Photon's puzzle.

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 1st, 2017, 2:45 am wrote:We have neither a theory nor any observation that says space is quantized. We think energy and and time are quantized, but not space.

I do not understand why you say this. Why in the world would you think that time is quantized but not space?

Recall Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which applies to both space and time.
delta time x delta Energy <= hbar
delta space x delta momentum <= hbar

This indicates that both measures in space and time are operators which do not commute with the operators corresponding to measures of momentum and energy respectively.

So, what do you mean then when you say time is quantized but not space.

The truth is that there have been a number of ideas about treating space as discrete rather than continuous, so I am a bit surprised to hear you say this.

mitchellmckain
Active Member

Posts: 1326
Joined: 27 Oct 2016

Re: Photon's puzzle.

mitchellmckain » 01 Sep 2017, 21:45 wrote:So, what do you mean then when you say time is quantized but not space.

My understanding is that for quantizing of space to be consistent, we would need a consistent theory of quantum gravity. And AFAIK, we are not there yet. I think it is fairly well accepted that the Planck scale is where GR breaks down, but the Planck scale is not a "minimum scale" - things just get 'fuzzy' when we go smaller.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 1st, 2017, 1:38 am wrote:
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "one cannot set up an inertial frame for light". If such a frame could exist, light must be stationary in it, but also propagate at c in it - an obvious contradiction. Light is always observed (and propagating) in some inertial frame, just not in its own frame, because such does not exist. In every frame, there are always both spatial and time intervals observed between emission and absorption events of light, and they are equal.

The same contradiction arises in SR. If energy has mass and light is energy, then how can light travel through space at c without becoming infinitely massive? The traditional answer is, 'That light, in its stationary inertial frame, has zero mass.' There may be no truth to that but the problem remains of how to understand light when it appears to be something removed from our own spacetime and acts as if is something working behind the scene. The light cone appears to be a separate dimension from our own space and time.

In quantum mechanics, it has been suggested from the early twenties until the present time that light exists as a collective action among electrons where light does not radiate randomly into space but it quantum leaps (to use a modern term) from electron to electron and it is our spacetime frame that limits the observed rate of interactions to d/t=c. In this view, light is only emitted from atom to atom and its apparent timing and wave-like nature is determined by our spacetime environment rather than a property of light itself.

Light appears to move as if prescient of its destination and environment which suggests that the path of light is determined prior to emission. And the equality of space/time intervals, independent of any velocity is more indicative of a universal property of spacetime itself than of a velocity.

BurtJordaan » September 1st, 2017, 1:38 am wrote:
I would be interested to hear why you think it unwise to follow SR after 2005...

I don’t think it is “unwise” to follow SR but there are phenomenon where SR does not apply so our thinking should not be limited by SR alone or any other single model.

Quantum entanglement, tunnel diodes, and field effect transistors are examples are things that go beyond the scope of SR. Recent experiments with quantum erasure and tests of Wheeler’s delayed choice can be explained by SR but the explanations are paradoxical and do not pass the plausibility test. Tests of Wheeler’s delayed choice are telling us that there is no time interval between the emission and absorption of light so there is no time to alter the setup of an experiment while light is ‘in flight.’

Carver Mead considers light to be a non-local exchange of energy among electrons collectively sharing a common wavefunction so light energy goes from electron to electron without passing through the space between. The same understanding of light can be found in John Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The motion of light in quantum models is digital leaping or tunneling from atom to atom without passing through space which makes the motion digital. I say the weight of evidence favors digital motion but you favor the analog view so I am asking what evidence supports the analog view?
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 1st, 2017, 2:45 am wrote:
bangstrom » 01 Sep 2017, 08:23 wrote:
This is one point where I disagree so could you explain how to observe the passing of a light wave without destroying it.

Well, one way is to put any number of partially silvered mirrors along the path of a light flash's propagation and so detect the passing of the light from the flash. There are many more ways of detecting electromagnetic waves passing.

These observations do not demonstrate the presence of light at any point between source and sink so the existence of light between events remains a matter of conjecture. There is no observation of "waves passing by."
BurtJordaan » September 1st, 2017, 2:45 am wrote:Objects and light propagate through space at a speed of delta_d/delta_ t <= c. In the case of your digital letters, nothing propagates, so it can have a speed delta_d/delta_ t > c, in fact anything to infinite. But it is comparing apples and bananas.

Is it apples or bananas? That IS my question in case you missed it. I am asking if the transmission of light is digital or analog. We know for certain that objects propagate through space because we can observe their motion but where is the evidence that light does the same?
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 3rd, 2017, 1:56 am wrote: I think this also answers @bangstrom's query about how we know that light propagates from source to receiver.

The unanswered question is...digital or analog?
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Photon's puzzle.

Google Raskar photography of light propagating. There is no length or wavelength contraction of a beam of light. There can be no infinities in physics so the behaviors at light speed is outside the equations of SR that tend to infinity.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Photon's puzzle.

Then there's these videos bangstrom posted 2016 sept 16:

https://youtu.be/CiHN0ZWE5bk

http://youtu.be/YW8KuMtVpug

They disprove light is slowed by absorption and re-emission from atom to atom so I don't really get his theory that light is again instantaneously passed like a baton from electron to electron. Anyway there's 2 discussions going on and the one about infinite or finite universe is an angels dancing on the head of a pin discussion. The answer is there are no infinities in physics that do not tend to a finite value.
And, oh yes, if light is subject to length contraction and immediately appears without transmission between matter particles, then we would not be able to see any colors or frequencies of light because those are due to wavelength which is not affected by light going at c.
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Photon's puzzle.

bangstrom » 03 Sep 2017, 09:55 wrote:The unanswered question is...digital or analog?

Well, I have shown that your 'digital' example has nothing to do with light propagation. I suppose you rather meant "does light propagate in 'discrete jumps', or is it continuous?". Then you must specify if you mean through vacuum or through a physical medium. Through vacuum we know that light propagates as e.m. waves and I can see no way in which it could be by means of discrete jumps, either theoretical or practical.

Do you know of a theory that says differently?

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

bangstrom » 03 Sep 2017, 09:30 wrote:The traditional answer is, 'That light, in its stationary inertial frame, has zero mass.'

That's certainly not the scientific answer, because light does not have an inertial frame. E= mc2 does not apply to light. Please just google "energy of light". And I suppose you mean that light "quantum leaps (to use a modern term) from atom to atom" and not "electron to electron"?

And how do you suppose light propagates when there are no atoms around? And takes a specific time to get there?

Light appears to move as if prescient of its destination and environment which suggests that the path of light is determined prior to emission. And the equality of space/time intervals, independent of any velocity is more indicative of a universal property of spacetime itself than of a velocity.

Yes, I agree that there are interpretations of quantum theory that says that, but how does that show that light does not propagate to its destination?

I also agree that SR only covers a limited spectrum of reality and that we have many 'extensions' of SR, like GR and quantum mechanics to cover the 'rest'.

Just about every experiment with light that has been done since Maxwell's time supports wave-propagation of light through vacuum. Light might be detected as "particles", but that does not negate its propagation characteristics. I have not seen evidence for quantized propagation, just for quantized energy levels.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

Mitch, I have moved the inflation/cosmology discussions to the Astro/Cosmo section. I will reply there as time allows.

PS: In the process of moving the posts, it seems that I have lost your post that I intended to reply to. I'm searching for it and when found, I will reinstate it in its proper place... :)

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 3rd, 2017, 10:58 am wrote:
Well, I have shown that your 'digital' example has nothing to do with light propagation. I suppose you rather meant "does light propagate in 'discrete jumps', or is it continuous?". Then you must specify if you mean through vacuum or through a physical medium. Through vacuum we know that light propagates as e.m. waves and I can see no way in which it could be by means of discrete jumps, either theoretical or practical.

I am describing light as a direct transfer of energy from electron to electron in discrete jumps (not continuous) when the physical conditions between them permits. The physical conditions between a signal and receiver could be described as opaque or clear etc. or even a vacuum.

In this view, two remote electrons can share a common two-way, wavelike connection and one electron can not exchange a quantum of energy with the other until this after connection has been established. The interaction is described as non-local or action at a distance. Hugo Tetrode identified the connection between atoms as the Schroedinger wavefunction and John Cramer refers to the connection as a “transaction.”

Einstein was familiar with early forms of this theory from the writings of Tetrode and some members of the Copenhagen school but he dismissed it all as, “Spooky action at a distance.” Einstein died before before Bell and Aspect demonstrated entanglement and invalidated the EPR effect which was Einstein’s argument against non-local action at a distance.

BurtJordaan » September 3rd, 2017, 10:58 am wrote:
Do you know of a theory that says differently?

There are several theories that agree on all the basics. There is Milo Wolf’s Wave Structure of Matter WSM, The Pope Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis POAMS, and most recently John Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cramer’s TIQM is the most detailed. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.00039.pdf

BurtJordaan » September 3rd, 2017, 12:28 pm wrote: And I suppose you mean that light "quantum leaps (to use a modern term) from atom to atom" and not "electron to electron"?

I am trying to stick with the nomenclature of the times. The old timers in the 1920's said atom to atom or charged particle to charged particle because electrons were not yet settled science but electron to electron is more modern expression for the same idea.
BurtJordaan » September 3rd, 2017, 12:28 pm wrote:
And how do you suppose light propagates when there are no atoms around? And takes a specific time to get there?

The theory is that there can be no light in the absence of atoms. QM does not require a physical connection between two particles for one particle it affect another so it takes at least two particles to exchange a quantum of energy (light). The action is non-local and identical to what we know as entanglement so the energy transfer is direct from electron to electron with no passing through the space between.

The timing of light related events is known as relativistic time delay where any two light events separated by space are also separated by a time interval of d/t=c. This observation is independent of an observer’s speed because c is a spacetime dimensional constant and not a speed.

BurtJordaan » September 3rd, 2017, 12:28 pm wrote:
Yes, I agree that there are interpretations of quantum theory that says that, but how does that show that light does not propagate to its destination?

Light obviously propagates to its destination but its presence between those two events is pure conjecture. I am saying light leaves a source and arrives at its destination but it does not pass through the space between. It quantum leaps or worm holes or tunnels, whatever you want to call it, but it does not exist in our spacetime at any point between source and sink.

BurtJordaan » September 3rd, 2017, 12:28 pm wrote:
Just about every experiment with light that has been done since Maxwell's time supports wave-propagation of light through vacuum. Light might be detected as "particles", but that does not negate its propagation characteristics. I have not seen evidence for quantized propagation, just for quantized energy levels.

Tests outside of QM don't challenge the intuitive assumption that light propagates as a wave through space so the results are interpreted to conform to that paradigm. And it is not "quantized" propagation. It is from electron to electron just like the digital motion on a computer monitor from pixel to pixel.

Here are some quotes:
Gilbert N. Lewis (the man who coined the words the “photon” and “co-valent bonds”) said in 1927, “It is generally assumed that a radiating body emits light in every direction, quite regardless of whether there are near or distant objects which may ultimately absorb that light; in other words that it radiates “into space”… I am going to make the contrary assumption that an atom never emits light except to another atom...”

Hugo Tetrode explained, in 1922, that two atoms can exchange energy if they share a common Schroedinger wavefunction whether they are side by side or solar systems apart. And the sun would not shine at all were there no other charged bodies in the universe to adsorb its radiation.

N. “Viv’ Pope said recently,”What does this mean? It means that in relativistic proper-time, the interacting atoms are in direct quantum contact, regardless of observational distance, that on the quantum-informational level there is no such thing as distance, a quantum being an irreducible amount of energy transacted in zero proper time. This means that at the quantum-informational level the transactions take place in terms of pure proper-time-instantaneous action-at-a-distance.

What we perceive as ‘distance’ is then an observational extrapolation out of statistical numbers of these proper-time-instantaneous quantum events, in a manner similar to the way in which distance is projected by the viewer of a video scenario from informational patterns and sequences of otherwise randomly occurring screen events, and what we measure as the time-delay of that observational interaction is just another solution of the relative equations."
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Photon's puzzle.

ralfcis » September 3rd, 2017, 8:53 am wrote: I don't really get his theory that light is again instantaneously passed like a baton from electron to electron.

Space and time do not exist from the perspective of light so emission and absorption are simultaneous events for light. Our dimension includes space and time so we see all light events as separated by a relativistic time delay of one second for every 300,000km of space. Energy is conserved because the loss of energy from one electron is instantly a gain in energy by the other but we can never see the exchange as instant. Light from stars is not lost in space as it wanders for many years looking for a place to land.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Photon's puzzle.

I may have asked this before....a star in an empty universe (or where all other matter lay beyond the cosmic event horizon) does not shine?

Braininvat

Posts: 6692
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
 mitchellmckain liked this post

Re: Photon's puzzle.

Braininvat » September 4th, 2017, 8:51 am wrote:
bangstrom » September 4th, 2017, 4:31 am wrote:
ralfcis » September 3rd, 2017, 8:53 am wrote: I don't really get his theory that light is again instantaneously passed like a baton from electron to electron.

Space and time do not exist from the perspective of light so emission and absorption are simultaneous events for light. Our dimension includes space and time so we see all light events as separated by a relativistic time delay of one second for every 300,000km of space. Energy is conserved because the loss of energy from one electron is instantly a gain in energy by the other but we can never see the exchange as instant. Light from stars is not lost in space as it wanders for many years looking for a place to land.

I may have asked this before....a star in an empty universe (or where all other matter lay beyond the cosmic event horizon) does not shine?

Good point! In an expanding universe even the imaginary frame of the photon doesn't collapse the universe to a point. Makes it difficult to pretend that photons don't exist between when the absorbtion isn't even there for any such between.

mitchellmckain
Active Member

Posts: 1326
Joined: 27 Oct 2016

Re: Photon's puzzle.

Braininvat » 04 Sep 2017, 15:51 wrote:I may have asked this before....a star in an empty universe (or where all other matter lay beyond the cosmic event horizon) does not shine?

I think this will present serious problems for Cramer's interpretation, because how will transactions be completed across event horizons without invoking extra dimensions? I suppose the standard interpretation may suffer the same problem, because no wavefuntions should be able to collapse.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

bangstrom » 04 Sep 2017, 11:12 wrote:
BurtJordaan » 03 Sep 2017, 17:58 wrote:Through vacuum we know that light propagates as e.m. waves and I can see no way in which it could be by means of discrete jumps, either theoretical or practical.

Do you know of a theory that says differently?

There are several theories that agree on all the basics. There is Milo Wolf’s Wave Structure of Matter WSM, The Pope Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis POAMS, and most recently John Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cramer’s TIQM is the most detailed. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.00039.pdf

Although I like Cramer’s TIQM, it still has waves propagating in "analogue" form (as you stated it) through normal space.
Cramer wrote:The offer wave for each particle can be considered as the wave function of a free particle, initially free of the constraints of conservation laws and independent of the characteristics of other particles, and can be viewed as existing in normal three dimensional space.

It is only the transaction that appears to be non-local, but the 'negotiations' were all quite local, so the process is never 'faster than light'. Not fundamentally different from the Copenhagen interpretation, but perhaps easier to get one's head around. And one must remember that it is still just an interpretation.

The only part that still bends my mind is the "advanced" wave that essentially goes back in time. I still do not understand why this cannot just be interpreted as the same as the "offer" wave, just sent out sometime in the past. Why can't a potential absorber continuously "advertise" that it is capable of absorbing some quanta of energy, while at the same time an emitter "advertises" the availability of quanta, all with retarded waves?

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 5th, 2017, 11:20 am wrote:I think this will present serious problems for Cramer's interpretation, because how will transactions be completed across event horizons without invoking extra dimensions?

Cramer’s interpretation has been compared to a bell ringing in a room full of bells where one bell starts another bell ringing if they share the same harmonic. The major differences in the case of light energy are that the speed of the connection between resonating bodies is non-local and the resonating bodies are electrons rather than bells. Non-local connections are the sort of connections we observe among entangled particles where interactions are instant or, more likely, much to fast to measure.

Another difference is that sound is radiant in all directions meaning that air has degrees of freedom so sound energy is diluted by distance but light energy is exchanged from one electron to another as quanta with no loss of energy in the transaction since it is a direct one to one exchange.

Cramer’s interpretation has been elaborated upon by Carver Mead in his theory of “Collective Electrodynamics.” Mead explains light as an exchange of energy among coupled resonators (usually electrons) where two electrons share the same resonance and, when all other conditions permit, they are also able to exchange a quantum of light energy. Mead dismisses the idea that light has waves or even exists between signal and source because, unlike air, space has no degrees of freedom for waves.

It is Mead’s view that no two resonators have identical resonate frequencies for long but it is common for two resonators to momentarily share a common frequency and, at that point, energy can be exchanged. Two electrons within the same reference frame can only exchange energy when their frequencies match but two electrons in different reference frames with different frequencies can exchange energy if the transformation is such that each electron ‘sees’ the other electron as having the same frequency. It is these moments when paired electrons share the same light cone and can exchange energy.

BurtJordaan » September 5th, 2017, 11:20 am wrote:[
I suppose the standard interpretation may suffer the same problem, because no wavefuntions should be able to collapse

The connection between two entangled particles is commonly said to be the Schroedinger wavefunction and, when the connection is lost, the wavefunction is said to have collapsed. This is total speculation because nothing between the participants can be observed. This may be why Mead refrains from speculating about what takes place between his resonating electrons. He refers to the loss of energy from one electron as an “emission” or “decrement” and the absorption as a “damping” or “increment.” In any case, the use of the word “collapse” when applied to a wavefunction should not to be interpreted as a physical collapse.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Photon's puzzle.

bangstrom » 06 Sep 2017, 10:45 wrote:The connection between two entangled particles is commonly said to be the Schroedinger wavefunction and, when the connection is lost, the wavefunction is said to have collapsed. This is total speculation because nothing between the participants can be observed.

What makes you think that Cramer and Mead's interpretations are not 'speculations'?
I also think that you may be confusing entangled particles with energy transfer by means of radiation. Two different things.

It would be interesting to ask them how they view light to either "transact" or "resonate" across event horizons, be it of the black hole or the cosmological type.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 6th, 2017, 4:10 am wrote:
What makes you think that Cramer and Mead's interpretations are not 'speculations'?

All of our theories about light involve a certain amount of speculation a bad example of which is the old Wheeler- Feynman Absorber theory. The W-F theory explains the behavior of light perfectly well for both SR and QM but their explanations sound too much like magic. Cramer’s theory is essentially the Wheeler-Feynman theory without the magic so it is at least less speculative than it's most useful predecessor.

BurtJordaan » September 6th, 2017, 4:10 am wrote:
I also think that you may be confusing entangled particles with energy transfer by means of radiation. Two different things.

I know the interpretations of Cramer, Mead and others involve non-locality, entanglement, or action at a distance- whatever you want to call it- because they make it clear in other writings that they are not dealing with the classical interpretation of light by radiation if this is not also clear from the theories themselves.

None of this matters because, if you understand these theories, there is no observable difference between non-local (entangled) particles and energy transfer by means of classical radiation. The only differences are theoretical.

N. “Viv” Pope, of the POAMS theory has the clearest explanations of how light is instantaneous rather than at ‘light speed’ and A. F. Kracklauer has compared the classical theory of light with QM instantaneous action at a distance and concluded that the photon theory is a “folklore” and that the QM's interpretation of light as, “A form of direct interaction on the light cone may be the optimum paradigm for this interaction.”

Pope: http://www.poams.org/what-is-light/

BurtJordaan » September 6th, 2017, 4:10 am wrote:
It would be interesting to ask them how they view light to either "transact" or "resonate" across event horizons, be it of the black hole or the cosmological type.

I don’t recall if this has ever been discussed but I don’t see where a signal across event horizons would be a problem. A signal to a black hole might be a different matter. In theory, a light source will not emit light unless there is a receiver on the other end. The resonance needs to be a two-way exchange so a laser should not shine when directed towards a black hole. This might be observable as an overheating of the laser like running a microwave oven when there is nothing inside to heat.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 6th, 2017, 12:48 am wrote:
Although I like Cramer’s TIQM, it still has waves propagating in "analogue" form (as you stated it) through normal space.

That’s right but the waves are at much higher frequency and far faster than those of light.
BurtJordaan » September 6th, 2017, 12:48 am wrote: It is only the transaction that appears to be non-local, but the 'negotiations' were all quite local, so the process is never 'faster than light'. Not fundamentally different from the Copenhagen interpretation, but perhaps easier to get one's head around. And one must remember that it is still just an interpretation.

The transactions, negotiations, and completion are all non-local events in the sense that they are instantaneous action-at-a-distance or, at least too fast to measure. I think if you check again you will find that none of these are at light speed.
BurtJordaan » September 6th, 2017, 12:48 am wrote: The only part that still bends my mind is the "advanced" wave that essentially goes back in time. I still do not understand why this cannot just be interpreted as the same as the "offer" wave, just sent out sometime in the past. Why can't a potential absorber continuously "advertise" that it is capable of absorbing some quanta of energy, while at the same time an emitter "advertises" the availability of quanta, all with retarded waves?

It could be understood that way. Cramer’s theory is symmetrical in time so there is no difference between advanced and retarded waves except that Cramer follows the tradition of considering the signal source as the point of observation and the receiver to be remote and in the past. If we send a radio signal to a distant star, the signal is moving backward in time because wherever it ends up will be in our past. A radio signal from a distant star will be moving from our past to our present so it is moving forward in time but you can swap the names and observation points and it also works the other way around.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Photon's puzzle.

There is no such thing as a photon, that is, a particle. All that really exists are distribution waves, which effects, are measured by the mathematical models given here. Nobody has ever seen a photon, electron, proton or any other kind of particle because these are models people have dreamt up in order to make them more palatable to human perceptions. All that has ever been done is to measure the effects of such entities and put them into some logical framework. In fact, it is highly questionable whether any viable reality could be built on the basis of fundamental particles since this is a very inefficient way to do it. I say fundamental particles, yet that is a misnomer. No fundamental particles have ever been found because we can always take apart the current set of particles and so on, never really getting anywhere. Scientists look at the 'the current model' and notice gaps and conclude that there must be missing particles because the models demands it. However, what really happens is that at great time and expense researchers fire up huge particle accelerators and at some point think they have identified some 'missing' particle. This is deluded because such models are based on a physical deterministic view of reality which is probably not the case and all science does is chase 'phantoms' that only exist in the mind of scientists.
webplodder
Member

Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008

Re: Photon's puzzle.

bangstrom » 07 Sep 2017, 11:17 wrote:
BurtJordaan » September 6th, 2017, 4:10 am wrote:
I also think that you may be confusing entangled particles with energy transfer by means of radiation. Two different things.

I know the interpretations of Cramer, Mead and others involve non-locality, entanglement, or action at a distance- whatever you want to call it- because they make it clear in other writings that they are not dealing with the classical interpretation of light by radiation if this is not also clear from the theories themselves.

None of this matters because, if you understand these theories, there is no observable difference between non-local (entangled) particles and energy transfer by means of classical radiation. The only differences are theoretical.

Rather more philosophical, I think. In physics, there is a huge difference. No energy transfer happens 'instantaneously' in any theory, but wave-funtions collapse 'instantaneously' - or involve 'backwards in time' phenomena.

N. “Viv” Pope, of the POAMS theory has the clearest explanations of how light is instantaneous rather than at ‘light speed’ and A. F. Kracklauer has compared the classical theory of light with QM instantaneous action at a distance and concluded that the photon theory is a “folklore” and that the QM's interpretation of light as, “A form of direct interaction on the light cone may be the optimum paradigm for this interaction.”

While I have the greatest respect for Cramer and Mead, I cannot quite say the same about the "POAMS" guys. With no disrespect towards you, is this where some of your ideas on light originated? ;)

BurtJordaan » September 6th, 2017, 4:10 am wrote:
It would be interesting to ask them how they view light to either "transact" or "resonate" across event horizons, be it of the black hole or the cosmological type.

I don’t recall if this has ever been discussed but I don’t see where a signal across event horizons would be a problem.

The cosmo-horizon should not be a problem, but the gravitational (BH) event horizon could be, because unlike the cosmo-type, it is a 'one-way membrane' for light. The philosophical argument could obviously be that advance and retarded waves don't care about event horizons.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

Sorry, didn't have time to read the whole thing but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion. Just because a jet plane can travel at the speed of sound, doesn't mean its nature is the same as sound. So it is for light. It may travel at the max speed the nature of the universe allows but it doesn't mean light has the same nature as what causes the speed limit. Gravity waves propagate non-electromagnetically and yet the universe limits their speed. Neutrinos propagate in yet another way close to the speed of light, yet their nature is not in some quasi in between state between analog and digital propagation. How are the theories bangstrom backs falsifiable? We could discuss elf and unicorn propagation theory but why do my legit threads get dumped in personal theories and ones such as these don't?
ralfcis
Member

Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

Re: Photon's puzzle.

bangstrom » 07 Sep 2017, 12:19 wrote: If we send a radio signal to a distant star, the signal is moving backward in time because wherever it ends up will be in our past. A radio signal from a distant star will be moving from our past to our present so it is moving forward in time but you can swap the names and observation points and it also works the other way around.

