by unquantum » Sat Aug 16, 2014 2:22 am
There is great confusion about photons. The photon is a model, it is phenomenological. A photon is not described by anything understandable in terms of some blob of energy with some kind of space and time description. The photon model is a mixture of two mutually exclusive models: 1) a particle holding itself together, and 2) a wave that spreads (does not hold itself together). Bohr, in his book "Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge" wrote how Einstein described the photon (model): "a photon will go one way or another at a beam-splitter and be recorded at one detector or another, but not both, past the beam-splitter, but not at both detectors (he said film instead of detectors), but if the paths were to be reconverged with mirrors an interference pattern would emerge." This is not an exact quote, but close enough, from my memory. Most physicists will agree on this definition of the photon model. So if we are trying to understand what an experiment is saying about what light is, if you describe it in terms of photons, you will end with the photon model, and not understand much more. The alternative to the photon model has always been the loading theory, and this was described in Millikan's book, "Electrons + and -", very well. You will find the loading theory in most introductions to modern physics textbooks as a calculation of the loading time in the photoelectric effect. The problem with those textbook treatments is that they confuse the ideas of total loading time with minimum loading time (usually called response time). I elaborate on my various papers on my website.
I recently found another physicist supporting the loading theory, Chandrasekhar Roychardhoury, who just published a SPIE book. I need to revisit here to get his spelling correct. My audience should also know that I have recently been published in Progress In Physics, a peer reviewed journal; please see link on my unquantum.net website. Let me address the statement above where it was not understood why gamma-rays would act differently from visible light. With higher frequency gamma, the emission process can extend over a much shorter time and it can be initially directed in a narrower solid angle. We know this from classical optics. This pulse property of gamma is what I am taking advantage of to let us see through the photon model illusion. Try visualizing a short pulse of light interacting with an absorber that loads-up. What would tend to set-off coincident loadings up to a threshold, visible or gamma? My experiments show two-for-one at rates exceeding the chance rate, in violation of the photon model (particle-probability model of quantum mechanics). The only way to do that without violating energy conservation is to realize that here needs to be a pre-loaded state in the absorber (electron or atom) whereby a classical pulse would cause coincident detections. With visible light, such an effect would be lost in noise and we would only see coincident detection at the chance rate. When other physicists have done this coincidence-beam-split-experiment with visible light, they have only seen the chance coincident detection rate, and it looks like a "photon" went one way or another at the beam-splitter. They are just seeing noise. Mine are the only experiments doing this all-important test of the photon model with gamma-rays, and the experiments say the photon model fails. I have reported this on my website, patent applications, and papers since 2003. Many have said it would be nice to see someone reproduce my work. I have always given all the details to do my experiment, and I have always been generous to offer any form of help to anyone wanting to reproduce the test, and I have always been easy to find to communicate with. Please try communicating with me and try it already. It is a relatively easy experiment to do, and I will help you (anyone). It has been over ten years that people have said someone should reproduce it. The way to do it is with Co-57, easily purchased license-free, two NaI-PMT detectors, and NIM modules available on ebay. What are you waiting for?
There is great confusion about photons. The photon is a model, it is phenomenological. A photon is not described by anything understandable in terms of some blob of energy with some kind of space and time description. The photon model is a mixture of two mutually exclusive models: 1) a particle holding itself together, and 2) a wave that spreads (does not hold itself together). Bohr, in his book "Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge" wrote how Einstein described the photon (model): "a photon will go one way or another at a beam-splitter and be recorded at one detector or another, but not both, past the beam-splitter, but not at both detectors (he said film instead of detectors), but if the paths were to be reconverged with mirrors an interference pattern would emerge." This is not an exact quote, but close enough, from my memory. Most physicists will agree on this definition of the photon model. So if we are trying to understand what an experiment is saying about what light is, if you describe it in terms of photons, you will end with the photon model, and not understand much more. The alternative to the photon model has always been the loading theory, and this was described in Millikan's book, "Electrons + and -", very well. You will find the loading theory in most introductions to modern physics textbooks as a calculation of the loading time in the photoelectric effect. The problem with those textbook treatments is that they confuse the ideas of total loading time with minimum loading time (usually called response time). I elaborate on my various papers on my website.
I recently found another physicist supporting the loading theory, Chandrasekhar Roychardhoury, who just published a SPIE book. I need to revisit here to get his spelling correct. My audience should also know that I have recently been published in Progress In Physics, a peer reviewed journal; please see link on my unquantum.net website. Let me address the statement above where it was not understood why gamma-rays would act differently from visible light. With higher frequency gamma, the emission process can extend over a much shorter time and it can be initially directed in a narrower solid angle. We know this from classical optics. This pulse property of gamma is what I am taking advantage of to let us see through the photon model illusion. Try visualizing a short pulse of light interacting with an absorber that loads-up. What would tend to set-off coincident loadings up to a threshold, visible or gamma? My experiments show two-for-one at rates exceeding the chance rate, in violation of the photon model (particle-probability model of quantum mechanics). The only way to do that without violating energy conservation is to realize that here needs to be a pre-loaded state in the absorber (electron or atom) whereby a classical pulse would cause coincident detections. With visible light, such an effect would be lost in noise and we would only see coincident detection at the chance rate. When other physicists have done this coincidence-beam-split-experiment with visible light, they have only seen the chance coincident detection rate, and it looks like a "photon" went one way or another at the beam-splitter. They are just seeing noise. Mine are the only experiments doing this all-important test of the photon model with gamma-rays, and the experiments say the photon model fails. I have reported this on my website, patent applications, and papers since 2003. Many have said it would be nice to see someone reproduce my work. I have always given all the details to do my experiment, and I have always been generous to offer any form of help to anyone wanting to reproduce the test, and I have always been easy to find to communicate with. Please try communicating with me and try it already. It is a relatively easy experiment to do, and I will help you (anyone). It has been over ten years that people have said someone should reproduce it. The way to do it is with Co-57, easily purchased license-free, two NaI-PMT detectors, and NIM modules available on ebay. What are you waiting for?
