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

Trivial Pursuit

  1. May 20, 2004 #1
    I have been reading and re-reading a post made here recently by geistkiesel in which he refers to the possibility that the alternative to the elaborate theories of QED might by comparison prove so trivial as to be embarrassing. Here are his exact words:

    You must excuse me. I have discovered some useful heresy, though acceptance is always resisted, especially when the alternative to the complexity of quantum theory is embarrassingly trivial.

    The more I think about it the more likely it seems that this indeed might be the case. Even the earliest cave-man must have noticed in the dim sub-conscious of his mind that when he lit a fire at some distance ,and away , ( to one side ) from the cave entrance , the cave remained dark , while if the fire was in front of the cave entrance , the cave was lit-up. Similarly when he stood outside in the sunshine he must have noticed that his form threw a shadow and that the light did not flow around him to fill in his shadow and so on and so on. All of which tends to support the view that the QED standpoint that light can follow an infinite number of paths but eventually decides to follow one particular path is a gratuitous exercise ,necessitated by the theory of wave-particle duality.

    The new theory of light which I have put forward ( which can be found at http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id5.html ) is soemtimes ridiculed on the grounds that the wave-length ( 10 –6 m.) I have chosen for the conduction photon wave-length is absurdly large. However consider the fact that according to the Debye limit , any wave-length (i.e photon ) shorter than 10-8 m. would get trapped either in the crystal lattice of the electrical conductor or within the atoms of the conductor themselves. Further consider the fact that the electron is not emitting this photon in one continuous burst of energy but rather in pulses or bands of energy . Consider also that during the process of electrical conduction the electrons are more or less dedicated to producing conduction photons . The two layers of a battery consisting of an electron deficient layer and an electron rich layer are connected by a wire , this is enough for the conduction process to start and for the electrons to assume their dedicated function , of emitting and absorbing conduction photons. Lastly wave lengths of 10-6m. remain one of the few unexplored areas of the electromagnetic spectrum , no-one has as yet been able to produce radio-waves of these wave-lengths and the technology to detect electro-magnetic radiation of the wave-length of 10-6 m. is not at present available. So how can people talk so much about something they know so little about ? In conclusion 1/1000 th. of a millimeter is not really all that large.

    When taken in a literal sense my theory is similar to more elaborate theories , which on reflection attempt to try and put into mathematical form , the physical observations that have been made . Here is another quote from a post at this forum:
    Quantum field theory is a theory in which the variables are fields, and particles come in secondarily as "quanta" of the fields…………………… Whereas a pure particle theory, like Schroedinger's or Dirac's will have a physics defined by momenta and positions of particles, which may each range over continua, but are finite in number, a field theory deals in objects (fields) which have infinitely many degrees of freedom. Things that were ordinary functions in particle theories are now functionals. Variables that used to take on numeric values are now distributions.

    And an idea of how these problems were dealt with , from the same post :

    The way these singularities are handled is by first Regularization, and then Renormalization. Regularization creates a non-physical, but mathematically consistent deformation of the theory, which is used to complete the quantization, and then renormalization, which shoves the singularities to an external multiplier where they don't interfere with the innards of the theory, completes the process and removes the deformation.

    If what is quoted above is taken at face value , what we have for a definition of the ”field” , is a field made up of numerous particles. This is quite an accurate description of my theory of light , wherein the distribution of energy in each photon gives rise to its own ”field “ , since this is a localized phenomenon the question of AAD (Action at a distance ) does not arise . The individual photon ”fields” , together make up the macro electro-magnetic field. So what we have is a ‘field’ made up of particle like structures , or alternatively , particle like structures existing within a {I]”field”[/I].
    Secondly , no-one , in this forum or elsewhere has been able to dispute the fact that the model of the photon which I have suggested , does in fact account for every property that the photon is known to possess : This model accounts for (a) The manner in which a photon is able to retain its energy (identity )intact over huge distances (b) it accounts for the fact that light travels in straight lines (c) it accounts for the manner in which the energy of a photon is inversely proportional to its wave-length and frequency (d) It accounts for the wave-particle properties of electro-magnetic radiation (e) it account for the trillion plus possible photon frequencies and wave-lengths .(f) It accounts for the fact that EM travels at the speed of light. Quite apart from this innumerable physicists , including Henri Lorentz and Albert Einstein , have openly admitted that the existence of an aether (similar to the virtual photon field I have suggested ) would immediately solve many of the hitherto unexplainable phenomenon on which QM is founded , namely the double slit experiment and the Stern-Gehrlach quantum entanglement phenomenon.
    To elaborate still further on the agreement between my theory and observed phenomenon , it also accounts accurately for the conduction of electrical energy in an electrical conductor and for the presence of electromagnetic fields around a wire carrying an electrical current and advances a new , simple and acceptable explanation for the phenomenon of magnetism.
    The most telling proof of my new theory of light , lies however in the qualitative differences that are observed between near and far electromagnetic fields. If you stand ten feet below (and not in the air like a bird might ) a power line , you stand a good chance of getting fried to a frizzle , which is why power lines are built so high in the first place. Yet 50 metres away from the line , there literally wouldn’t be enough power available to lift a single hair of your head. Present theories do not adequately explain why or how the power should fall off so rapidly or why there should be such qualitative differences between the near and far fields. My theory explains comprehensively and in a manner easily verifiable by experiment , exactly how this qualitative difference between the two types of fields comes about.
    So the conclusion is , that it is embarrassing , QED sounds like something that has been imported from the outer deeps of space from an alien intelligence and which has still not been properly understood , my New Theory of Light by contrast sounds embarrassingly ”antiquated and simple ” like something that might have been suggested by Henri Coulomb or even Humphrey Davies . (Faraday’s boss ) . Having said this it must also be said that my theory works for almost every scenario , related to electricity , magnetism and electro-magnetism , which is more than can be said for QED , most of these phenomenon are also verifiable through experiment and in some cases through direct measurement.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 21, 2004 #2
    The existence of the Lamb Shift is often quoted as definitve proof of QED. But , in fact all that the Lamb Shift proves is that self interaction of photons by means of “virtual” photons does in fact takes place. How does this serve to prove anything about QED which is primarily supposed to be a theory of the propagation of electromagnetic radiation ? In fact the Lamb shift goes towards proving The New Theory of Light more than it goes toward proving QED. How does QED explain the fact that photons retain their energies (identities ) over large distances. In point of fact it doesn’t.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook