Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gestalt Theory


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#18 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 03 September 2012 - 08:23 AM

I think that the question of what matter is made of has been gone into in depth at this thread so there would be no point in my going into it. I am surprised that out of about 450 views only two people have bothered to reply.

#19 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:21 AM

Wave properties of a photon

Till now it is the particle like properties of the photon that have been discussed. It has been suggested that the electron emits short bursts of electrical energy that are encapsulated in a solenoidal field, thus making it electrically neutral, have no mass, and giving it the ability to retain its energy intact over large distances.
Posted Image


But how does this give the photon its wave like properties ?

In the discussion on how electricty is conducted in a conductor it was suggested that the very low drift speed of the electrons in a conductor to which a potential difference has been applied was due to the fact that free electrons within the conductor were emitting and absorbing photons fast enough (i.e., 10-15 secs) in keeping with Hesienberg's Uncertainty principle :
1) [math]\Delta E\Delta t \geq \frac{i}{2}\hbar[/math]

thus circumventing the Laws of mass/energy conservation. Maybe the same kind of principle applies to emission of photons from electrons within the atom also. A study of Compton scattering shows that the angle at which photons are scattered (absorbed and re-emitted) from electrons in an atom, is dependent on the intensity of the incident photon. A look at the following diagram on Compton scattering, illustrates this point:
Posted Image

If the incident photons of an irradiating source are all of the same intensity and coming into the electron at the same angle, then the photons that are re-emitted (scattered) by the electron will be in one single direction. Thus the electron, when being irradiated by photons that are absorbed by the electron, serves as an oscillator when it is re-emitting the absorbed photons. This implies that the electrons do not, when absorbing and re-emitting a steady source of incident photons, revolve around the nucleus. Rather they stay in the same place oscillating between the home state and an outer orbit re-emitting the photons they have absorbed. This gives each electron that is involved in the process, the effect of emitting a continuous stream of photons in a single direction forming a continuous line. The rate at which these photons are emitted gives the frequency of the 'wave' while the time period between photon emissions gives the wave length. Thus when we speak of the frequency of a light 'wave' we are in reality referring to the frequency at which the photons are being emitted by the electron and when we speak of the wave length of a particular light we are talking about the time lapse period in between emissions with which these photons are emitted. The photons represent the peaks of the 'sine' wave while the spaces in between represent the troughs of the 'sine' wave. Methods used to determine the frequency of light have varied from diffraction gratings to using crystals of a known geometery. Thus, if light has been measured to have a frequency of 500 x 10 14 , then that is exactly what is happening photons are being emitted by the excited electrons at the rate of 500 x 10 14 a second.
The same kind of system works with radio waves also, here we have lines of 'parallel' aligned photons, the rate at which the 'lines' of parallel photons are formed gives the frequency, while the time between these lines of parallel aligned photons, gives the wave length. When such a radio wave is detected by a reciever, it is turned into a 'real' transverse sine wave that has troughs and peaks due to the AC current being used in the detection process.

Edited by McQueen, 05 September 2012 - 05:23 AM.


#20 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 01:50 AM

The inverse square law as applied to photons:


The QM explanation for light is that once a photon is emitted by an electron it will, unless absorbed by a suitable electron in its path, travel forever. But is this really true, is this what we observe in real life. Maybe not, light in our practical experience does not seem to travel forever and for infinite distances, rather, it seems to spread out until eventually it is no longer detectable. This spreading out of light occurs according to the inverse square law. But exactly why does light and electromagnetic radiation in general behave this way.
A 'virtual photon' aether, that pervades the whole of the Universe offers one explanation. When an electron emits a photon, the 'virtual photons' of the aether ( which are extremely low energy photons on the order of 10 -19 ev) , along its path align themselves in the direction of travel of the photon forming a line whose ends rest on infinity and the energy of the emitted photons travels along this line of aligned virtual photons. However as the photon travels along the aligned line of 'virtual photons' it begins to share its energy with the 'virtual photons' around it. Yet the energy of the photon is shared among the 'virtual photons' in such a manner that its own original energy is always intact. How is this possible ? The explanation is that photons are emitted by the electron in a straight line in numbers depending on their frequency. Thus the energy of the leading photon in the 'line' is always being renewed by those behind it. The shape that results from these interactions is cone shaped, (i.e., in keeping with the inverse square law. ) So if for instance an electrom emitting red light might emit 500 x 10 14 photons every second. Even though the radiation ( emission of photons) is isotropic, (i.e., radiating in all directions.)the photons that are emitted still follow the inverse square law. Since there would be a minimum of 1022 electrons emitting photons at the rate of 10 14 photons a second, from a cross section of the radiating object, the manner described for the working of the inverse square law seems to feasible.
Those who are reading this will now immediately exclaim 'what rubbish....!!' or 'I never heard such b....s.... !" and other similar statements. They are forgetting one extremely important and practically inexplicable fact. Namely that the mean free path of a photon in space is approximately 1023 Kms. Think about what this means it seems to suggest that an emitted photon can travel for a distance of 10 billion light years ( wikipedia source) without meeting any obstruction!

And YET, and yet here is the nub, electromagnetic radiation while travelling through these vast empty spaces, (think Voyager transmissions) and transmitting over billions of kilometres of distance, exactly ( and I stress the word exactly) follow the inverse square law. Receivers are constructed taking exactly these parameters into account. In fact the transmissions from the Voyager space craft were only made possible because of the signal bouncing of the heliosphere and also through boosting by space craft that were intermediately located in space during the transmissions. With nothing to absorb them why do the photons still spread out in this manner ? (Remember that when we talk of voyager transmissions we are speaking of 'radio' waves and not of light.) So the signal from Voyager would arrive at the detecting point with the photons carrying the same intial energy as they set out with but with a reduced intensity that is determined by the inverse square law.

So how does it happen, as I have pointed out the existence of a 'virtual photon' aether would exactly account for why light follows the inverse square law. It would also explain why collimated light ( as for instance from a laser) can travel for much longer distances and doesn't follow the inverse square law. If we take the 'virtual photon' aether explanation into account, it just means that the collimated beam of light offers less surface to interact with the 'virtual photon' aether, consequently the spreading out effect is much reduced and the light can travel much further.

Edited by McQueen, 18 September 2012 - 01:49 AM.


#21 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 11:45 AM

How do you handle this Mc?
An electret is a material that acts as a dipole. They produce an electrostatic field around their perimeter. When a magnet and an electret are near one another, a rather unusual phenomenon occurs: while stationary, neither has any effect on one another. However, when an electret is moved with respect to a magnetic pole, a force is felt which acts perpendicular to the magnetic field, pushing the electret along a path 90 degrees to the expected direction of 'push' as would be felt with another magnet.

#22 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 11:00 PM

An electret is a material that acts as a dipole. They produce an electrostatic field around their perimeter.




Hi LB,
Good to hear from you again. I have been browsing through the Hypography forums and came across quite a few of your posts. I get the impression that you don’t like the idea of photons , ‘virtual’ or otherwise. Nevertheless, according to this theory there are no separate electrical and magnetic fields, there is only an electromagnetic field, that is made up of photons. Take two conducting plates, separate them by a small gap and establish a difference of potential across them, what you then have is supposedly an electrostatic field. My point is that it is only an electrostatic field because the charge on the plates is so small that electromagnetic effects can’t be seen. However, iron filings will show that an electromagnetic type of field exists between the two plates. Personally I feel that the definition of an electrostatic field as something with lines of force only moving out and not circling back in, is very outdated. Again by definition a di-pole implies lines of force moving out and coming back in which is characteristic of an electromagnetic field and not an electrostatic field. Your statement that the electret seems to behave like a magnet seems to bear this out. What are your thoughts on this.

#23 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:05 AM

It looks like the ‘elecret’ you describe is a kind of condenser or capacitor, somewhat like the two conducting plates I was describing in the earlier post. When you state that when stationary neither effects the other but when moved the electrets is deflected, is something like a metal conductor being brought near a line carrying DC, when stationary no effect is seen but when the conductor is moved a short lived electric current is seen in the conductor. The fact that when the electret is moved in an electromagnetic field, it stays deflected, seems to re-inforce my view that this kind of field (i.e., the electret's) is also electromagnetic only extremely weak.
Here are two definitions of an ‘electret’ I found:
Electret (formed of elektr- from "electricity" and -et from "magnet") is a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge or dipole polarisation.
"One form of electret is made by melting a mixture of waxes and permitting the batch to cool slowly between a pair of electrodes charged to a direct-current ...

#24 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:05 AM

Sorry duplicate post

Edited by McQueen, 07 September 2012 - 03:47 AM.


#25 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:54 AM

I don't disagree with the photon I simply dislike the current explanation of it, see photon - Copy.png
and from this how do we explain this radiation
unless space is an electric field.

Edited by Little Bang, 10 September 2012 - 08:12 PM.


#26 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:22 AM

I don't disagree with the photon I simply dislike the current explanation of it.



Hi LB,
For more than five hundred years now, there has been a bitter struggle going on between the partisans of the wave theory of light and those of the particle theory of light. The arguments between the supporters of Newton ( particle Theory) and Hugyens ( wave theory) have been so fierce that often the two sides have almost come to blows. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the wave theory seemed to have won the argument. Then came the Ultra Violet Catastrophe and Max Plancks solution to it in the form of light quanta, supported by Einstein's findings in the photoelectric effect. So the Quantum Theory view that light is both a particle and a wave must have some basis of truth since it has been so rigorously investigated. Yet the complementarity theory put forward by Niels Bohr states that while light is both wave and particle it can never possess both properties simultaneously, places considerable strain on our credulity, with no real reason apparent for doing so. On the other hand both the wave theory of light and the particle theory of light have received considerable empirical support in the form of experiments. Take the issue of The Compton effect, involving the scattering of hard x-rays by crystals. There can be little doubt that x-rays are waves. They are used to measure interatomic spacing in the crystal lattice (by comparing it to their wave-lengths. Classical wave theory predicts that the scattered radiation should have the same wave length and frequency as the incident radiation, simply becauas the electromagnetic wave should force electrons to oscillate at the same frequency and therefore to emit radiation of the same frequency. This does not happen, instead the scattered radiation is found to have a lower wave length than the incident radiation. This is brilliantly explained by the particle theory of light, which states that light is an ensemble of photons, that is particles with energy
[math]\hbar\omega[/laTex] and momentum
[laTex](p = \hbar k)[/laTex]
(k = 2pi/wavelength). A photon colliding with an electron transfers part of its energy and momentum to the electron. The loss of energy will be seen as a change in frequency and wavelength. ( Note that the modern interpretation is that the photon is absorbed by the electron and re-emitted with a lower wavelength.)
This is expressed as:
[laTex]\Delta\gamma = \frac{2\Pi\hbar}{mc}(1 - cos \varphi)[/laTex]
where
[laTex]\varphi[/laTex]
is the scattering angle (i.e., the angle between the direction of propagation of the incident and scattered radiation. The quantity
[laTex] \frac{2\Pi\hbar}{mc}[/laTex]
has the dimensions of length and equals 0.024 A and is called the compton wavelength.
As can be seen both arguments have a lot going for them, so my question is is why not ? Why can't light be both wave and particle simulataneously ? Such a solution as I have shown offers a solution to almost all observed phenomena. Incidentally, the New Theory I have put forward does stipulate an aether that has weak electromagnetic characteristics.

Edited by McQueen, 11 September 2012 - 08:12 AM.


#27 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 08:23 PM

I do not think my last post on the Compton Effect was very clear.
Imagine a smooth wall (as shown in the diagram below), a loud speaker is placed to one side of normal to the wall ( black line) when it is turned on, the sound wave reflects off the wall at an angle equal to the angle of incidence and with no change in wave - length or frequency.
Posted Image
Now replace the loud speaker with a cannon that can fire tennis balls, when the tennis ball is shot at the wall (green line) it is found that it loses energy in exact proportion to the momentum it has lost to the wall, therefore the speed is slower and the angle at which it is reflected off the wall is different than the angle of incidence. This is exactly what happens when x-rays are shot at a metal plate in the Compton effect, the amount of energy lost and the resulting difference in wave length, and the angle at which the incident ray will be reflected can be calculated using the equation:
[math]\Delta\gamma = \frac{2\Pi\hbar}{mc}(1 - cos \varphi)[/math]
The point is that the x-ray 'wave' fired at the metal plate is bouncing off the electrons in the plate exactly as billiard balls would bounce off each other. Thus although electromagnetic radiation displays wave like characteristics it IS NOT A WAVE. It is different. A wave could not possibly behave exactly like a billiard ball. The description of how photons are formed and their construction given in the OP of this thread gives an exact and accurate description that accounts for these differences.

#28 greylorn

greylorn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:18 AM

A Gestalt Theory on the nature of light and related phenomenon:


It is unfortunate that you've received few replies to this prodigious thread, but you must realize that it is beyond the mental range of most, in addition to being non-conformative with current beliefs. I find many of your ideas fascinating, and know that anything more than a rudimentary understanding will require study and time. Seems like it might be worth doing, so far.

