On the Nature of Light and Electromagnetic Radiation

"In empty space this speed is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second! "

Your light is a lame duck!

"In empty space this speed is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second! "
Your light is a lame duck!

Oops! Sorry, I stand corrected, the speed of light in a vacuum is 300,000 km/sec and not 300 km/sec. Just goes to show huh! But the rest of the post holds good.

This is one of my (many) mornings to be pedantic.

Light may or may not be a wave and a particle. We don't know and have no way of knowing. It all depends on how we measure. If we look for a particle, we find a particle. If we look for a wave, we find a wave. It's a lot like asking what color the sky is; it's blue because we can see blue.

This is one of my (many) mornings to be pedantic.

Light may or may not be a wave and a particle. We don't know and have no way of knowing. It all depends on how we measure. If we look for a particle, we find a particle. If we look for a wave, we find a wave. It's a lot like asking what color the sky is; it's blue because we can see blue.

Hi TVP45,

So far I find no fault with what you are saying, BUT what happens if we both happen to look at the light at the same time. I look for it as a wave and you look for it as a
particle. Is it possible for me to see it as a wave and for you to see it as a particle ? Common sense tells us that since both manifestations of light exist, it should be possible, but QM says that it is not. Light says, QM, can never be both a particle and a wave simultaneously. It is just, says QM, a fact of life.

Might I ask you to suspend your imagination for a bit, just as QM asks us to do for most of the time. If you do so, I will put forward a theory (The Gestalt theory on the nature of light and related phenomena) that will not only explain, why light travels at the speed it does, but also how, 1km radio waves are still photons, and how an electron can differentiate between a 500nm photon and a 501 nm photon !

OK, I'll suspend judgement and try to see your argument. The thing I don't follow is why a solenoid field looks like a particle and a wave. Is there a clearer way for me to see that?

OK, I'll suspend judgement and try to see your argument. The thing I don't follow is why a solenoid field looks like a particle and a wave. Is there a clearer way for me to see that?

Hi TVP45,

I missed your post in all the excitement. The term solenoid means a closed loop. So the photon as envisioned, is in effect neutral, it can be looked at as having no charge, self contained. Again the capacitor like structure that I envision for the photon and that I have tried to illustrate in the diagram, bands of energy separated by a di-electric and the manner in which it propagates, means that its original energy is conserved intact until the point of delivery, hence its particle like property. The energy of a wave would tend to disperse. The wave like properties of the solenoid structure should be obvious. For instance, if the frequencies are close enough to interfere with each other, photons can mix, a red photon can mix with a blue photon to produce a mauve frequency and so on. Best of all just as Newton demonstrated, they can then be separated again into their original colours. The solenoid structure enables all of this.

You cannot "look" at same photon with different observation fixtures at same time. Ans as you very well know the way you organize your experiment gives results which can show either wave or corpuscular behaviour.

Well, why not ? Why can't two people look at the same photon at the same time and see two different things ? Always supposing there are two different things to see. For instance take compton scattering, at one time it was the proof of thw wave properties of photons and then it was used to prove that photons were definitely particles. Why then can't two people watch the experiment at the same time, one to see if it is a wave and the other to see if it is particle.

You cannot "look" at same photon with different observation fixtures at same time. Ans as you very well know the way you organize your experiment gives results which can show either wave or corpuscular behaviour.

you guys are silly, I thought all brainiacs figured out the answer to light by the time they were shown light can be refracted in a lense and magnified to burn ants, I personaly figured out the true nature of light when i was a boy.

Light is a particle, we can agree on that, made of electrons, and yes they do resonate(vibrate) because they are charged particles. These Particles have a speed limit, a physics law... a BS law if I ever heard one next to the thermal dynamics law.

They travel in a straight line! in space everything follows physics, objects travel in a direction indefinately until acted upon by an outside force. so why the hell does it seem like light defies this and acts in a wave. because obviously some outside force is acting upon it. The entire universe has a static heat,(Radiation) because it is a system, and all systems have uniform heat, and static electricity. or the phenomenon known as CMBR.

This means that all of space is filled with this minute static... say like a huge ocean of old light particles, but not just ANY light Particles, especialy strong ones supposedly left over from the big bang... wich has gone through a phase shift or two over time.

So todays light, is traveling through a large ocean of particles, we have studied aerodynamics, and fluid dynamics, if you combine the two and replace air friction with particle/light friction in space. You get the speed of light not as a maximum, but as a speed limit because it is beeing dragged and pushing through this ocean

and of coarse light acts as a wave because tiny particles hitting other tiny particles are going to bounce off eachother minutely, giving a wave, transverse wave, longitudinal, depending on the strength of light, the stronger, the harder it will bounce off the CMBR and create the wave phenomena.

There are particles that seem to defy time and space and the laws of physics... by surviving the trip from the sun to the earth, when they technicaly should only survive a few seconds... it doesnt defy the laws of physics, you just have to realize, that the static heat of the universe is approximately consistent throughout, but occasionaly there are hot and cold pockets... obviously then a light particle may speed up or slow down when traveling through a hot or cold pocket, and if something traveling the speed of light, speeds up... it more then likely alters time or our concept of it, and may even seem to transport itself untill it reaches the end of the temperature pocket, thus traveling farther then its life-span aught to allow.

following this real theory that has far more potential to be tested... you realize that this same concept allows us to better our understanding of many mysteries of space and time, inculding but not limited to, space and time travel, hyper space communication/ transportation.

Outside a dog the book is mans best friend, Inside a dog is too dark to read: Groucho marx

"you guys are silly"

Thanks. That's better than a GA.

TVP45 and I disagree on some things and agree on others. But it is clear that we agree on this: Scorn and opprobrium heaped upon one by the ignorant is at least as flattering as a compliment from a respected peer.

We not only judge a man by the company he keeps, but by the enemies his existence assembles.

The silly comment by cashman68bam is along these lines a badge of honor, to be worn proudly.

Thanks. It's important to me for you to know that, when we disagree (and I suspect we will again), I only disagree with your ideas and continue to respect your knowledge and your right to speak those ideas.

I think cashman68bam just forgot to take his medication that morning. Can light particles BE electrons? Don't electrons have mass? Can unknown quantities of electrons (mass) travel indefinitely at velocity c? Is radiation emitted or absorbed when electrons jump from one energy level to another.... but electrons can't exist in between those energy levels? It would seem that we still have a bit more science to determine. It's like elementary physics problems of calculating the wavelength of a baseball. Meaningless in real life. Is the surface that you call a desk really mostly empty space? Some things we have to take for granted until we understand more.

You claim that light travels straight. It was since several years already proved that mass has an influence on light trajectories according to theory which is called "relativity". or am I wrong being silly?

In general I do respect other participants because every body has a right to be respected, I do not like comments which are of this kind they are NOT at the level of our community.

Nice romantic explaination..One problem for myself at least..What does CMBR stand for?..The thread of thought seems logical ,although the speed of light has been shown to be variable in a variety of experiments depending on the medium it is passing through so even the 186,00 miles per second velocity(a vector rate so unidirectional)of light(although in lights case it seems the direction is initially 360 degrees disappearing from each radian only as physical impediments arise from our unique point of view) learned by many of us prior to the easier manipulated metric version of constants entered the domain of shareable mathematical equations becomes just another number...that is useful for ease of calculation and hence statistical predictability only..Also is it possible that acronyms could be given their longer identities at least once when introduced in a thread ,preferably early on in the discussion..It makes it less taxing to follow these interesting ideas...and occassionaly allows for an opprtunity to contribute a thought or two myself....Regards,Marty W.

excuse me, CMBR, is Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. theories have it to be "Light" echo's from when light was first created during the big bang... if this is true, it would mean that this light didnt follow the laws of physics when it was first created. many beleive it traveled faster then what now consider to be the max speed of light. it is now EVERYWHERE, but over time it has diminished. it is the direct cause of static on your tv screen and radio.

So I was so bold as to theorize that this radiation acts as a medium in space that hinders light from traveling faster. wich I would even more boldly theorize concepts of time distortion, teleportation, and space flight including hyper space flight.

Whales use sonar at a specific depth to communicate across oceans, why not treat CMBR the same and harmonize light with it, and send light waves through this medium possibly faster then the speed of light, or at least inbetween the transverse waves of cmbr.

For space flight, we use propellars in water, this wouldnt work well in space, but if CMBR is truely old light, it acts as particles AND waves, and with enough energy should possibly be able to charge a large proppellar of sorts to not harmonize but to repel the photons of this light. then spin the propellar and your sailing through an ocean of invisible light in the darkness of space, also allowing better steering capabilities then rocket fuel.

as far as teleportation is concerned... a water vortex is limited by its elements, it spins as fast as its mass and the atmosphere around it allows, drop a ping pong ball in a water vortex and it spirals a bit then accelerates out the other end... if CMBR is lights equivelant to our water, you have a potential to make a vortex of light in space, then an acceleration past the known speed of light to the other side of this vortex.

Im not sure, im not a quantum mechanics specialist, but these could be tested for valid points, teleportation is far fetched, fun to think about tho. however i think it would be in our best interest if people looked harder at CMBR and its possible applications. a LOT of energy would be required, and at this point in time I dont think we have anything capable of creating that amount of electricity, save maybe a nuclear reactor, id rather have nukes in space then in my back yard...

"I personaly figured out the true nature of light when i was a boy."

---

Good thing we've got messiahs like you about to keep us on the Straight and Narrow, ya?

I concur.

S

p.s. I like you avatar MUCH better than the last one.

A lot of what cashman said actually makes sense, his reference to the life times of muons , to CMBR and to the finite speed of light are right on the ball and very pertinent to any discussion on light, although his post might have been a bit, how shall I put it, forceful, kudos must be paid to the spirit behind his superb, apology.

Having said this I will continue with the outline of the Gestalt theory. Common sense and our own experience tells us that light does not travel for ever, it is finite. If you light a candle and begin to walk away from it, after you have covered a certain distance, the candle will no longer be visible, and it is not the curvature of the earth that is responsible. It is just that the light from the candle, which can be regarded as an isotropic radiator, follows the inverse square law and eventually becomes so vanishingly small as in effect to cease to exist. The field equations on electromagnetism of James Clerk Maxwell clearly illustrate this, the distance that an electromagnetic wave will travel is dependent on the power and the duration for which that power is applied. So to Maxwell, light was finite, it certainly could not go on forever as QM claims. Leaving this point aside for the moment, the question is what happens to light after it has ceased to exist, does it just become extinct, or does it as Gestalt theory claims, merely fade away with an energy so small that it can be considered a 'virtual photon', owing its new existence to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as it relates to time and energy.

Light according to Gestalt theory when it has ceased to exist becomes a part of the "virtual' photon sea or ether that exists ubiquitously, and which possibly came into being at the time of the big bang. Once transformed into a "virtual" photon the photon loses its orientation and becomes randomly oriented. When an electron within an atom emits a real photon, the "virtual" photons in its line of propagation line up in a positive to negative fashion forming a line whose ends rest on infinity, the energy of the emitted photon then travels along this line of virtual photons at the speed of light. To illustrate this I will have recourse to an experiment conducted by Benjamin Franklin. He arranged twenty uncharged Leyden jars ( the equivalent of modern capacitors) at one end he had a soldier ( line of soldiers ?) hold the terminals of the line of uncharged line of Leyden Jars, the other end of this line of Leyden Jars was connected to a charged Leyden Jar. The result was that the electrical charge from the first Leyden Jar traveled intact along the line of uncharged Leyden jars and delivered all of its force to the soldier holding the terminals of the last Leyden jar , with the result that he (they) were promptly knocked down. Light travels along the line of 'virtual' photons in a similar manner.

How does light become dispersed in accordance with the inverse square law ? Light if it is to be considered as a detectable source is never emitted singly, it is emitted with a certain frequency, (which also determines the wave-length) in the terahertz range. This means that if we take a single line of 'virtual' photons, carrying red light at 650 nm, it means that if this light shines for one second, there are 4.6 x 10 ^^ 14 photons each with an energy of 1.9 eV in that line of virtual photons. Given the solenoid structure of the photon and the presence of 'virtual' photons surrounding it, it means that this line of 4.6 x 10 ^^14 photons is constantly being redistributed over a wider and wider front, until at a certain point, no more energy is available in the line and it vanishes, the line breaks up into randomly oriented photons and the light for all purposes ceases to exist.

So there you have it, an explanation of how and more importantly, why, light travels in a straight line. The manner in which it can retain its identity ( energy) over huge distances, the manner in which light disperses (ordinary light not coherent light although similar theories apply to the dispersion of coherent light) the speed at which light travels, its lack of mass. Last but not least, a viable explanation of its particle and wave like properties.

Hope to continue this discussion and explain how it is possible for radio waves to be regarded as photons.

I was reading another forum thread on light here on c4 and saw a post relating to some blokes who used a crystal and laser beams to trap light for 1 second inside the crystal. of coarse if they use smoke and mirrors they can probably trap it for another second perhaps. couldnt this be beneficial to enhancing a view of light. i am reminded that things small enough such as atoms or light packets can not be seen where they are and where they come from at the same time, but if you can trap it like this, wouldnt that help. then maybe by chance we could test your solenoid theory, wich so far has a lot of depth to it and besides beeing able to physicaly look at light, seems elementaly flawless. same also goes for the theory of the higgs boson... unfortunately

Hello DDjames,

Common sense and our own experience tells us that light does not travel for ever, it is finite. If you light a candle and begin to walk away from it, after you have covered a certain distance, the candle will no longer be visible, and it is not the curvature of the earth that is responsible. It is just that the light from the candle, which can be regarded as an isotropic radiator, follows the inverse square law and eventually becomes so vanishingly small as in effect to cease to exist.

Sorry but I think you are mixing different concepts. Inverse square law is a fact, but it doesn't means the light vanishes. Each and every photon remain with its own energy and direction unless interact with something. The fact it seems to vanish is just because as you walk away, less photons reach you (the photons emitted by the candle are the same). The fact you cannot "see" one thing doesn't means it doesn't exist. (I never saw an electron)

Kind regards

The experiment can be modelled as 2 capacitors connected on one side by a resistor an at the other side separated by a switch. One of them is loaded and the other not. When the switch is closed across the resistor one gets the full voltage of the loaded capacitor and thus the maximal current. The Leyden jars could be loaded to several tausend volts so for a very short time the current was huge. After a time depending on the skin resistance the current decreases to very low values. The 20 capacitors being in series (I presume) will have 1/20 of the loaded one so that a null current will be soon (relatively) reached. Since the loss of load of one will be low its voltage will not drop too much.

Hi Nicknames,

No reason to get excited, it's just an analogy that's all and analogies are not always accurate. Can you imagine trying to convey the concept of the energy from one charged object moving along a line of uncharged similar objects. Benjamin Franklin's experiment seemed apposite as a description, however if it helps you can think of the photon as being something like Volta's battery.

I do not get "excited" I only estimate that the whole energy invested in a sterile discussion is a lost one and to be sincere I prefer efficiencies which are >0 (if possible).

You have the high conceptional level to conceive a new "Gestalt" theory and I congratulate for it, but I think that it is not (I am may be wrong) the right place to ask for comments, you should try to find a place where you will be among real physicists possessing same level as yours.

I for my modest position I feel too far from so far reaching thoughts I am much more near to ground, I consider that my level in theoretical physics is not high enough to be active participant in such a discussion.

Oh, I have not seen an answer to the question about the Maxwell equation and disappearing of light. Could you please explain it? I shall so learn some thing.

Thanks in advance.

Nickname (s)

[You see how high (no bad joke it is only an estimation of your intelectual position) you are: you do not even read a name the right way, it is a too low level action for you.]

OK, I'm stuck again. How do Maxwell's equations show light becoming non-existent at great distance?

How does the lifetime of muons fit into all this? Isn't that merely time dilation?

"light can have either one or the other of the properties but never both at the same time."

That is incorrect. Please see the last paragraph of my former discussion "History of Light":

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/6749

S

Sorry but I think you are mixing different concepts. Inverse square law is a fact, but it doesn't means the light vanishes. Each and every photon remain with its own energy and direction unless interact with something. The fact it seems to vanish is just because as you walk away, less photons reach you (the photons emitted by the candle are the same). The fact you cannot "see" one thing doesn't means it doesn't exist. (I never saw an electron)

Kind regards

Hi Kwetz,

All I am asking you to do is to keep an open mind. You are saying that individual photons can travel by themselves for ever until they meet an atom with a receptive electron and are absorbed, I am saying this doesn't happen and that the photon, if not absorbed, loses all its energy and becomes a 'virtual' photon. The fact is that by giving the photon these attributes, I can account for almost all of the properties that we know the photon possesses. Granted that your opinion is the generally acknowledged one, but then again the generally acknowledged theory doesn't work all that well, there are too many anomalies, take quantization, requantization and normalization for instance.

That is incorrect. Please see the last paragraph of my former discussion "History of Light":

Hi standardsguy,

Your 'History of light' is interesting, all the information collected in one place. I am a bit confused, are you referring to Nicknames post at #11 or to mine. I not only agree that both properties of light can be observed at the same time but that light is in fact part wave, part particle as you can see in the thread at the beginning of this post.

james, we can see stars using huble from a very long ways away, just how far do you speculate light travels before it becomes this "Virtual" Photon. they say the universe is heating up as it expands, contradictory to normal systems that cool when expanding, could the loss of energy as light turns into this virtual photon, be part of the cause for increase in energy(HEAT)? and do you presume all forms of light are in this solenoid formation? or just our spectrum of visible light? maybe microwaves form a tesseract or triangular prism like solenoid, i am interested in your explanation, why only this specific manifestation, what happens when light is polarized according to your specs.

Outside the dog a book is mans best friend, Inside a dog is too dark to read: Groucho Marx

Hi DDjames,

I always thought I was "open minded", of course maybe I'm wrong. In fact I was telling that I believe in electrons even I never saw one of them.

I am saying this doesn't happen and that the photon, if not absorbed, loses all its energy and becomes a 'virtual' photon.

Even I'm not a specialist on particle physics I've read something about "hearing" the Big Bang "sound" or the radiation emitted during such an important event. That threshold radiation "seems" to have a very long wavelength as it seems galaxies just go in opposite direction to ours. If this radiation can still be measured (evidenced) how much time ( in addition to the time spent between Big Bang and just now) is necessary for a photon to became completely a "virtual" one?

Kind regards

This is a subject that requires a small book to responde to, so please excuse my brievity, but here are my 2 cents:

"A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy consisting of a supposed dichotomy which fails one or both of the conditions: it is not jointly exhaustive or not mutually exclusive. In its most common form, two entities are presented as if they are exhaustive, when in fact other alternatives are possible. In some cases, they may be presented as if they are mutually exclusive although there is a broad middle ground." - wiki quote

In all observable waves including standing waves, a medium is required for transmission, which in the absence of ether dictates that the foundation of light is a particle. If someone assumes that ether exists, then that very same ether must in turn exist in the form of matter, ie- a particle or collection of particles.

addittional assumptions which may not be found to be true as awareness increases:

1) electrons are spherical

2) electrons consist of a single particle rather than a nucleus and orbiting sub particle, similar to their atomic big brother.

If you do not make the above two assumptions, partical-wave duality is reasonably easy to reconcile through the use of newtonian mechanics. I have much much more, but time is relative and I'm moving much slower than C. :)

that was quite insightful, light always has an ether to travel through, although many would beleive the vacuum of space is empty, it is filled with light traveling from distant stars. although I have yet to see light collide with another light and bounce in another direction, that may be due to the whole not a particle and wave at the same time complex. but im curious as to why, somewhere sometime there has never been a collision of light particles...

There is a pat answer to the aether requirement: light doesn't travel. Calculate time dilation and length contraction for v=c and you'll come up with the conclusion that light must already be everywhere all the time. No travel, no need for aether.

ok.. given that equation, I will agree that light may be everywhere, given proof of CMBR. and if time equals the speed of light, and they are one and the same, time is uniform throughout the universe, time alters when the speed of light changes. or it changes when your perspective to the speed of light changes. yes there would be a need for aether, if something is allready everywhere and it is linked to time, then time itself travels through the aether of light, then old light waves of distant stars is like looking back in time. so then my theory of hot and cold portions of light(CMBR) can accelerate or slow down time, explaining prolonged life of muons.

I disagree. The speed of light in vacuo is constant. Time does slow, but I don't see the need for an aether. Even if it does exist, apparently the only purpose for it is to permit electromagnetic waves, so we may as well just say they don't need a medium and there is no medium. A much simpler world.

ok, but then if there is no Aether, or no need for it, then light should strictly behave as a particle in space. IF there is an Aether it would distort or fluxuate the wave, like when stars twinkle when we observe them through our atmosphere.

This is a mechanical view, do not forget that energy and mass are related to each other one could say they are 2 forms of the same. energy does not need substance to travel and energy oscillations do not have to be related to a particle.

I would say that one of the participants was right since we are not theoretical physicists but only (I presume) engineers working with applied physics in a simplified form most of cases are we not too far from the knowledge required to come to a revolutionary theory of light?

Of course the discussion is very very interesting but is it not sterile?

I apologise for the comment but I always thought that to recognise owns limits in an humble way is the best behaviour.

yes, the mathematics behind light is over my head, i will cease my dillusional rants.

However I have one last question, James, can this gastalt theory explain how electrons "Jump" from different orbitals, reverse engineering and logic dictates, if you observe something, you can reverse it and see its source. say an excited electron jumps from F orbital to the lowest shell, giving a red light, observing from two or 3 different angles, could you not possibly measure frequencies, and use your photon and phonons to track or narrow down the location and source of the jump, if this jump is through time and space or if it is following perhaps virtual lines of force from phonons or something similar that also occupy the vast amount of space in the atom?

I am tempted to report you. They are not 'my' phonos. Phonons are an exclusively QM concept!

I apologise for the comment but I always thought that to recognise owns limits in an humble way is the best behaviour.

Good point. I was posting over my head. Thanks.

The quote I used was from your initial post, second paragraph.

"the photon, if not absorbed, loses all its energy and becomes a 'virtual' photon."

So you're saying light (which is pure energy) loses all of itself and becomes virtual energy? What is that, anyway?

Interestingly, both SG and NN are correct (no, this is not a correctness duality). It depends on the language we're using. To a dyed-in-the-wool QM guy, there is no duality. In the classical physics description, there is.

Dear James,

Probably, you could also go through the book " From Science to God " written by Peter Russell.

This book deals with the subject of light from a slightly differrent angle.

Best Regards,

Rajan Philip

A new theory concerning light is a commendable thing. As a degreed engineer I can say this is very interesting, but undergraduate physics (as most of us engineers would have) probably does not help that much in evaluating such things.

I'm sure some of the folks here are qualified but make sure you also have it evaluated in places loaded with higher level physics qualifications.

Hi Everyone,

Great response, so people do still really care about what light really is, and this is important for a discussion of this kind. There are as I have said already just too many anomalies, in present theories to really discuss them, if we do we are just going to get bogged down forever. Instead I will continue to outline Gestalt Theory and you can comment on that as I go along.

First taking the case of optical radiation. Gestalt theory proposes that there is one size for all photons. All photons 'virtual' and 'real' have the same dimensions. Let us say that this is about 500 nm. The advantage of this is that it makes it extremely easy for an electron to emit ( or absorb), a photon whatever its wavelength ; 500 nm or 501 nm or 600 nm etc., all it has to do is vary the amount of energy that it emits (the electron emits energy in pulses that form themselves into bands which is the backbone of the photon structure) and the time over which it does so. The photon structure outlined in the opening thread of this post is so flexible and adjustable that it can easily cope with the hundreds and thousand of frequencies and the tiny variations in energy that electrons are known to emit in the form of photons.

So there you have it a prosaic explanation, no mumbo jumbo involved, nothing fantastical and esoteric involved ! Nothing here that stretches the imagination.

Next we go on to deal with radio waves. Yes, I said that I would give an explanation for radio-waves and that is exactly what I am going to do. Before we get into that explanation I would just like to put before you an imaginary conversation that takes place between a physicist and an ordinary man on the street:

Phy : "Have you heard of phonons then Al ?"

Al: " I can't say I have Doc, what would they be? I have heard of photons of course but phonons, Did I hear you right, phonons?"

Phys: "That's right Al, I am talking about phonons, there's nothing wrong with your hearing."

Al: "So what are they Doc, these phonons?"

Phys: "Nothing too weird, Al, they are particles of sound, I would say that's the nearest thing I can come up with. Yes particles of sound."

Al: "Come off it Doc everyone knows that sound is a wave, how can it be a particle?"

Phy: "Well, Al there are several ways in which sound could be a particle, it could be a 'virtual' particle for instance."

Al: "Well I never!"

Phys: "Yes, Al and apart from being a virtual particle it can exist in two and three dimensions and as an optical phonon that travels at two thirds of the speed of sound!"

Al: "Well I never Doc, that surely, beats anything that I have ever heard!"

In order to discuss radio waves, I will have to discuss electricity, which is what the next post will be about.

of coarse we care about what light is, yes indeed Im curious about the radio waves, if you can tie in the tesla effect with this theory you will have me convinced. I plan to pick up where tesla left off and create wireless electricity for homes and business. so by all means james, carry on, you have our attention. when you say each photons have specific yet varied frequencies, I understand this, its similar to an IP address of a computer right?, couldnt the photons be tracked or monitored just like an IP address as well.

particles of sound... ya kind of lost me. each photon has a specific frequency, and reverberates with specific particles of sound called phonons?

In this post I would like to follow up on the last one and discuss electricity. But just to re-cap here once again is the imaginary conversation between the Physicist and Al the man on the street:

Phy : "Have you heard of phonons then Al ?"

Al: " I can't say I have Doc, what would they be? I have heard of photons of course but phonons, Did I hear you right, phonons?"

Phys: "That's right Al, I am talking about phonons, there's nothing wrong with your hearing."

Al: "So what are they Doc, these phonons?"

Phys: "Nothing too weird, Al, they are particles of sound, I would say that's the nearest thing I can come up with. Yes particles of sound."

Al: "Come off it Doc everyone knows that sound is a wave, how can it be a particle?"

Phy: "Well, Al there are several ways in which sound could be a particle, it could be a 'virtual' particle for instance."

Al: "Well I never!"

Phys: "Yes, Al and apart from being a virtual particle it can exist in two and three dimensions and as an optical phonon that travels at two thirds of the speed of light!"

Al: "Well I never Doc, that surely, beats anything that I have ever heard! There is one small point I would like to clear up though. The speed of sound both in solids and in air is well documented and it is nowhere near three quarters the speed of light?"

Doc: "Well, Al did you do the experiment I suggested?"

Al: "Yes, Doc, as a matter of fact I did, I heated up a copper rod and tested for the speed of sound, it wasn't all that different from the normal speed of sound in a copper bar at room temperature."

Doc: "Well, Al that just goes to show, that heat due to electricity is different, but in any case it is all supported by mathematics, so don't worry about it."

Al: "If you say so Doc!"

I am just trying to illustrate here the uncanny ability that QM has to develop concepts and theories, normally seen only in science fiction and totally absurd from a normal everyday point of view, whenever the need arises. All these theories and concepts are rigorously supported by highly suspect mathematics. Take the case of renormalization, when something is approaching infinity, just turn everything back to zero and everything is fine. Or why not divide zero and get something. In short the mathematics is often of a kind that would get any first grader to his feet yelling, "But that's cheating!"

So anyway what I want to say is that outside of 'phonons' the so called 'virtual' sound or vibrational particle created by QM there is no way that the speed with which electricity travels (close to C) can be explained.

Let me explain, everyone knows that electricity is carried by electrons, since the photon of course is a neutral particle and does not carry a charge, that's what we are left with right?

There is problem with electrons doing the carrying of charge, for one thing they are particles with mass, and therefore can never actually reach the speed of C. In order to come to say 90% the speed of C they would have to be placed in something like the LHC! That's no problem says someone, just imagine a tube filled with ping balls, when you push in another one, the one at the end of the tube will pop out very fast. OK, there are two problems with this, very fast is not as fast as C and remember that a metal when viewed in microcosm consists of vast empty spaces. On a macro scale this would be represented by tiny specks of dust separated by hundred of thousands of kilometers! So there is no question of pushing an electron in at one end and getting one out the other end.

Alright so there is still no problem, it is a field that interacts with electrons and so carries the charge from one end of the conductor to the other. But, and use a little common sense here, how do electrons receive and transmit energy? How for instance does an electron jump from one orbit to another. Answer it absorbs a photon. OK, so where does that photon come from? Why from another electron obviously, so where does this so called field come into it !

Hence the weird theory of phonons created by QM..

However, according to Gestalt Theory a photon is almost solely electrical energy, but because of its solenoidal field it is in essence neutral. True EM fields do react or interfere with each other but in order to do so they have to be near to each other in frequency. Remember the second world war and all those storied of jamming . transmissions. Only possible when the two are at the exact same frequency. In the same way radio-waves never interfere with light, right ? and so on.

Using the same criteria, (i.e., that radio waves do not interfere with light, we can postulate a frequency for the 'conduction' photon (yes, because gestalt theory states that electricity is carried by photons) of about 5 microns.

But say the QM enthusiast, what about the Pauli exclusion principle that states that a free electron can never under any circumstances absorb or emit a photon because of the forces of recoil involved the Laws of conservation of energy and momentum would be violated.

Yes! This is true, but there is one way in which a free electron could absorb and emit photons and this is by doing it fast enough to come under Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle as applied to energy and time. So if a free photon were to emit and re-absorb a photon in less than 10^^-15 secs. it is home free.

So let us say that there is an inequality of charge at either end of a conductor, low energy (.25 eV) long wave-length photons ( 5 microns, shorter photons would be absorbed or trapped in the crystalline structure) are released and start to travel through the conductor, they are absorbed by a free electron or a loosely bound electron, which leaves the parent atom and enters the vast interstitial spaces of the conductor. This electron is now in a quandary, it has excess energy that it has to release, so it has no choice and it emits a photon of the same wave-length it has absorbed. The photon is now in the same quandary as the electron that emitted it, it has to be re-absorbed by an electron of the same energy that emitted it, the nearest source of such electrons is in the conductor, so it travels along lines of oriented 'virtual' photons that orient themselves along its line of propagation, back to the conductor and is re-absorbed either by the electron that has emitted it or if that electron has already absorbed a photon by another electron.

So you have this spiral of photons traveling along what we refer to as lines of force and resulting in a flow of current .

In my next post radio waves illustrated by diagrams.

In continuation of my last post wherein I had promised to describe radio waves (with diagrams) according to the Gestalt Theory. I would like to start with a quote by the Great Detective to his long suffering companion, Dr. Watson:

"……when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?. " (The sign of four)

There you have it, it is impossible to think of the tiny electron ever, and I stress the word ever, emitting waves (photons) that are 500m to 1 km long. Am I right or is it just my imagination?

It is equally impossible to envision these gigantic waves as being particles….?

The incredibly simple answer is that it is not possible ! What we think of as radio waves are in fact composite waves consisting of hundreds or thousand or millions of 'conduction"photons connected in parallel! How does this happen?

So, I had ended the last post describing how low energy photons (0.25 eV, 5 microns) were absorbed and emitted by free (loosely held valence electrons) electrons within the conductor, in keeping with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, as it relates to time and energy. These photons then left the conductor activating the 'virtual' photons in their vicinity forming lines of force, and re-entered the conductor to be re-absorbed and again emitted. Giving rise to the phenomenon of lines of force! Right so how does this give rise to radio waves?

The Gestalt Theory answer to this, is that when a direct (one way ) current is flowing through a wire (conductor) the photons that give rise to lines of force are connected in series. Thus each line of force delivers the energy of one 'conduction' photon, or about 0.25 eV, but remember that there are millions of lines of force, even when a pretty small current is flowing through the wire. This is what photons connected in series look like:

However, imagine the situation when the current ( EMF) is suddenly stopped. Where do all these photons go? Or, take another analogous situation where the current is switched as in, for instance, AC. The photons have nowhere to go, they must seek a new home, they therefore change their orientation from serially connected to parallel connected, and speed of in the direction of propagation at the speed of C. Here is what parallel connected photons look like:

Ok, to continue and to validate. Suppose you have a 60Hz wavelength in alternating current, then its wave length would be 5 x 10^^6 m and its energy would be 2.5 x 10^^-13 eV. Am I right ?? Ok, so divide that wave-length of 5 x 10^^6 by the 'conduction' photon wave-length of 5 microns = 5 x 10^^6 / 5 x 10^^-6 and you have 10^^-12 'conduction' photons all connected in parallel and sharing their energy, which gives:

0.25 ev / 10^^-12 which gives 2.5 x 10^^-13 eV. Voila. It all works, right!

Next if you like Magnetism!!!

Magnetism makes it all work like...... well magic...Looking forward to your next entery and may have to print out your thoughts ...A lot at once to mull over...Marty W.

Hi cashman68bam,
You remind me of a guy on the string forum, about what eight or nine years ago, (which closed down after I posted my theory), who after work, used to lay around on this (virtual) island, sipping martinis and spouting about string theory. Tell me I'm wrong!!!

thanks i think, I have my issues(dont we all) string theory is one of them. to me its not so much about right or wrong, some things, especialy when it comes to science, even though it boasts the scientific method, can not, will not, and should not be proven right or wrong, and thats where I like to have my fun. I enjoy playing the devils advocate, logic dictates many things in science, but science doesnt always dictate logic. QM! (cough) so indeed, id rather be on a castle in the clouds spouting off cerns reason for the LHC and how oil is virtualy extinct and I will contribute to said extinction.

Sounds like the same guy!!!

Hi Everyone !

Despite the controversies, the discussion so far has been amazingly disciplined and friendly, especially considering the topic, which is volatile to say the least. However, I think that I have succeeded in, giving an outline of a theory, just using observation and common sense, that fits almost all of the criteria, associated with electro-magnetic waves as at present known. For instance I have explained how there may exist a possibilty for there to be present trillions of different frequencies that are all still photons, and to explain how a 500m radio wave still has all the characteristics of a photon, such as retaining its identity, being without mass, traveling at the speed of light, its neutrality and so on, although all this has been done in a very sketchy manner ( and without a proper mathematical structure), it still explains this topic with an accuracy, that would give QED and its quantum entanglement theory of electromagnetic waves a run for its money.

