The current interpretation of photons can easily be disproved for the information messengers that can bridge long ranges. Long range information messengers can keep their integrity during very long trips that last millions of years through (almost) empty space. Electromagnetic fields rely on the nearby existence of electric charges. For relative long range transport the EM field can provide this in plasmas and in special constructs, such as coax cables. These carrier systems cannot bridge cosmological distances. Our living space is a field that gets deformed by the nearby existence of massive objects. It is always and everywhere present. Thus, it is a much better candidate for long range information transport. The information messengers themselves must be solutions of differential equations that describe the dynamic behavior of the carrier field. All basic fields obey the same differential field equations. This is best described in terms of quaternionic differential equations. Quaternions are combinations of a real scalar and a three-dimensional vector that represents the imaginary part of the quaternion and can often be interpreted as the spatial part of the information that is stored in the quaternion.
It is not well known, but quaternionic differential calculus offers two different homogeneous second order partial differential equations. The solutions of these equations can act as information carriers.
One of the two equations is the equivalent of the wave equation. Its set of solutions covers waves and in odd numbers of contributing dimensions the solutions are fronts that keep their shape when they travel. The one-dimensional front also keeps its amplitude. The equation uses the quaternionic equivalent of d’Alembert’s operator 𝔔 = (∇ᵣ ∇ᵣ − ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩).
The other homogeneous second order partial differential equation can be split into two first order partial wave equations. It uses differential operator ⊡ = ∇* ∇ = ∇ ∇* = (∇ᵣ ∇ᵣ + ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩).
χ = ∇* ∇ ψ = (∇ᵣ − 𝞩 )(∇ᵣ + 𝞩 ) (ψᵣ + 𝟁) = (∇ᵣ ∇ᵣ + ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩) ψ
χ = ∇* ϕ
ϕ = ∇ ψ
This equation does not offer waves as part of its solutions. However, in odd numbers of participating dimensions, it also offers solutions that are fronts that keep their shape when they travel.
The one-dimensional fronts can travel huge distances without losing their integrity. They carry a standard bit of information that corresponds to a standard bit of energy. We call these solutions warps. The warps do not feature a frequency. They are one-shot trigger responses. To produce a frequency, the trigger must fire at equidistant instants. This makes photons treacherously similar to planar waves, but they are no planar waves.
Photons are known to obey the Planck-Einstein relation E = h ν. This means that the emitter of the photon must keep firing during a fixed period. It also means that, independent of their frequency, all photons must feature a fixed length.
In free space, the waves that are solutions of the wave equation must be spherical waves. The amplitude of spherical waves and spherical fronts diminishes as 1/r with distance r from the center. Thus, these solutions are unfit for long range information transport.
We call the spherical fronts clamps. If the clamps are integrated over a long enough period, then the Green’s function of the field for a point-like trigger results. Thus, the convolution of this Green’s function with the distribution of the trigger locations of the clamps represents the deformation of the field that is due to the swarm of trigger locations. Thus, each clamp represents a bit of mass.
Pair creation and pair annihilation of elementary particles go together with absorption and emission of photons. If swarms of clamps represent elementary particles and strings of warps represent photons, then the mass-energy equivalence corresponds with the fact that each warp converts in a clamp or vice versa.
Atoms can absorb or emit photons. This can then also be interpreted as if warps are exchanged for clamps.
On the other hand, it is quite clear that radio waves are electromagnetic waves. They represent vibrations of the electric field. The electric field and the embedding field obey the same wave equations. However, these fields differ fundamentally in the way that they respond to the triggers that affect them. So, somewhere there must exist a separation between the type of solutions that the EM field supports and the type of solutions that the embedding field supports. Long-range solutions are not EM vibrations. On the other hand, can microwaves lay at the break between EM vibrations and embedding field vibrations.
It is obvious that the triggers themselves must bring the solution. Clamps are responses to hops of point-like elementary particles. Waves depend on an oscillating stimulator. The swarm of hop landing locations can oscillate. It cannot hop. Only clamps can convert into warps and vice versa. Elementary particles hop. Their location swarm can oscillate. May be that neutrinos can do both.
Universe must at least feature two standard clocks. One ticks at the rate that hop landings are generated. The other clock ticks at the rate that photons are generated and clamp swarms are regenerated.
If this interpretation of the photon is correct, then the consequences of redshift must be re-interpreted.
docs.com/hans-van-leunen
But Hans: How do you describe the masers and lasers, which works with frequencies from microwaves to inverse attoseconds? Do they generate electromagnetic waves or clamp swarms? How to you explain single-photon interference? Can clamps interfere with themselves? How to you describe Aspect type experiments with entangled photons?
Just for starters. You have an awful lot of explanations, calculations, and interpretations to do before you can replace quantum electrodynamics.
Dear Hans,
You are going to consider this to be left of field but I think its related. If we study the data-sets constituting the fundaments of the phenomenon of vision and hence perceptual structure we find a field. This field provisions an implicit sense of spatial awareness that we experience holistically. Independently to this we also process a detailed explicit data potential that's enables to contemplate objective form in cestral vision. We have to manage both to infer with some accuracy what's out there and how it relates to us.
We model visual awareness and have developed a new form of illusionary space termed Vision-Space. I attach a list of presentations.
