You might like to check out this site. It has some interesting ideas.
http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight
… The problem is complicated by the fact that during the time when many of the theories on the nature of light were being formulated there was not enough information available about the manner in which light originated. While it was perfectly possible to understand the process by which sound originated, the origin of light was more obscure. …
… I have termed this weak electro-magnetic radiation, which pervades the whole of the Universe as 'aumic' waves. The term is derived from the Hindu view of the creation that the universe was brought into existence by the God Brahma intoning the word AUM, the resonance in this utterance gave rise to the Universe and brought all matter into being.
This theory as can be seen gives a comprehensive explanation not only of the speed of light and electromagnetic radiation but also explains why light travels at a constant speed, since 'aumic' waves pervade every part of the Universe, they represent space itself, it would therefore be impossible to travel faster than the speed of light since to do so would be to violate space time itself. Since 'aumic' waves originate in matter they pervade the whole Universe they are, in a sense, synonymous with space.
The new theory on the nature of light proposes that light is not just a wave or a particle, but a combination of both. It suggests that light behaves as a wave in some situations and as a particle in others, depending on the conditions.
The traditional theories of light, such as the wave theory and the particle theory, only explain certain aspects of light's behavior. The new theory provides a more comprehensive understanding of light and how it behaves in different situations.
There is a growing body of evidence from experiments and observations that support the new theory on the nature of light. For example, the double-slit experiment has shown that light can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviors.
If this new theory is proven to be true, it could greatly impact our understanding of light and its applications. It may lead to new technologies and advancements in fields such as optics, telecommunications, and quantum computing.
Like any new scientific theory, there are always criticisms and challenges. Some scientists may argue that the new theory is too complex or does not fully explain all aspects of light's behavior. Further research and experimentation will be needed to address these criticisms and validate the new theory.