A new theory of electricity has been suggested, that should conform to facts as they are known, relating to Ohms law and resistance, or take the case of inductive current for example, they could be seen in a completely new and more accurate light. etc., Again,

consider the current flow through a capacitor, can this really be put down to a displacement current or does it indeed go to show that we live in a virtual photon sea and that the energy is stored in this field (i.e., between the capacitors.) (what energy ? electrical energy! ) and so on.

This said it is time for me to cut and run. There are a host of things that remain undone, I haven't even sent off any Christmas cards yet, and to try and carry on this thread with only half or less of my attention would never do. And this is a great pity because I noticed that Europium, who is very learned in all these things has just joined the thread ! So sayanora for now as the Walrus said to the oysters. D.James

I managed to get a a few minutes to myself so I thought that I should thank everyone, who has taken part in this discussion especially, Marty Wolf , TVP45, Cashmanbam68, nick name and all the rest. I'll be back.

Hi! I'm back. I hope that all of you enjoyed Christmas and that the coming year will be equally good!.

I have had a chance to go through the whole thread, and just as in any discussion, I have found that there are pros and cons. Nick name, for instance, believes that we should leave everything to those who have more, or rather a deeper, knowledge of things, embracing the belief that engineers, meaning those who actually put that knowledge into practice, need not be in the know. While Marty wolf is all for the dissemination of knowledge and for a more democratic state of affairs and a wider discussion.

One of the things that I had tried to do in this thread was to keep away from any discussion on the merits or de-merits of firmly established disciplines, such as that of QM, since this invariably leads to dissension. Unfortunately the Gestalt Theory requires a new look at how electricity is conducted and so some reference to prevailing theories had to be made. If this had not been done the immediate response would have been "What's wrong with what we already have?"

In order to try and make good some of the damage, I feel that I should at least attempt to give a QM view of things. What QM attempts to do is truly wonderful, QM attempts to explain things from the bottom up (i.e right from the basic building blocks of molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons etc.,) as applied to electricity this involves the crystalline structure of conductors. Thanks to this type of investigation today the crystalline structure of every type of metal is known in detail.

Heat, as is well known, always accompanies an electric current. The conventional wisdom, even before QM, was that this heat must be due to some kind of vibration associated with the atomic crystalline structure of the conductor. As a difference of potential is applied across the ends of the conductor, electrons begin to move towards the positive pole while ions start to drift towards the negative pole, causing multiple types of collisions, resulting in the setting up of oscillations. Since these are obviously low energy vibrations, it is natural to associate them with sound waves. According to Louis de Broglie, every wave can be associated with a particle and every particle with a wave. Therefore, according to QM, the evolution of phonons is completely justified.

Thus QM regards a solid as a system of strongly interacting particles. The possibility of introducing quasiparticles such as phonons, is therefore of principal importance, since it reduces the problem of a system of strongly interacting particles to that of a system of weakly interacting particles.

Using the same kind of theory, there are now more quasi-particles than particles, to give a few examples, phonons, frenkel excitons, light excitons, plasmons, magnons etc., Although this might seem an excellent approach, it might also be a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. While this theory gives an excellent view of what goes on inside the electrical conductor, what happens outside the conductor as a result of the current flow is extremely vague and extremely complicated. For instance Electromagnetic fields that appear around a conductor through which a current is flowing ( and also radio-waves) are attributed to a process of mutual annihilation and creation of elementary particles, for instance a photon in the EM field might spontaneously give rise to an electron/positron pair which in turn undergo mutual annihilation in turn giving rise to a new photon and so on. One must surely see the difficulty in such a system giving rise to waves of different frequencies and wave-lengths?

The Gestalt theory for this phenomenon by contrast is very simple and very cogent. For instance, apart from accurately accounting for radio waves whatever their frequency and wave-lengths, it also accounts for the properties of reactive fields and radiative fields as they exist around a current carrying wire, and does so very accurately. And it accomplishes all this while at the same time maintaining all the properties of the photon!

In a conductor carrying a DC current, the field is more or less static, a copper (or other paramagnetic) conductor placed in its vicinity won't show any change ( although an iron (or other ferromagnetic) conductor will be attracted to the wire through which the DC current is flowing. However if the unattached conductor is moved through the field around the current carrying conductor, a current can immediately be detected. The reason for this is simple, electrical conductors contain vast numbers of free electrons, when the unattached conductor is moved the free electrons also move, independently of it.

According to Gestalt Theory, lines of force are formed out of oriented lines of virtual photons that are arranged in series and through which the energy of a single real photon (about 0.25 eV) is carried. The reason for this is two fold, the electrons within the wire have in accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as applied to time and energy a mutual interest in meeting up with each other. However when an unattached conductor is moved through the field ( lines of force) there arises a new and alternate supply of moving electrons by which the photons in the line of force can be absorbed. Hence the presence of a current in a conductor moving in proximity to the current carrying conductor.

Now look at the reactive field (near field) Gestalt Theory predicts that as one moves further and further away from the conductor a weak radiative field will be detected comprising multiple frequencies. This happens because as the lines of force spread out from the conductor and have to cover a greater and greater distance to the conductor, often the electron which has emitted the photon giving rise to the line of force will have absorbed a photon from another source, leaving the line of force with nowhere to go, with the result that it re-aligns itself in a parallel formation and flies away from the vicinity of the conductor at the speed of C.

As applied to an AC current the near field (reactive ) and far (radiative) field are different, the far field has a well defined time dependent frequency and wave length, while the near field will deliver an inductive current to any conductor in its vicinity that will vary only according to the voltage and current flowing in the conductor. I have not been able to ascertain what causal factors are attributed to the near and far fields according to conventional theories, all that has been done is to give a description of what happens, not why it happens.

Also heat in a conductor carrying a current is according to Gestalt Theory not due to sound but rather to electrons. Under the influence of a difference of potential electrons might gain speeds of up to 10^^8 cms/sec (taking the maximum velocity possible) over very short distances < 10 ^^-6 cms, resulting in considerable exchange of energy.

This theory (The Gestalt Theory) is still very much in the phenomenology (descriptive) stage, so I hope any small indiscrepancies that are noted are brought to my notice without undue acrimony or recrimnations.

Magnetism

In the previous post I had mentioned that the crystalline structure of all types of metals, has been intensively investigated. The exact manner in which the atoms of these metals combine together to form a crystalline structure has been ascertained as have their size and positioning within the crystal. This knowledge has resulted in great insight into why metals possess the properties that they do. For instance, although diamond and graphite share identical chemical properties, one (diamond) is a good insulator while the other (graphite) is a conductor of electricity, diamond is one of the hardest substances found in nature, while the structure of graphite is so soft that it is used as a lubricant. It is obvious that many of the properties of substances depend on their crystalline structure. In proof of this consider the following, reason tells us that a good conductor of electricity must necessarily have a structure wherein the maximum number of electrons are available for the conduction of electricity. The crystalline structure that offers the best possibility for such a circumstance would be the ones that have the highest packing factor. Such a structure can be found in those metals whose crystals have a 'Face Centered cubic structure' that consists of a total of 14 atoms. In keeping with the conjecture that this type of structure would be the best conductor of electricity it is found that copper, silver and aluminum all have this type of structure. At the same time the metal lead also has the same cubic structure although it is a poor conductor of electricity. Obviously apart from the actual physical structure of the crystal, account has also been taken into of the composition of the individual atoms making up the crystal. The orbitals and shared orbitals of its electrons etc.,

In the conduction of electricity it is known that a good conductor of electricity such as copper develops a strong magnetic field when a current is flowing through it, although this magnetic field disappears the moment the current ceases to exist. On the other hand a less efficient conductor of electricity like iron, also develops a strong magnetic field in the presence of a flow of current through them but retains that magnetic field even after the current has ceased to flow. Again a look at the crystalline structure of iron turns out to be of the type known as 'Body Centred Cubic'. Imagine a cube with an atom at each of its vertices, making a total of eight atoms and one in the centre ( 8+ 1 =9 atoms) and you get a good, if basic, idea of what this structure looks like the' Face Centred cubic structure' has instead of the single atom in the centre of the cube, an atom in the centre of each face of the cube or 8 + 6 = 14 atoms. It is obvious, at least superficially, that metals with the FCC structure have more electrons and hence are better conductors. It is equally obvious that metals with the BCC structure, have fewer electrons and are relatively poorer conductors of electricity yet have a tendency to retain their magnetic properties even after the current stops flowing (i.e., ferromagnetic.) The two strongest ferromagnetic materials are Iron and Cobalt both of which have a BCC structure. Yet as has been pointed out other factors have also to be taken into account, before the final attributes of the substance in question is decided. As an example of this many of the best ferromagnetic material are in fact compounds.

At this point someone is likely to say "pull the other leg its got bells on…………." Or words to that effect. This is all very basic what are you getting at? In fact this is precisely what I am trying to get at. All of the above phenomena have been extensively investigated and experimentally verified. The investigation into the structure of crystals has been meticulously investigated through physical, not mere mathematical means, it is possible to state even the kinds of faults and imperfections that these crystals are subject to. The same goes for the manner in which these atoms are linked together. This is extremely sound science, no conjecture is involved, no supposition of weird and supernatural phenomenon. Placed side by side with this kind of painstaking science, the theory of wave particle duality seems purely hypothetical. This is borne out by the end results of wave particle duality when applied to phenomenon like electromagnetic fields, which if the truth be told are totally impractical and illusionary. It might be argued that the wave/particle theory has been rigorously tested time after time with unfailing results. Yet alternatives to this theory do exist, as I have attempted to demonstrate even in the very limited scope of this thread. If wave particle duality is ruled out as impossible then everything else becomes possible.

Take for instance the supposition that electrons deliver charge, is it really true? Photons are the mediators of electrons. Electrons interact with their environment through photons. Thus when an electron 'transfers' charge to another object it does so through the medium of photons. This is not to be confused, with an uneven distribution of charge, as for instance when one body acquires more electrons than another which is possible because of the high mobility possessed by electrons, the force between the two objects is still mediated by photons.

It is ridiculous to discount photons in the conduction of electricity and it especially ridiculous to do so when it can be demonstrated ( and is in fact demonstrated at every turn) that photons can convey and deliver energy. So unless someone can demonstrate that electricity comes in a form of energy that photons cannot deliver, there can be no plausible reason to say that photons cannot be considered as being the primary force in an electric current.

Leaving aside for the moment the many different types of magnetism, which are almost certainly determined by the physical structure and other properties of the materials involved. It is well known that no kind of permanent magnetism can exist unless a current at one time or the other actually flows through the material in question. By the passage of a current I do not refer to the orbit of electrons around the nucleus of an atom or to the spin of those electrons, but to a flow of current caused by a potential difference that has to pass through the material in order for the material to gain the property of permanent magnetism.

Taking into account the crystalline structure of iron, it is possible to say that under a difference of potential 'conduction' photons begin to move through the material forming the characteristic loops or lines of force (aligned lines of 'virtual' photons), but that that the electrons in the atoms of the crystalline structure of iron are so rigidly ordered that they become fixed, the lines of force (aligned 'virtual' photons) perpetually passing through the same electrons. This statement is supported by the fact that any kind of disturbance to the electrons results in disappearance of the magnetic field. If a difference of potential is applied to the ends of the magnet, if it is heated or violently beaten, the magnetism ceases to exist. Any or all of these actions would result in the electrons in the material undergoing disruption. This is especially pertinent if we are to assume that it is photons that carry the charge in an electric current it follows naturally that it would be the electrons of the atoms that would be involved.

So what in the end is permanent magnetism, the best description according to this theory is that it is frozen electricity. Electricity that exists without heat and without the need for a difference of potential.

If the electromagnetic field formed around a current carrying conductor and that around a permanent magnet are compared they are found to be identical. This can be easily demonstrated. A current always flows in a circle (circuit). If you take a straight round wire and magnetise it, it will develop a field like that around a bar magnet. If however you now bend this magnetized wire into a circle it will be found that the field around it is identical to that of a wire carrying a current. So in what way are the two different, the answer is that they are not.

The Gestalt theory on the nature of light and related phenomenon as applied to Gravity !

The physicist Sir Isaac Newton, who gave an explanation of the physical effects of gravity that proved to be so insightful that they helped man to explore the Universe and to reach the moon, was mystified until the end as to what the causative effect of gravity might be, as we still are today. Although he claimed that he would make no hypotheses on the causative factors of gravity, we can get a general idea from some of his words :

"Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and the planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes used to do ) but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtues on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances…………….." Isaac Newton.

It is clear from the above that Newton considered gravity to originate in the very matter of which objects are made (i.e. atomic structure) depending not on the size of the object but upon its density. It is also clear that he believed that gravity exerted its force in an isotropic manner and that like light it followed the inverse square law, the force reducing according to the square of the reciprocal of the distance.

It would seem that in this respect light and gravity are very similar, both originate in atoms, both follow the inverse square law ( when radiating isotropically) both go on for immense distances. Light, however, does not depend for its strength on the density of the object emitting it, while light does.

To digress for a moment and address a question posed by Cashman68bam:

"However I have one last question, James, can this gastalt theory explain how electrons "Jump" from different orbitals………….," Cashman68bam

This is just the question that puzzled physicists when QM was first being formulated, here is a short historical summary:

In 1911, Rutherford came to the conclusion that the strong deflection of an alpha particle occurs not as the result of many collisions, but in a single act of collision with an atom and, consequently there must be a small positively charged nucleus at the centre of the atom, containing almost all of the mass of the atom. The was a decisive step towards the creation of the planetary model of the atom which Rutherford finally formulated in 1913. In the same year Bohr published his famous paper On the constitution of Atoms and Molecules . It considered the theory of the planetary model of the Hydrogen atom based on the idea of quantization. Resolutely departing from accepted concepts, Bohr's theory ruled out a direct link between the frequency of the radiation emitted by an atom and the frequency of the rotation of the electron in the atom. On reading the paper Einstein remarked : Then the frequency of light does not depend at all on the frequency of the electron………… This is an enormous achievement !" Bohr's findings were spectacularly confirmed by direct experimental evidence that an atom ay change its energy only discretely.

