Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

New Theory on the Nature of Light

  1. Jul 21, 2003 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 21, 2003 #2
    Thanks for pointing to the article McQueen.

    Much of what is stated there makes complete sense to me. (although I haven't really investigated the details so I don't mean to imply that I agree with everything that was said)

    I have always believed that light is entirely a wave. The particle nature of light only comes into play when light interacts with matter. So I have always seen the particle nature of light to be a direct result of interaction with matter waves. The corpuscular nature of light is nothing more than an optical illusion.

    sorry, a little play on words. I couldn't resist
  4. Jul 21, 2003 #3

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: New Theory on the Nature of Light

    You say that as though it were trivial, but the fact interaction with matter is the only way we even know about light. Nothing definitive can be said about what light is doing when it is not interacting with matter. Sure, you can infer that it is traveling at 'c' by making spacetime measurements at the start and stop points of a light pulse, but you don't collect any data for the path the light took.

    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.
  5. Jul 22, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: New Theory on the Nature of Light

    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 possess this mathematical wave-like nature. Otherwise, we would expect single photons passing through the slits to accumulate in patterns associated with particle behavior.
  6. Jul 22, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: New Theory on the Nature of Light

    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.

    So you see a whole photon or some multiple thereof, and no fractional photons. Which is what was being asserted at the beginning of the thread anyway.

    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?
  7. Jul 22, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Theory on the Nature of Light

    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.
  8. Jul 22, 2003 #7

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Theory on the Nature of Light

    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.
  9. Jul 22, 2003 #8
    Re: Re: Re: Re: New Theory on the Nature of Light

    If I am not mistaken that is where the trouble all started.
  10. Jul 22, 2003 #9
    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.
  11. Jul 22, 2003 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: New Theory on the Nature of Light

    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.
  12. Jul 23, 2003 #11

    To begin with, I would think that this thread belonged here in the first place since it started with a post that was obviously pointing to an article on theory development.

    However, I don't understand why my post was quoted for the reason for the Toss

    In the P.S. of my post I had suggested that there may very well be a way to detect the validity of the theory using optics. Unfortunately I am not up on optics so I personally don't have mathematical tools at my fingertips to the answer. However, it would seem to me to be a relatively easy question to answer using any elementary physics book on optics.

    Can light interact with other light in a non-corpuscular way?

    Is this a valid question of science? Or is this question in the realm of developmental theory too?
  13. Jul 23, 2003 #12
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Theory on the Nature of Light

    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:-
    (1) An electric current in a wire is carried by photons and not by electrons : Any elementary calculation should show that this is definitely a possibility.
    (2) Since electricity is carried by photons and not by electrons how are electric fields generated : The explanation given is that an electric field is nothing but 'linked' connected photons.
    (3) Why is the speed of light constant : The explanation given is that the whole of space is pervaded by weak electromagnetic radiation which enables photons to travel at the speed of light . That;s what I could make out as far as what is new .
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2003
  14. Jul 27, 2003 #13
    Yes, really interesting ideas!
    I have feel, that here speaks radio-physics.
    I think, now you should justify your ideas mathematically.
    I already tried to do it, but it was necessary temporarily to stop this work, because there were many problems concerning structure of space inside of atoms.

    Our main and insuperable difficulty is, that our thinking cannot to turn away concept of blank space. This concept is included in our subconsciousness physically and physiologically. Even if we try to explain our ideas only mathematically, all the same we create vectors and matrixes and, therefore, we inlet units of a hollow, as a background.
    Even when considering the same physical vacuum (aumic), we unconsciously arrange it in a hollow.
    Paradox, whether the truth?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  15. Jul 30, 2003 #14
    I feel that these ideas are interesting because there might be a kernel of truth in them , if you think about it , starting from the fundamentals so to speak , neither of the theories current about electricity flowing in a conductor make much sense. What we have in the present quantum theory of electricity is that it's a cloud of electrons moving down the conductor . Ok so if we think about it this is just a laser without the pumping effect right ? What happens in a laser is the emission of photons. The present quantum theory is full of factual contradictions.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2003
  16. Aug 12, 2003 #15
    My apologies! I have undertaken repair of my flat and so could not approach to the computer two weeks.
    I have made the simple scheme for an explanation of effect of birth (of originating) of photons.
    In my model the electrical current in conductor represents exchange of resonance oscillations between multi-frequency emitters of energy - polytrons. These emitters are disposed inside of atoms. The photons represent portions of tangential energy of resonance oscillations of polytrons (see attached file: Quantum transitions.pdf).
    I would like to hear your opinion on this scheme and then to discuss the mathematics.

    Attached Files:

  17. Aug 18, 2003 #16
    Your theory is interesting , but I don't think it fits the observed facts. I hope you don't mind me saying this b'cos that's what every new theory needs , criticism . At least vast progress has been made here because you seem to accept that electrical energy is carried by photons. Your theory seems to be very similar to Schrodinger's standing wave theory ? I say that your theory does not fit the observed facts because your theory seems to suggest a multiplicity of possible resonance values , whereas I think observed facts prove that in fact we are dealing with particular values of energy. In a conductor carrying an electric current , these values of energy must be particularly low and particularly constant and must therefore emanate from interactions with the free electrons in the conductor for the most part and not with electrons bound up with the atom. This value of energy is obviously bound up with the amount of emf applied to the conductor. Further in the post of VSL it is made clear that light , also a form of electromagnetic radiation , travels thropugh a medium by the absorption and emission of photons by electrons in the atoms of the medium , why should not a similar phenomenon take place during the propagation of electricity , although since in a conductor free electrons are present in large numbers the absorption and emission of photons could take place through free electrons .I hope this makes my comments a little clearer.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2003
  18. Aug 21, 2003 #17
    In this quote you came to the main barrier, which arose and arises at creation of the true physical theory of the universe:
    What is space?
    How to explain and to understand infinity of space?
    With the help of my model I can explain both passing of light through dielectrics, and superconductivity of metals. I can construct of polytrons a crystal of any existing forms. I can offer a new explanation for magnetism.
    But I feel, that in mine mathematics there is no main link.
    I prolong to hope, that in the forum " Theory Development " the people will come which want constructively to consider essence of new ideas, but to not press them by aged dogmas and scientific authorities of past centuries.
    I am glad, that you came in the forum. Your Indian civilization and culture is one of most ancient. The culture shapes a mentality and secures it genetically. I am sure, that the features of your culture will help you to bring new knowledge.
    As to 'aumic' waves, for them good analog can be Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). The wavelength is equal 7.35 cm. Atomic oscillators of hydrogen (these can be electrons) radiate this wave at quantum transition from m=234 to m=236, i.e. at temperature about absolute zero.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook