On the nature of light

Jzz

May 10, 2021
209
62
4,660
Visit site
Light! Light seems like a simple subject—so fundamental that one might assume it would be easy to understand. Yet, despite its apparent simplicity, light remains one of the most perplexing phenomena in physics. Estimates suggest that up to 88% of our sensory input is governed by vision (Goldstein et al., 2003), yet light itself, which confounded even Newton due to its paradoxical nature, has only grown more mysterious. It behaves both like a wave and a particle, yet neither description fully captures its complexity. As our understanding has deepened, the more we realize how little we truly know about light.

Even physicists are unsure of what light truly is. The current understanding suggests that light originates from excitations in the electromagnetic field (Jackson, 1999), a concept that is highly abstract and mathematically complex. The process by which photons are absorbed and emitted by electrons in atoms, however, remains elusive. According to modern quantum theory, light enters an atom as the electromagnetic wavefunction of a photon (Dirac, 1930). Inside atoms with multiple electrons, all the electron wavefunctions exist as abstract mathematical entities. When a photon’s wavefunction imparts energy to these wavefunctions, something extraordinary happens.

All of the electron wavefunctions within the atom "jump" to a new energy level, but how does this occur? (Griffiths, D. J. (2018). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (3rd ed.). Pearson.) This process cannot be understood in conventional terms because, according to Schrödinger’s equation, each electron wavefunction exists in 3n dimensions, where n is the number of electrons in the atom (Schrödinger, 1926). These dimensions far exceed the familiar three of spatial length, width, and depth. This is one reason Schrödinger became disillusioned with quantum mechanics, as he realized that his equation could not fully describe the reality of these interactions (Schrödinger, 1926).

The Standard Model of particle physics tends to brush this problem aside by interpreting it as a matter of "degrees of freedom," rather than addressing it as a question of multiple dimensions (Peskin & Schroeder, 1995). But consider this: if all the electron wavefunctions in a multi-electron atom jump simultaneously, how are these transitions coordinated? For example, in an oxygen atom with eight electrons, this would involve 24 dimensions, each representing the position, orientation, velocity, spin, and other properties of the electron wavefunctions. How are these transitions managed when all the wavefunctions leap together?

Once the electron wavefunctions have jumped to a higher energy level, they eventually return to their original state, emitting a photon in the process. But how does this happen without recoil? According to quantum theory, recoil manifests as a change in the shape of the multi-electron wavefunction (Feynman, 1965).

Once the emitted photon escapes the atom, the process becomes even more complicated. Is this our complete theory of light? Personally, I believe there is a better way to understand it. A brief outline of my theory is presented in my paper entitled “On the Nature of Light According to Augmented Newtonian Dynamics (AND),” recently published in the Internationalo Journal of Science and Research.
 
I skimmed through the PDF on the nature of light in relation to Augmented Newtonian Dynamics. While I'm only a retired Supply Chain Director, the concepts seem quite logical.

A couple of thoughts: You mention space expansion affecting a photonic ether in terms of 'stretching.' Could it be that it's the other way around? Perhaps the expansion results from the energy of the photonic ether/soup/sea decreasing, which spreads and expands space. I assume the density of virtual particles in space is a constant (?)

You mention multiple dimensions, very many of them. I've never quite grasped why there's a need to "curl them up" or why there might be limits on the number of dimensions - in Euclidean space. Our universe might impose limits because of its non-Euclidian shape, or maybe it doesn't. The question: "Why don't we see these extra dimensions?" is hardly a reason for contortion rather than it being our limited perception.
 
History, light-time, past-future (future-past) history, is as much physics as Dr. Samuel Johnson kicking a rock circa 1760s CE. Newton's apple fell from the tree into an opening system (fell into a future-past history), not a closing system, just as you observe you fly, move, into an opening universe before the wall of quantum physics that may be waiting to block off that opening universe from your reaching the open system via some vectored future-past history.

I'm going to have to remember I shouldn't use singular terms, meaning coordinate points past and/or future histories for SPACETIME. That I should use past-future history (t=+1) and/or future-past history (t=-1) regarding the expansive opening system, the multi-dimensional -- the many more dimensioned (11-dimensional?!) -- gravitational system, of the universe.

Accelerating expansion of SPACETIME (or what, the future-past history (t=-1), Newton's apple would have observed during the fall, during its travel into the expansive open, always the accelerating (expansive) opening, system of the universe, if it could have observed):
================
================
 
Last edited:
If you want to see the true nature of a photon, insert a rectified carrier into the feedpoint of a radio antenna. DC emission.

And if you want to see the true nature of light, use a zillion antennas. For the flux of photons, light.

Neither Maxwell, Einstein or anybody else, to this day, understands light. Or radio.

Emission is a discharge. A quick snap. A singular invisible spark.

It has duty cycle, not alternating frequency.

Radio is still a repetition of ordered sparks, you just can’t see them.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
209
62
4,660
Visit site
I skimmed through the PDF on the nature of light in relation to Augmented Newtonian Dynamics. While I'm only a retired Supply Chain Director, the concepts seem quite logical.

A couple of thoughts: You mention space expansion affecting a photonic ether in terms of 'stretching.' Could it be that it's the other way around? Perhaps the expansion results from the energy of the photonic ether/soup/sea decreasing, which spreads and expands space. I assume the density of virtual particles in space is a constant (?)

You mention multiple dimensions, very many of them. I've never quite grasped why there's a need to "curl them up" or why there might be limits on the number of dimensions - in Euclidean space. Our universe might impose limits because of its non-Euclidian shape, or maybe it doesn't. The question: "Why don't we see these extra dimensions?" is hardly a reason for contortion rather than it being our limited perception.
Thank you Gibsense:, your observations are very helpful as they assist in understanding how the article is seen by readers. It must however be understood that the real joy in (AND) comes from being able to apply purely classical physics concepts even at the level of the very, very small. EVERYTHING, including atomic structure and photon absorption and emission works according to classical Newtonian dynamics. The Schrodinger equation and its associated wavefunction when looked upon from this point of view might turn out to be the biggest red herring in the history of modern physics.

A little clarification is required, I think. I don’t espouse multiple dimensions, if you look a little more carefully you will find that any mention of multiple dimensions only occur in the quantum mechanics theory of atomic structure and photon absorption and emission, that I had included in my paper. I thought it was better to include the current theories of light which include things like wave-functions and multiple dimensions.

Augmented Newtonian Dynamics (AND) by contrast uses none of these artifices, according to this theory a wave is a wave, and a particle is a particle, except in the case of a photon, where both properties are present. This is not because of any supernatural properties that govern the realm of the very, very small but merely due to the fact that the pulses of energy emitted by the electron which take on a stable configuration that we see as a photon and have the ability to retain energy (a particle property) and join up to follow the inverse square law (a wave property), demonstrate both properties. This is similar to the way in which ultrasonic sound waves can shatter stone, the photon configuration is of course more sophisticated and stable. The electron is considered to be a solid particle, which is reasonable since it possesses measurable mass and also a measurable size. Secondly, if one looks at the study done by DES to study neutron stars, the reality is that there is absolutely no proof that space is expanding. Consider that only one type 1a supernova occurs every 500 years in the milky way galaxy, this statement will be easier to understand.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
209
62
4,660
Visit site
If you want to see the true nature of a photon, insert a rectified carrier into the feedpoint of a radio antenna. DC emission.

And if you want to see the true nature of light, use a zillion antennas. For the flux of photons, light.

Neither Maxwell, Einstein or anybody else, to this day, understands light. Or radio.

Emission is a discharge. A quick snap. A singular invisible spark.

It has duty cycle, not alternating frequency.

Radio is still a repetition of ordered sparks, you just can’t see them.
Classical motion: You are demonstrably wrong about radio-waves there are no sparks involved, even though radio operators were frequently referred to as sparks. No what I would like you to think about is a 220V ac 60 Hz AC current in a wire. If you hold a coil a few centimetres away from the wire, you will find that you can draw of a considerable current, a good percentage of the current in fact that is flowing in the wire. Yet, shift to a distance about 15 m from the wire and hold the coil up and it will register zero current. This is surely wrong, at a distance of 5 m the current should be reduced by the reciprocal of the square of the distance. So if there was 10 amps flowing in the wire, at a distance of 15 m according to the inverse square law 0.06 amps (which is a measurable current) should flow in the coil, instead nothing zip, zero. It is clear that this does not follow the inverse square law as it should if quantum mechanics has the right explanation. By contrast (AND) states what happens with mathematical precision and if the coil is replaced with a radio receiver tuned to 60 Hz a strong radio signal as predicted by (AND) should be present.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
209
62
4,660
Visit site
History, light-time, past-future (future-past) history, is as much physics as Dr. Samuel Johnson kicking a rock circa 1760s CE. Newton's apple fell from the tree into an opening system (fell into a future-past history), not a closing system, just as you observe you fly, move, into an opening universe before the wall of quantum physics that may be waiting to block off that opening universe from your reaching the open system via some vectored future-past history.

I'm going to have to remember I shouldn't use singular terms, meaning coordinate points past and/or future histories for SPACETIME. That I should use past-future history (t=+1) and/or future-past history (t=-1) regarding the expansive opening system, the multi-dimensional -- the many more dimensioned (11-dimensional?!) -- gravitational system, of the universe.

Accelerating expansion of SPACETIME (or what, the future-past history (t=-1), Newton's apple would have observed during the fall, during its travel into the expansive open, always the accelerating (expansive) opening, system of the universe, if it could have observed):
================
Atlan0001, In my opinion the two biggest catastrophes in modern physics were the introduction of relativity and the quantum mechanics theory of wave-particle duality. If either or both of these theories and more importantly their solutions, is looked at in the clear light of day they are both absurd in the extreme. They gained importance and acceptance because everyone believed that the man who invented the atomic bomb, namely Albert Einstein, advocated both relativity and quantum mechanics. While they may have been right in the belief that Albert Einstein, advocated both relativity and wave-particle duality, they were wrong in their belief that Einstein invented the atomic bomb. Einstein did not invent the atomic bomb (much to his relief I am sure). He was instead entrusted with the task of proposing the theory to the US by Neils Bohr and others (including the Curies). Yet, whatever Einstein believed in became sacrosanct post the second world war and remains so today. If not for this wide spread acceptance of Einstein and his pet theories of wave-particle duality and relativity, the aether might have existed as a theory and eventually have been determined to be Dark matter that occupies 85% or more of the Universe. Consider, with this medium in place there is no need for length contraction or time dilation, General relativity therefore disappears in the absence of these two factors like a puff of smoke. The same holds good for wave-particle duality. Thinking clearly, if 'virtual particles' exist an important role in the nucleus, why shouldn't they exist in the atom and be responsible for its stability or for that matter for the propagation of light. Surely, given the fact that we breathe an invisible substance this should be mores acceptable than thinking that distances and times can change when they are being closely watched?
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts