Re: Classical wave theory and tired light

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, srp2inc@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 9 déc, 15:43, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The problem with orthodox pseudo physicists is that they believe
that nothing exists outside established theories, not even
physical reality.

They specifically have never become aware, or are unable to
comprehend (which amounts to the same) that it was proven
100 years ago (Einstein, Planck) that light does not travel as
waves, but as discrete quanta.

Historically and technically wrong. Planck's results strongly suggest
that the exchange of energy between matter and the radiation field is
quantised -

Actually it was Willhelm Wien's experiment with the
black body that proved that the exchange was not continuous
as Maxwell's wave theory predicted.
[cut]
Einstein showed that the radiation field can be treated as if
quantised, but, again, what does this prove about how light
travels?

No.

But it proved that the energy quanta that caused
the electrons to be released in the photoelectric
experiment had the very same and exact characteristics
and energy as those were emitted and directed on the
material from which the electrons were freed.

No, Wien (and Einstein) didn't prove this. Millikan proved this (i.e., tested, with the theory passing the experimental test). Wien's results, Planck's hypothesis, Einstein's photon model all suggested this. Millikan proved it.

An experiment that can be reproduced by anybody with
a minimum of equipment.

Millikan's experiment is difficult to do properly. Millikan's paper is worth reading.

The "proof" is a matter of logical interpretation of these
facts.

That's a very dubious way of trying to do science. If we're talking about theories that purport to describe the real world, experimental testing is _needed_. Given that there are generally an infinity of theories that can be constructed that agree with some experimental results, it isn't "proof" in the mathematical sense, but "proof" in the older sense (i.e., "tested, and passed").

The Copenhagen school does not recognizes that
formal logic also applies at the fundamental level while
the causalist school does.

A surprising statement about the Copenhagen school! Can you support this statement?

I will quote you de Broglie's own writings in this regards:

"The search for causality is an instinctive tendency of
the human mind. It consists in admitting that the events
that successively manifest themselves to us do not
follow one another by chance, but derive from one
another, being connected by such links that each
of them is the necessary consequence of those
which preceded it."

"It is obviously certain that the emission of a particle
by the source is the cause of its arrival on the detector.
Now, the causal link between the two phenomena can
be established only through the existence of a
trajectory and to deny this existence, is tantamount
to sacrificing causality, it is condemning ourselves
not to comprehend."

Both of these quotes are from "La physique nouvelle
et les quanta", Flammarion, France 1937, 2nd Edition
1993, with new 1973 Preface by L. de Broglie

Page V of the intro for the first and page 13 for the second.

I don't think this book was translated to English.

Now, this is the crux of the matter.

If you find that you cannot fully agree de Broglie's
clean and clear definition of what causality is, even at
the fundamental level, anything I could say in trying
to explain any aspect of the 3-spaces geometry model
model to you, including photons mandatory very
mechanical loss of energy with any net change in
direction, will make as little sense to you as
autumn leaves falling to the ground with you
unable to see or even imagine the tree they
are falling from.

I would hope that de Broglie did not intend the above to be a _definition_ of causality. That we observe A, followed by B, followed by C does not mean that C is caused by B is caused by A. That C follows B does not automatically mean that C is the necessary consequence of B. I do agree with what you wrote (your own translation of de Broglie?), that in such cases we will search for causality. We will even assume that it exists where it does not, such is the power of this tendency.

Is a classical billiard-ball trajectory necessary between two events necessary for the 1st to cause the 2nd? I'd say clearly no.

Do I "fully agree" with de Broglie? Possibly, depending on what is meant by "trajectory". Possibly, perhaps probably, not. If "trajectory" is restricted to classical billiard-ball trajectories, then I don't agree.

But I think that what de Broglie wrote was quite reasonable.

So, if you believe that only those who "fully agree" have any chance at all of understanding any aspect of your "3-spaces geometry model", then don't bother trying to explain it.

I'm amused at the concept that understanding your model might require full agreement as a prerequisite. Surely it would be more important to _understand_ de Broglie's point, rather than to agree with it. A reader who understands de Broglie's point, but doesn't agree with it, might not agree with your model either, but why should they be unable to understand it?

Still, if you feel this way, go ahead and keep your model secret.

You mentioned in another post that you expected
that most new theories would be respectably
"orthodox", and that, while new, they wouldn't
challenge existing established theories (except
perhaps in small specific areas).

I can tell you that this belief always was universal in
orthodox circles through history. It is precisely this
view that prevents orthodoxes from ever being able
to integrage new fundamental paradigms,

I disagree. Firstly, the orthodoxy of most new theories is supported by history - most new theories are developed within the existing paradigm. If this was not the case, then scientific revolutions wouldn't be revolutionary. This idea is hardly new; see Kuhn, for example.

which
prompted Planck's remark with regards to orthodoxes
dying out with their old paradigms leaving the
following generation to have a better look at new
options however radically different from current
orthodox beliefs of the era.

