Re: Classical wave theory and tired light

On 26 déc, 01:11, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, srp2...@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").

To me, and to all causalists, it is a proof in the physical sense.
Which
is what is the ultimate goal: understanding physical reality.

If you can repeatedly fire a photon by some process so it is directed
to
electrons on a target and that you observe that an electron is freed
afterwards in the time frame coherent with the photon moving at c,
then you have the proof that the freeing of the electron is caused
by the photon that you fired.

Very simple. And sufficient as conclusive proof for me or for any
causalist to build on.

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's exactly what he did.

That we observe A, followed by B, followed by C does not
mean that C is caused by B is caused by A.

If B is a single electron being freed and A is a single photon
of sufficient energy being emitted in the direction of B, and
C being a least action trajectory between the point of emission
of A and B then yes, it means that C has to exist for B to
be freed.

That's what de Broglie meant.

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.

Again, why a "billiard-ball" trajectory ?

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.

Means a least action trajectory being followed as a permanently
localized electromagnetic event.

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 never bothered to explain any aspect of it to anyone for whom
localized least action trajectories are a fantasy to start with.

I often explained extensively to any other willing to discuss
these issues over the past 10 years, even here on sci.physics.

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?

Because localized least action travel of all elementary EM events is
an axiomatic foundation of the model. There is no way anyone can
even follow the logic without first being deeply convinced of the
fact that this is the only possibility for EM energy to travel.

One-cause->only one possible effect, which becomes the
cause of the following single possible effect, and so on.

Whoever does not firmly believe in the absolute nature of
mandatory localized least action trajectories for Em energy
has no chance of accepting as possible the complete
sequence of events described, even theoretically.

At each step, an infinity of alternate possibilities will
look as attractive and he will instantly loose footing.

It simply can't be done. Causalist frame of mind is
mandatory for understanding.

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

Why do you say that ?

I never kept my model secret.

Thousands of copies of my book are right now floating
about in physics departments of I simply have no
idea of how many educational institutions, and more
are sent away each year.

What better way to keep a secret, don't you think ?

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 integrate 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,

Boils down to simple Lagrangian snap shots of momentary states.

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",

Yes. To account for the fact that protons and neutrons are
not elementary, which SR does not.

but their combination remains untouched?

I just said the opposite.

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.

I do not refuse to answer specific questions. Most
answers about the model however require knowledge
of the model for the answer to be meaningful. I can't
explain the model in a few sentences, and won't
explain it at length prior to stating these answers.
I don't have that much time on my hands.

If you refuse to clarify ambiguous definitions,
it isn't likely to get very far.

Obviously. But then sci.physics is not the right
place for a full fledged lecture.

If you go out of your way to avoid giving clear definitions,
or any definitions, it isn't likely to get very far.

Definitely. The model is available for study only
for really interested parties. All others who are
satisfied with newsgroups piecemeal glimpses
can dig into the sci.physics back log for the
past 10 years. Over time, I just about addressed
all aspects of it.

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?

I am not being evasive.

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

When the time is ripe, the model will eventually be picked up
if it is worth anything I am sure. Out of my control. My job is
done.

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"?

I mean "travel as permanently localize discrete quanta".

Why be evasive? If your model is an advance in knowledge, why not let
other people know about it?

I did and am still doing it. Thousands of copies of the book are right
now floating about in I don't know how many countries, right into
physics dept. of educational institutions.

I have no control over the time frame, and don't particularly care.

There is no way that at least a few copies in the lot will not
eventually be studied by eventual causalists and then be
understood and acted upon.

(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?

Haven't I ? The book is all over the place, where it counts. More
widely distributed already than most so-called scientific journals.

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.

Not in my model. No billiard ball like event or motion possible.
Only least action trajectories of locally oscillating EM events.

It's less meaningless than that useful concept in optics, the ray
of light.

Agreed.

It _is_ insufficient to explain all of the phenomena, and can easily lead
to error if taken literally.

That's precisely my point. It simply can't represent elementary
particles motion.


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.

Where did he write "only" ?

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?

Ref: his (and mine) definition of causality.

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?

I am not being evasive. I already quoted more than once
how deBroglie defines causality and trajectories. I have
no other definition.

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?

Depends if they are on stable closed orbits or on hyperbolic
trajectories.

If the first, then they energy is constantly replenished by the force
maintaining them on their stable orbit.

In the later case, they may lose or gain energy (velocity) as a
function
of their mass and the angle of deflection depending on the relative
direction of motion of the body they deflect about.

For photons, since velocity is constant, and that they are always
on hyperbolic trajectories in the universe as they gravitationally
flyby, then they can only lose some energy at each flyby however
shallow.

Orbiting planets keep going, without falling into their stars, despite
continuous gravitational deflection. Why are photons so different?

Because orbiting planets are on closed and stable gravitational
orbits while photons are on hyperbolic trajectories.

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

Yes. There is no way to cause anything to effect a net change
in direction without some energy being expended.

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.

continuously, of course. since photons follow continuous
least action trajectories.

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.

It cannot be discrete. I simply did not notice your mention of
"discrete" as I first answered.


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?

No such as each photon entering only in one slit. Mandated
by least action trajectories of permanently localized photons.

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?

You see, my answers can only be meaningless to you.

Concluding that permanently localized em events on
least action trajectories is really mandatory for understanding
any aspect of the model.

An uncircumventable pre-requisite.

If the few anwers I already gave are already meaningless
to you, all others will be just as meaningless.

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.

Not due to spatial curvature. Due to net change in direction. No
spatial
curvature required.

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).

What happens to the Hubble redshift then ? Why is it still taken as
sacrosanct since you say that the redshifting has been known for that
long as being due (from your curved space explanation) to another
cause ? What becomes of the size of the Universe then ?

Looks like it's my turn to ask questions.

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

It could be a candidate if the alternate (and universally accepted)
Hubble
redshift explanation related to increased velocity with distance of
galaxies
is dumped.

André Michaud
.