I particularly appreciate your introduction of the aether, as I've done with my theories but of course in an entirely different manner. I prefer an amorphous, analog aether-concept to a digitized form of space, as seems to be your approach. I will need to study your paradigm.

I do not offhand see how dark energy might fit into your theory. In my own, I assume that the aether and dark energy are the same, and that dark energy is the ethereal mud from which matter is constructed. I'm fairly pleased with these ideas (of course), yet have not been able to come up with the physics of electric charge. That's a theory-killer. I will be studying your ideas for further insight, and hope to share them with a mathematically smarter friend who is working on the same problem.

I thought that you should know that someone is intrigued by your ideas. Please do not be discouraged. The promotion of alternative ideas requires considerable resolve.

Have you read the old paper by John Schulenberger, Isomorphisms of hyperbolic systems and the aether? In it he demonstrates the the Michelson-Morley experiment could not have detected the aether. He also had been trying to correct what he saw as fundamental errors in early 20th century physics, but I do not have access to his publications on these subjects.

I'm one of many who thinks that physics needs a new direction. Thank you for your work!

#29 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 26 February 2018 - 01:34 PM

Gestalt Theory:

Having established the concept of a 'virtual photon' type of aether. It is time to go over the basic facts of Gestalt theory. It is well established that the electron is an electrically charged particle, it is equally well established that changes in an electron’s energy are mediated through the absorption and emission of photons. What could be more natural than that the matter that the electron is emitting and absorbing are pulses of electrical energy. Look at the following diagrams:

gallery_33318_185_4425.jpg



gallery_33318_185_14098.jpg




gallery_33318_185_971.jpg

This is what a photon might look like. As can be seen it consists of pulses of electrical energy that have been emitted by an electron, encapsulated in a solenoidal electrical field. What are the properties of such a photon construction:-

1) The photon has no mass

2) It will always travel at the speed of c.

3) It is electrically neutral, meaning that it won’t be affected by electromagneticfields.

4) It will preserve its energy intact.

5) It has the properties of both a transverse wave and of a particle.

6) High energy photons would have a different emission system as compared to low energy photons such as radio waves.

7) It travels in straight lines until it is absorbed.



In short such a photon construction means that all of the criteria associated with a photon are realized. But how does the photon propagate through space. To answer this we have to return to the concept of a ‘virtual photon ’ aether. Let us assume that the ‘virtual photon’ aether is in random motion when at rest. When a real photon is emitted from an electron the ‘virtual photons’ along its line of propagation line up in a line whose ends rest on infinity. The real photon then travels along this line of ‘virtual photons’, till it either loses energy and joins the ‘virtual photon’ aether or till it is absorbed by a suitable electron in its path. A discussion of how a photon can lose energy and turn into a virtual photon will take place later. For now we return to the Double slit experiment. Look at this diagram.:

gallery_33318_185_33260.jpg

In this diagram it can be clearly seen that the when both the slits are open the particle, photon, electron, alpha particle etc., will follow the route taken by the ‘virtual photon’ ether as it passes through the two slits and aggregates at certain points forming the typical interference pattern associated with the double slit experiment. Interestingly this model of the virtual photon aether and of photon construction, also gives positive results when applied to the polarization experiment that is also put forward by QM as one of the incontrovertible proofs of the soundness of QM theory. I will continue discussing flow of current in a conductor and radio waves in the nextpost, if this one is at all favourably received.

BohmanGraphic_2000.jpg

 

This ties into my theory quite well.



#30 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 29 July 2018 - 03:23 PM

You've setup the perfect basis in which to utilize my E8. If you plot it I swear to God all of my conjectures on dark flow, non-BB cyclic cosmology, sub planck particles, & ESP would be confirmed.

 

Unfortunately I've envisioned the behavior of this particular cellular automaton to form my conjectures, but it would take years of calculus to acquire the extensive vocabulary needed to plot that E8, & as-of-yet theoretical forms of computation. Just managing to use the cellular automaton to create such types of computing necessary to plot it's own behavior (retrospectively forming an extension to the periodic table of elements to the point of becoming universal, without any uncertainties in it's particle's positions & momenta) would equate to physically detecting tachyons. That's what Einstein's potential unified field oscillations were supposed to be able do to our cosmological model. But the Philadelphia Experiment must have failed to use ESP signalling to achieve UFOs to make the presence of Navy Destroyers & comm channels completely undetectable to the enemy.

 

I cannot stress the kind of scientific break-though such a new elementary physics would lead to!