However, in the course of the development of Bohr's theory, its internal contradictions associated to a considerable with its contradictions with very idea of quantization and of "quantum jumps" became more and more apparent. The Theory clearly betrayed a stage of crisis. Any further development of QM demanded an overcoming of this crisis and the introduction of new ideas. In 1924 De Broglie suggested the idea of duality, he proposed to associate every micro-particle with wave characteristics on the one hand and corpuscular characteristics on the other. The theory of wave particle duality was vigorously adopted by QM and became one of its tenets. The fact that and a particle have no common characteristics as a wave can never be localized and a particle can never be delocalized and that they are two different concepts was ignored when dealing with micro-particles. The concept of duality solved the problem of "quantum jumps' once and for all, since the electron could now consider to be de-localised within the atom. Thus the adoption of duality by QM was a direct result of the need to solve the question 'quantum jumps'.

This is where it becomes interesting, later, much later in the 1970's, it became apparent that electrons were constantly emitting and absorbing 'virtual' photons in a process known as 'virtual transitions' made possible by the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as it applies to energy and time. In other words if a "virtual' photon is absorbed and emitted in a very small time less than one trillionth of a second, it can pass undetected by the laws of conservation as applied to energy. 'Virtual" Transitions do not require any expenditure of energy from outside, while a real transition requires the expenditure of external energy. The existence of 'virtual transitions' was proved by experimentation in the Lamb shift.

So in effect an alternate explanation had been found for 'quantum jumps', so two possible explanations existed for them, one was the theory of duality and the other , proved by experiment, was that of 'virtual transitions'. Therefore to al purposes the theory of duality, at least as applied to 'quantum jumps' was dead in the water. So why does wave partciel duality still occupy such an important place in QM?

Virtual transitions constantly take place within the atom, electrons are continuously emitting and absorbing virtual photons. In this fact might lie the solution and explanation for gravity !

According to Gestalt Theory (Gastalt Theory according to cashman68bam) we live in a sea of 'virtual' photons that permeates the entire universe. The virtual photons of this ether (or virtual photon sea) are randomly oriented, that is they no orientation. However, when an electron emits a real photon, the virtual photons of the virtual photon sea (ether) orient themselves in the direction of propagation of the emitted photon forming a LINE whose ends rest upon infinity, the energy of the real emitted photon travels along this line of oriented virtual photons.

It is a little known fact that the gravitational force although it is all pervasive and shapes the whole universe is the weakest force known to nature. It is about 10^^40 times weaker than the electromagnetic force ! This is a huge number, in fact it has been calculated that the total number of atoms in the observable Universe comes to about 10^^80. It is apparent therefore that the number 10^^40 is really significant. Gestalt Theory proposes, that Gravity is due to the virtual transitions that take place within all atoms. Thus, when an electron within an atom emits a virtual photon, which incidentally because of the reciprocal uncertainties between energy and time proposed by the HUP can have significant energy, the 'virtual photons' of the ether orient themselves in the direction of its propagation. Thus the more electrons that an atom possesses the greater the force exerted by its emission and absorption of 'virtual photons, on the 'virtual photons' of the virtual photon sea (ether). So a dense object would exert a greater gravitational force than a less dense one, hydrogen for instance would exert less gravitational force than lead, and so on.

Electromagnetic radiation exerts an attractive force. So there it is gravitation according to Gestalt Theory is an extremely weak electromagnetic force mediated by virtual photons.

Consider the case where a feather and a lead ball are dropped from the same height in a vacuum. What happens? They both fall at exactly the same rate and the reason for this is their respective inertial masses. Thus the inertial mass of the feather is much less than that of the lead ball, so they both fall together. Consider now that the theory proposed by the Gestalt Theory for gravitation, corresponds perfectly with this circumstance, the heavier lead ball is being attracted away from the earth much more strongly than the less dense feather. Further, all matter emits 'virtual' photons and all matter is therefore subject to gravitational force. It acts isotropically (i.e in all directions) and like light it observes the inverse square law.

"The fact that______and a particle have no common characteristics as a wave can never be localized and a particle can never be delocalized and that they are two different concepts was ignored when dealing with micro-particles."

There seems to be word missing in the mouthful above. What is it?

"The concept of duality solved the problem of "quantum jumps' once and for all, since the electron could now consider to be de-localised within the atom."

How so? I don't get it.

"The existence of 'virtual transitions' was proved by experimentation in the Lamb shift."

I'm sorry, but that document says nothing about virtual anything. In fact it says that the exchange of real photons is the the cause of the electromagnetic force!

What is the value of the electron spin g-factor with the Gestalt theory?

I'm sorry, but that document says nothing about virtual anything. In fact it says that the exchange of real photons is the the cause of the electromagnetic force! Standardsguy

Hi Standards guy. Have you heard of Richard Feynman ? Do you see the reference to his name here in this quotation from the site quoted?
"At the heart of the process is the exchange force by which charges interact by the exchange of photons (the exchange force model of the electromagnetic force). There can be a self interaction of the electron by exchange of a photon as sketched in the Feynman diagram at left."

Gestalt Theory

The word Gestalt stands for something the whole of which is greater than the sum of its parts. If an individual part is taken from the whole, the whole is diminished, and the opposite is also true. Neither can survive on its own.

"A Gestalt Theory of light and related phenomenon " attempts to explain the whole of physics as a single unified theory incorporating into itself light, electricity, electromagnetism and gravity, it is if you like a 'Grand Unified Theory ' although this seems a rather pompous and rather archaic way of putting it, or it could also be called a TOE, Theory of Everything.

I would like to thank cr4, for allowing me to post these ideas arising from "A Gestalt Theory of light and related phenomenon, and for everyone who has participated in this discussion.

thanks for sharing....marty W.

Well i know your last entery was basically a closure to the edifying and unique discussion but i'd like to add this querrie to the loop.....Watching television last night i noted to my wife once again that the reception was great as there was no wind...I immediately thought back to the duality of light,etc. (really all EMS range) and realized that somehow wind effects my receiving of that range of the EMS that is picked up by my televisions receivers...So ??......Marty W.

Hi Marty,

I remember one of my professors discussing this question. He would talk of radio-waves in the old days. Those were amplitude modulated and of really long wave length. They could literally go through anything, even if a large building was in the way for instance, the wave would be broken up by it, but the parts that did survive, still contained all of the information. This fits in well with my theory of radio-waves. Today, of course, everything is in the MHz range, almost line of sight transmission but I suppose there is still scope for disruption, maybe for instance the wind makes the atmosphere denser and more of the wave (photons) is absorbed and so on.