Yes, as an interpretation, but interpretations do not affect the physical, observable effects. For any detector, light reaches from its past and for a source, it is only going into its future. Time symmetry in physics does not mean what you have stated above.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

ralfcis » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:00 pm wrote:Sorry, didn't have time to read the whole thing but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion. Just because a jet plane can travel at the speed of sound, doesn't mean its nature is the same as sound. So it is for light. It may travel at the max speed the nature of the universe allows but it doesn't mean light has the same nature as what causes the speed limit. Gravity waves propagate non-electromagnetically and yet the universe limits their speed. Neutrinos propagate in yet another way close to the speed of light, yet their nature is not in some quasi in between state between analog and digital propagation. How are the theories bangstrom backs falsifiable? We could discuss elf and unicorn propagation theory but why do my legit threads get dumped in personal theories and ones such as these don't?

Well, many scientists are now coming around to the idea that we may live in a 'virtual reality.'

Why? There are many reasons.

In a simulation, for example, there's a point where the smallest resolution is reached. In a computer simulation this would be the smallest pixel. In our. 'reality' this would be the plank length. Also, the speed of light could be the rate of 'refresh' of whatever is generating this simulation operates at. Note that near a black hole, for example, time slows down and this could reflect 'processor' speed having to slow down due to all the extra mass having to be computed. Also, in a simulation such as Minecraft, let's say, you don't have to have things existing unless they are being looked at by the 'player.' Now, there's reason to believe that in our reality stuff does not actually exist until observed, it is held as a 'potential' and only comes into physical existence the moment we observe it in some way. This would tie-in with the virtual reality model and be an efficient way of preserving 'server' resources. In fact, when you examine the data obtained from the double slit quantum delayed eraser experiment, you find it is only when you look the data that it comes into existence.

But there's other stuff too that points to a virtual reality model. Weird phenomena such as entanglement could never have been predicted by 'classical' physics, or quantum tunneling, which is so counterintuitive. Superposition is yet another crazy effect than does not logically flow from Newtonian/spacetime physics, although people try to come up with solutions thst are based on a materialistic, causal interpretation but without any success. Anything you care to look at is information. Even pain, love, joy, depression is information at root since it all has to be processed by signals or pulses which are digital in nature. We live in a digital universe.
webplodder
Member

Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 7th, 2017, 8:50 am wrote: Rather more philosophical, I think. In physics, there is a huge difference. No energy transfer happens 'instantaneously' in any theory, but wave-funtions collapse 'instantaneously' - or involve 'backwards in time' phenomena.[

I don’t agree that, “No energy transfer happens 'instantaneously' in any theory.” because, in the theories I mentioned, it does. The theories say the energy exchanges are instant but we can never observe them as instant because, as in SR, there is no such thing as simultaneity. Any otherwise simultaneous events separated by space are always separated by an interval of time such that d/t=c so ‘instant’ can never appear as instant when spacial separation is involved. The dispute lies in what we consider to be the source of the observed delay.
BurtJordaan » September 7th, 2017, 8:50 am wrote:
While I have the greatest respect for Cramer and Mead, I cannot quite say the same about the "POAMS" guys. With no disrespect towards you, is this where some of your ideas on light originated? ;)

My understanding of light predates my introduction to POAMS. Years ago, I encountered someone who claimed that photons do not exist. I thought that was ridiculous at the time but I decided to begin a sort of mental “Blue Book” project like the USAF Blue Book project that looked into the existence of UFO’s.
Every time I found a mention of photons I asked myself if the photon encounter was a real ‘encounter of the third kind’ or if it was based on theory rather than observation. Over an extended period of time I came to the conclusion that we have more evidence for UFO’s than we have for photons and I have my doubts about UFO’s. It was certain quantum experiments with light that were pivotal to my eventual understanding rather than anyone’s theory.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Photon's puzzle.

bangstrom » 08 Sep 2017, 04:29 wrote:The dispute lies in what we consider to be the source of the observed delay.

Yea, quite. I can always chop any observed parameter up into an arbitrary number of sub-parameters and then claim that all these sub-parameters are there, but sorry, they are unobservable. That's just interpretation for the purpose of the human mind's sake.

... as in SR, there is no such thing as simultaneity.

In SR, we have a very, very well defined simultaneity, but we never observe energy (or information) going simultaneous between two events that are separated in space. I think we agree on that.

Every time I found a mention of photons I asked myself if the photon encounter was a real ‘encounter of the third kind’ or if it was based on theory rather than observation.

Standard (non-quantum) SR defines the photon as a quantized packet of energy, but does not claim it must be 'little ball' that travels through space. That packet propagates in macroscopic systems as an EM wave, at speed 'c' relative to every possible inertial frame. It is detected as a localized quantized packet of energy somewhere else. Occam's razor will agree with that, because it is the simplest theory that conforms to all experiments to date. I consider two-slit/multi-slit experiments as the core examples of waves that propagate, but there are many more.

Standard quantum theory considers energy transfer as propagating probability waves that collapse instantaneously once the wave hit a suitable detector - but that is after the waves have traveled the requisite distance at speed 'c'. All transactional interpretations replace the probability wave with two (or more) types of wave, but observationally they are indistinguishable from the standard interpretation. Since all agree with experiment, they are all equivalent, just different interpretations.

The only thing that I can understand better in the transactional interpretations is 'radiation reaction', from which it can be concluded that unless there is some receiver capable of absorbing the radiated wave, it cannot be radiated in the first place.

I do not know enough QM to debate what happens inside atoms, but it seems that we are mainly discussing the macro-world here.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

Off-topic complaints moved to Feedback and Help Desk.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Photon's puzzle.

BurtJordaan » September 8th, 2017, 1:57 am wrote:Standard (non-quantum) SR defines the photon as a quantized packet of energy, but does not claim it must be 'little ball' that travels through space. That packet propagates in macroscopic systems as an EM wave, at speed 'c' relative to every possible inertial frame. It is detected as a localized quantized packet of energy somewhere else. Occam's razor will agree with that, because it is the simplest theory that conforms to all experiments to date. I consider two-slit/multi-slit experiments as the core examples of waves that propagate, but there are many more.

“Relative to every possible inertial frame” is logically impossible.

The classical photon view fails for quantum experiments, That is for anything involving entanglement or non-local action. Einstein’s, “Spooky action at a distance.”

The two slit experiment presents a conceptual difficulty for wave theory because the wave passes through either one slit or the other or it splits and goes through both slits then interferes with itself.

In the W-F Absorber theory, the wave passes through one slit and then, because light is not limited by our understanding of time, it is able to interfere with other light waves that have passed through the other slit in the past or will pass through the other slit at some time in the future.

Cramer’s theory has waves moving both forward and backward in time so they pass through both slits individually something like in Kenny Rogers’ song, “I met myself crawling out as I was crawling in.”

BurtJordaan » September 8th, 2017, 1:57 am wrote: Standard quantum theory considers energy transfer as propagating probability waves that collapse instantaneously once the wave hit a suitable detector - but that is after the waves have traveled the requisite distance at speed 'c'. All transactional interpretations replace the probability wave with two (or more) types of wave, but observationally they are indistinguishable from the standard interpretation. Since all agree with experiment, they are all equivalent, just different interpretations.

Any speculation about what transpires between a light source and sink is conjecture. I consider Cramer’s waves to be a hold-over from earlier theories and their usefulness is in making the theory easier to explain. They may be a stand-in for a better explanation yet to come.

My understanding of probability waves is that they are an intrinsic part of our spacetime environment like the probability waves surrounding an atomic nucleus that determine the probable location of an electron and their speed is not limited by ‘c.’ In some theories, the universe is nothing but these probability waves.

In Cramer’s transactional theory, none of his waves are traveling at ‘c’ they are all essentially instant- non-local-action at a distance.

BurtJordaan » September 8th, 2017, 1:57 am wrote:
The only thing that I can understand better in the transactional interpretations is 'radiation reaction', from which it can be concluded that unless there is some receiver capable of absorbing the radiated wave, it cannot be radiated in the first place.

How does a signal source ‘know’ when there is a receiver. This is a part of Cramer’s interpretation but it would not work as you have described if the waves either to or from the receiver travel at ‘c’ or if the connection collapses instantly before the signal is sent.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

PreviousNext