Planck was wrong, and he showed himself to be wrong, in the rapid acceptance of Einstein's special theory of relativity. There are other cases, too. Yes, there can be resistance from the old school, but the shift to the new paradigm can be far faster than generational change (in the generations of scientific workers sense), and, historically, has been on at least some occasions. (On other occasions, it's even slower!)

Right off, I can assure you that the 3-spaces
geometry model is a fundamentally different from
anything you can even imagine. It definitely
challenges existing established theories. Leaves
GR on the wayside as a dead end, modifies SR
in such a way that time dilation and space dilation
are removed from the equations, clarifies Maxwell's
theory so that it can directly account for localized
moving electromagnetic quanta as de Broglie
hypothesized, and upgrades Newton's mechanics
to full relativistic treatment.

QM is still valid but with statistical spread restricted
within the limits imposed on particles acceleration
by inertia and relativistic mass increase with velocity.

QED remains untouched.

An interesting concept. QED is built on Maxwell + SR, which you say are "clarified" (apparently in a way which changes it, since you say that the "clarifies" theory can account for things that the conventional theory cannot) and "modified", but their combination remains untouched?

A model so radically different from accepted theories
that I understood from the get go that there was
no way it would be considered for formal publication.
So I wasted no time even considering the option.

This being said, from past experience, I have
little expectation that this conversation will lead
anywhere but to the usual dead end.

It's up to you, just like it has been before. If you refuse to answer questions being asked to clarify your point, it isn't likely to get very far. If you refuse to clarify ambiguous definitions, it isn't likely to get very far. If you go out of your way to avoid giving clear definitions, or any definitions, it isn't likely to get very far.

I aksed a number of specific questions below, to try get you to clarify some of your points and claims. By-and-large, you avoided answering them. Why be evasive?

If you refuse to even discuss your model, it isn't likely to get very far.

At this point, it might be useful if you were to clearly define your
terms. "Travels as discrete quanta" is typical of "photons as billiard
balls" language. While the photon as a tiny classical particle is a
simple, appealing, and sometimes useful picture, it needs to be kept in
mind that particles in general don't behave like classical particles. See,
e.g., the double slit experiment.

I wonder why the only alternative to EM energy moving as waves
should be such a simplistic "billiard ball" option.

It isn't. Why should it be? Reread what I wrote. If I thought you could only mean "billiard ball" by "discrete quanta", why would I ask for clarification?

Again, if you're interested in proceeding with the discussion, why not try to clearly define what you mean by "travels as discrete quanta"?

Why be evasive? If your model is an advance in knowledge, why not let other people know about it? (But I don't assume that you are selfish in that way.) Since your model is, presumably, not so weak that it can only be protected from criticism by obscurity, why not clarify matters?

Whether wave or localized, there is need for known and proven
electromagnetic properties (electric and magnetic aspects
normal to each other for straight line motion, both being normal
to direction of motion) to be supported and still explain all
observed phenomena.

The billiard ball analogy simply is meaningless.

Meaningless? I wouldn't say so; the energy, momentum, and angular momentum come together in the same quantum, and the concept of a trajectory from emission to absorption are represented by it. It's less meaningless than that useful concept in optics, the ray of light. It _is_ insufficient to explain all of the phenomena, and can easily lead to error if taken literally.

De Broglie's conclusion was that the only way for a
localized photon to satisfy at the same time Bose-Einstein's
statistic and Planck's Law; and to perfectly explain the
photoelectric effect while obeying Maxwell's equations and
conforming to the properties of Dirac’s theory of
complementary corpuscles symmetry, would be that
it be constituted, not of one corpuscle, but of two
corpuscles, or half-photons, that would be complementary
like the electron is complementary to the positron.

Ref the same book mentioned above, page 277.

According to him, "Such a complementary couple of
particles are liable to annihilate at the contact of matter
by relinquishing all of its energy, which perfectly
accounts for the characteristics of the photoelectric
effect."

Furthermore, "The photon being made up of two
elementary particles of spin h/4pi, it must obey
the Bose-Einstein statistic as the precision of
Planck's law for the black body requires."

Finally, he concludes that "…this model of the
photon allows the definition of an electromagnetic
field linked to the probability of annihilation of
the photon, a field that obeys Maxwell's equations
and has all of the characteristics of
electromagnetic light waves."

The _only way_, or _a_ way, for a localised photon to satisfy Bose-Einstein, Planck, Maxwell etc.?

Many, many times, those who claim "only" are shown to be wrong.

This also means that he must have perceived
photons as stable dynamic structures that could
logically only alternate somehow between a
double-particle state with both particle separating
in space (an electrostatic dipole), and a single
particle magnetic state that could be dipolar in
only one manner, which could logically only
consist in a spherical expansion phase followed
by a spherical regression phase, meaning that
the magnetic aspect of the photon will be spherical
at all times and could be dipolar only along the
time dimension since both expansion and
regression cannot possibly occur simultaneously.

Such a dynamic structure would still preserve
fundamental symmetry since the space-wise
electric dipole is balanced by a related time-wise
magnetic dipole.

De Broglie "must have" perceived this? Why?

I developped equations that can mathematically describe
the various aspects this dynamic structure.

There was an interesting episode in the history of quantum optics, when
the orthodoxy was strongly wedded to this billiard ball type of picture
(so, either your statement "never became aware" is wrong, or orthodox
quantum physicists are/were not included in your "orthodox pseudo
physicists"). Radio astronomers - Hanbury Brown in particular - got useful
results by looking at correlations in the intensity received from a source
by two separated receivers. All explicable in terms of classical
electrodynamics. Light is EM radiation too, so why not try it with light?
So, Hanbury Brown and Twiss went ahead, and a nice storm of controversy
arose, with theoretical disproofs and experimental refutations galore.
Still, it worked.

If the "localized option" boiled down for them to trying to prove the
billiard ball analogy, how could it not be disproved ? Seems to me
that it always was easy to disprove an assertion such as "a pair
of running shoes is the same as a pair of roller blades."

So, what does it mean to "travel as discrete quanta"? Keep in mind the
work of de Broglie.

See above.

See above where you avoided answering the question? Whatever for?

Again, why be evasive?

It's interesting (but not so surprising) that the classical
theory works so well for describing a fundamentally
quantum system.

I personally don't think it really does. I don't think
it can without perception of the internal dynamic EM
structure of elemenary particles and the interactions
with other particles that such dynamic structures
mandate.

Not so suprising because the classical theory came to a
large extent from empirical observation of macroscopic
systems - quantum systems with very high photon
numbers such that they appear classical.

I would formulate "with very high photon numbers such
that they appear continuous."

The biggest open problems in the classical theory
are shared by the quantum theory - both are defective.

I would formulate "both are too general".

Going deep into understanding actual possible internal
electromagnetic equilibrium within elementary particles
allows refocusing more precisely all classical and
quantum theories in such a way that they all shudder
and warp just enough to all fall in sync.

Nothing is easier to understand (except for these pseudo
physicists) that photons can only lose some energy each time
their individual trajectories are deflected by gravity as they travel
through the universe.

Be precise, and avoid exaggeration. There are many things that are much
easier to understand. But it is easy to understand. (Is it easy to
quantify in a way that might lead to experimental or observation testing
of the idea? A useful thing if the goal is science, rather than
bullshitting.)

It's a simple idea, but problematic. Are you sugggesting that it's a
continuous process, or a discrete process?

The loss of energy of discrete photons in the model is linked to
change in direction. Straight line motion of photons involves no
possible loss of energy. Net change in direction, which occurs
whenever a localized photon's trajectory is deflected by gravity,
such as was proven by the 1919 Eddington et al. and many
other observations, gravitational lensing, and other assorted
observations, cannot possibly occur without some energy
being expended. 2nd principle of thermodynamics.

Do meteors lose energy when gravitationally deflected by planets or stars? Orbiting planets keep going, without falling into their stars, despite continuous gravitational deflection. Why are photons so different?

2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with this.

So the farther away from us in the universe a photon will be
emitted, say by a hydrogen electron falling to rest state,
the more often it will have submitted to such changes in
directions as they travel among intervening galaxies, however
small each net change can be, the more red shifted they
will be. Not assuming that other causes may not be at play.

If discrete, "when" is the trajectory of a particle deflected
by gravity?

Whenever it passes by whatever mass, be it a star, a
galaxy or whatever other body it happens to pass by.

Continuously, or discretely? You din't answer this question.

If continuous, then it's clear: whenever the photon is in a gravitational field, meaning always. Not always significantly deflected, but that's a different thing. If it's a discrete process, then it's unclear. Thus the question.

Why be evasive?

In either case, what is meant by the trajectory of a photon
(recall the double slit experiment)?

The double-slit experiment is not a disproof of locality if
the photons themselves possess the electromagnetic
properties that are classically assigned to em waves.

Such as extending over both slits?

Does it work? Should there be an observable difference
between light that passes through, e.g., a galaxy or a
cluster of galaxies, and light that does not? Should we
be able to see frequency shifts as a source passes
behind a massive object?

What will be observed is what is observed. The only difference
is in the interpretation. Causality vs non-causality. Simply
philosophy dependent.

Another non-answer.

Why be evasive?

Proof can come only indirectly by the model being proven.
This proof will come some day from FEL experiments. Once
nucleons start being produced from the right frequencies
coherent photons, the rest of the model will become
obvious, including permanent localization of all EM
particles, massive or not.

In any event, as noted in the OP, tired light theories where <event>
reduces the energy of photons, with the lost energy resulting in CMBR
photons (which you didn't claim) are among the more common tired light
theories suggested.

Seems to me they do not bring any explanation to the loss. the loss
is assumed from a variety of reasons, not explained.

Loss of energy due to change in direction due to spatial curvature of the universe is a common one, an idea many decades old. IIRC the usual story is that the new momentum after change in direction is equal to the projection of the old momentum in the direction of the new momentum (and thus the new momentum has a smaller magnitude, and thus the photon has less energy), with these directions taken in some 4D space our 3D space is embedded in (or maybe 5+D spacetime our 4D spacetime is embedded in).

(If reasons are given for the loss, why doesn't that explain the loss?)

--
Timo
Quantcast