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

The photonic theory of everything.

  1. Aug 8, 2004 #1
    The photonic theory of everything.

    I have as promised made an intensive visit to your web-site. What troubles me most is the lack of explanations for macro phenomenon as attributed to EM radiation. This is as follows :
    (1) By observation we know that EM radiation decreases in intensity according to the inverse square law , the eigen value of individual photons remains the same. No account is given in your theory as to how this might take place.
    (2) Secondly your theory gives a lot of importance to fields , while giving no explanation of what these fields are or of how they originate. You go into elaborate explanations (not being snide ) of how these fields might effect various phenomenon but offer no explanation as to the origin of the fields themselves.
    (3) Referring to your observation that blue light turns to red etc., while propagating through different media , might not this be the result of some kind of filtration process ? Does the original frequency emerge at the other end ?
    That’s all that I am able to come up with for the moment , I have made some changes to my site , if you could refresh it , these should be observable : http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex

    Apart from these small differences we seem to be in agreement about almost everything else.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 8, 2004 #2
    I revisited your site; the graphics are still blocked for me.

    The rules governing EM radiation still hold in PTE. The intensity diminishes with distance because there are fewer photons per square meter, just as classically so.

    The fields, as you say, are very important in PTE. They are fields of electromagnetic change. They just follow the classic rules set down by Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, etc. PTE goes a step further with a hypothesis to complete Einstein's unified field concept. Einstein couldn't complete the unified field theory because he had abandoned the classic space-time concept, and that concept is necessary to show the cause of relativity.

    Blue light turns to red when traveling through gravity fields as well as other fields; it doesn't change back when out of the fields. It is well known that this effect from the sun makes the sun seem to be moving away from us at a fast clip. Dark matter gravity would shut down the whole big bang theory so you won't see that figured into the bigbangers faithful calculations.

    Keep on chuggin !!

  4. Aug 8, 2004 #3
    When I first approached this problem of what the photon structure might look like , my ideas were very similar to the ones which you have elaborated on. I even wrote an article about it entitled Light as a nano machine where I pictured this tiny structure with electric and magnetic wings which exchanged energy and kept it moving through space. I soon realized that what I was trying to do was to pour new wine into old bottles by just taking Maxwell’s theory and trying to put a new face to it. It didn’t work not least b’cos I couldn’t really imagine a tiny speck floating around with wings 5000km or so across , which the nano machine would have had to have when dealing with radio wave wavelengths and below. Further where did the fields come from , did they originate with the electron ? It seemed unlikely. As I thought more about it and researched further I came to the conclusion that there are no electric fields or magnetic fields but only electromagnetic fields. Which is what led to the model of the photon I now have in the form of “aumic” theory. Further I think that the double slit experiment and the EPR experiment go to prove just the opposite of what QM claims , namely that there is an aether and that that aether is an all encompassing virtual photon field the energy of the photon travels through this field. Secondly I don’t believe that photons can survive separately . Even gamma rays arriving from neutron star sources hundreds of thousands of light years away follow the inverse square law.
  5. Aug 8, 2004 #4
    Single photons don't follow the inverse square law. I got past the problem you point out about wings in the horizontal and vertical planes by realizing that the radiating fields were not attached to their photon-point source. Each point in space operates on its own based upon what its neighboring points are doing; all following Mexwell's rules.

    We need to make a computer model of the photon. Then we could turn a bunch of them loose in a computer and see if they make universes and galaxies. :smile:

    I think I'll work toward that.

    Keep on chuggin !!

  6. Aug 8, 2004 #5
    Single photons don't follow the inverse square law.
    Is there any record of this ? Think of the implications . If single photons don't follow the inverse square law , then the problem is solved before we even begin . The photon is a particle and that's that. There can be no argument about it. Further if single photons don't follw the inverse square law , why should a collection of photons follow it. Protons in cosmic rays , are also sub-atomic particles , which orginate in neutron starts and manifest themselves as a part of cosmic rays , also travel in groups but they don't follow the inverse square law. They follow Newton's laws of motion. While gamma rays , which common sense tells us should also follow Newton's laws of motion because of their high energy , but they don't they follow the inverse square law.So if you can give me a reference I would really like to follow it up, because my whole theory is based on the fact that single photons do follow the inverse square law , if they don't my theory falls apart , it's gone and that's all there is to it. I will be the first to admit, if what you state is true that my theory is a load of BS and call it a day, which I'm sure will make many people happy.
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2004
  7. Aug 8, 2004 #6
    I thought it was general knowledge that light energy always comes in packets, this was discovered by Max Planck back around 1905. Single photons can't follow the inverse square law because the single photon must always have potential energy E = hv, where h is Planck's constant and v is the frequency of the packet. The best reference I have is "Fundamentals of Photonics", Bahaa E. A. Saleh and Malvin Carl Tfeich, 1991, Wiley Interscience. It is a graduate level book.

    This does not mean the photon is a particle IMHO. It is a saturated electromagnetic point moving through space. Fields radiating outward from the point obey the inverse square rule, but the point itself stays intact at full strength. A collection of photons obey the inverse square rule because they occupy larger and larger volume and so photons per unit volume is less.

    I guess I'll have to make that computer model :smile:

    Keep on chuggin !!

  8. Aug 8, 2004 #7

    Do you think photons/emr is a push or pull process? Or, does it matter in your way of thinking?
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2004
  9. Aug 9, 2004 #8
    To Vern
    I thought it was general knowledge that light energy always comes in packets, this was discovered by Max Planck back around 1905. Single photons can't follow the inverse square law because the single photon must always have potential energy E = hv, where h is Planck's constant and v is the frequency of the packet.

    I will return in a moment to the original question of whether single photons follow the inverse square law . I think that this is where all the confusion arises , the frequency of a photon and its eigen energy value are two completely distinct but related phenomenon . Think about it if what you say is true , if we take a 1W. ultraviolet light emitting diode and point it at a light emitting screen , it should make no difference whether the screen is 1cm away form the source or 10m. away the electrons should continue to be emitted with the same force. This does not happen , as the distance between the source and the screen increases the number of scintillations die of rapidly , however calculations show that the number of photons which should reach the screen remains large , if we assume that the diode is emitting about 10 19 photons/ sec. Then over a distance of 10 m. from the source there should be at least 10 18 photons reaching the screen over an area of 1m. , why are the scintillations so limited since according to your theory the diode is emitting photons of the same eigen energy and they are reaching the screen in such large numbers ( i.e., 10 12 photons per millimeter ), surely the number of scintillations should not reduce so drastically ? The answer is that the intensity of the photons has reduced to an extent that they lack the power to impart to free electrons the necessary energy equal to the work function required to eject them from the metal’s surface. Now hold on a minute you say , we have been through all this before and we know that it not the intensity but the frequency of the impingent light which is the causative factor. But as I see it , it is the combined factors of the eigen energy value of the photon its intensity and frequency when taken together which are the causative factor. In order to understand this we have to re-define the terms : First of all frequency represents the interval between one photon and the next arriving at the destination , these photons might all be from different origins being emitted from different electrons , in which case the intensity of the incident light will be slight . The intensity is frequency when applied to photons present in a single line of force . So intensity means the number of photons per line of force , notice that here the frequency remains the same but the intensity is greater because they are all arranged in a single line of force and will therefore all be absorbed at the same point. . Now as the wave propagates further from the source the intensity (i.e number of photons per line of force , is reduced. ) while the eigen energy values of the photon remains the same. Think about it , the photoelectric effect has little to do with independent eigen values and everything to do with the intensity of those eigen values. If we extend this theory to the photoelectric effect it would mean that the bound electron undergoes continuous excitation in order to reach the level of energy required by the work function for it to be ejected from the metal surface. This can only be provided by a series of photons hitting the same electron in rapid succession (i.e photons from a single line of force. ) So once we re-define frequency to mean the number of photons of a certain energy arriving at a certain time interval and separate this from the actual eigen value we are making progress. Thus an electron absorbing a single photon of a certain eigen value will immediately re-emit a photon of the same eigen value , that eigen value has nothing to do with the frequency with which that particular photon is emitted. If the electron is continuously excited at the correct energy level then it will emit photons of a particular eigen value at a particular frequency ( i.e ., so many photons per second. )
    Returning to the experiment referred to earlier of an ultra violet light emitting diode , it is now easy to see that the eigen value has little to do with the photoelectric effect and frequency and intensity has everything to do with it. P.S since I have used up so much space the question of why individual photons follow or try to follow the inverse square law will have to wait. See : http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pg7.html
  10. Aug 9, 2004 #9
    I don't think you could describe it as either push or pull. I'm not trying to invent a new photon. I'm just using the classic photon model developed after Planck and Einstein described it.

    My carear field was electromagnetics, I'm a retired electronics engineer. There's an old saying that if the only thing you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I guess my hammer is electromagnetics :smail:

    Keep on chuggin !!

  11. Aug 9, 2004 #10
    The quote was taken from your web site. I don't see where we differ. I said single photons don't follow the inverse square rule. Isn't that what you said in the quote?

    Keep on chuggin !!

  12. Aug 9, 2004 #11
    This is due to the unique nature of photons , which unlike sound or other waves which tend to dissipate their energy as they travel , retain their initial energies intact until they are either absorbed or reach their destination.
    The quote was taken from your web site. I don't see where we differ. I said single photons don't follow the inverse square rule. Isn't that what you said in the quote?

    Well the above quote applies equally well to QM and taken in a general way is true. However , a single photon , because of its interaction with the virtual photon field does not follow the inverse square law , it loses energy and transforms into a virtual photon this is my thinking at present. Thus the photon never loses its identity , it just ceases to exist , this is another attribute of its structure according to “aumic” theory . In fact the very reason that the inverse square law is applicable at all for photons is due to interactions with the virtual photon field . If it was not for this interaction , there would be absolutely no need for photons to spread out in the manner they do spread out , or for their intensity to vary inversely with the square of distance.
  13. Aug 9, 2004 #12
    According to “aumic “ theory neither , push nor pull forces apply to EM. In the presence of a real photon the , photons of the virtual photon field , which is present throughout the Universe , line up in the direction of propagation of the real photon , forming a line whose ends rest on infinity , and the energy of the real photon is passed along this line (line of force) at the speed of light.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: The photonic theory of everything.
  1. Theory of everything (Replies: 0)

  2. Theory of Everything (Replies: 4)

  3. Theory Of Everything (Replies: 2)