We know a good deal about intensity related detection at the retina but almost nothing about contextual awareness and how this arrises largely because it would appear that its not electromagnetical! Invisible to our instrumentation which has been designed by explicit thought processes? Implicit spatial awareness or contextual (peripheral) vision is prior-to what we consider in central vision. It would appear to be mechanobiological in origin unfolding from glial retinal Muller cells and astrocytes. Vision-Space: Retinal Receptor Functions 3 https://youtu.be/zSybQexiTxA
This proposition would infer that there are two distinct data-potentials enfolded in light and that we are equipped to transpose both. These end up as two distinct 'takes-on-the-real ensuring that vision is drawn from both forms of awareness. Vision is a 'relationship' we form with the real, hence the phenomenology etc.
It also suggests that if we want to learn how to be be objective, a good place to start is by studying experiential awareness - which is what artist do (well the good ones!). We need to lean what's actually involved in us being objective and not let our instrumentation stand in for us because its not? Vision occurs to us and not our instrumentation etc.
The missing bit of the puzzle is: what's the math driving the mechanobiology that unfolds as the field structure provisioning implicit contextual spatial awareness. Could all this be related?
Cheers - J
Hans, I think problems that you raise can be solved from the scientific viewpoint assuming photons are energy quanta managed by Planck's relation in which frequency has an irreplaceable function. Let us can assume then energy quanta are electromagnetic nanowaves that are associated with an e.m. nanofield that is a field of propagation and it isn't a stationary field. In this meaning amplitude of e.m. nanofield doesn't decrease according to 1/r, but the only way to have a decrease of quantum energy is an interaction with matter and consequently in empty space (vacuum), that is absence of matter, that energy doesn't have motive for decreasing, in the absence of interactions, and therefore it can continue its travel also for greatest distances.
When then those nanowaves hit retina, besides measurement instruments, another world is born that generates the artistic world of Space-vision that is certainly related to the objective physical nature of phenomenon.
Daniele and Hans,
Music to my mechanobiological ear hairs etc! Seriously though, I really need some help with just how it is that Muller cells and the astrocytes that feed into them, could establish a mechanobiological response to light.
If this is the case then nothing much remains the same? We would understand more about what's actually involved in us being objective and then how to apply that at remote scales etc.
Interestingly when I wrote the patents surrounding Vision-Space (now lapses for want of investment etc) and had them TRIZ analysed they were rated level 4-5 degree of inventiveness, a paradigm shift for all forms of information display. Seriously disruptive etc. There was also no prior art identified by the patent examiners. So we have base technology (free of commercial restriction) illustrating the outcomes of the perceptual processes (modelling visual awareness) but not an architecture that touches how it might actually occur. This would require a generative version of the programming architecture and an entirely new starting position at the programming level.
To initiate that new setting out point we need to understand the physics and the basis of the mechano process involved. Both might be achieved at the same time if a targeted study was made of Muller end-feet bearing Vision-Space in mind? Some progress could perhaps be made indirectly by those with a background in these subjects (i.e. without direct experimentation) as such experimentation will be very difficult to set up...all way beyond my capabilities even if I had access to funds!?
Cheers - J
John, when I say photons are e.m. nanowaves we can also say photons are e.m. nanoimpulses. Eye system is a complex transductor that transduces e.m.nanoimpulses to electric nanoimpulses (or also nerve nanoimpulses) that through the pheripherical nerve system reach the central nerve system. Here the central nerve system converts those nanoimpulses to vision. I don't know how?
Daniele,
I think we could look to the CA2+ iron channel? I attach some marked up articles that appear in the project on my RG page. Inference overlaid onto science!
Just hope it stacks up!
The general idea is that we are generating an all possibilities field and that values/vectors are derived from the environment and appear within it.
Its always the same field/space wherever we look....its just the vectors that change/update. At least for implicit spatial awareness. What goes on in central vision is another kettle of fish!
John, many thanks for your links that are very interesting. I would want to read them but to that end I would need a little of time also because for me biology is new matter. Anyway I will read them and I will communicate you my opinion.
Best regards.
Kåre Olaussen,
Difference must be made between the carrier field and the detection probability distribution. Both can be described by multidimensional functions. The detection probability distribution is generated by the emitter(s) of the photon(s). The behavior of an emitted photon is described by the differential equations that describe the behavior of the carrier field, The emitted photons are solutions of the second order partial differential equation of the carrier field.
The behavior of the detection probability distribution can be described by Fourier optics. The product of the Optical Transfer Functions of the imaging components determine what the detection pattern can be when the spatial, angular, and chromatic distribution of the emitters is known.
The emission of a photon is a closed action of a single emitter. In that action a string of equidistant warps is emitted. In the imaging process this is treated as a single firing event. The path of the photon can be tracked by ray tracing. If the OTF's of the imaging components are static, then the emitter characteristics can still be defined by stochastic processes. In that case the detection probability distribution is still a stochastic function. That function can still be treated by Fourier optics.
This indicates that it is necessary to distinguish between the generation of photons and the transport of photons. The transport of photons and waves is treated in the question above. The emission of photons is relevant in the imaging process that is treated by Fourier optics. These are distinct processes.
https://doc.co/CJEQkJ
John Jupe,
In the first part of my career I took part in the development of image intensifier devices. These devices apply quantum multiplication to enable perception of low dose rate images. The devices are applied in night vision equipment or in X-ray diagnostic equipment. My task was to improve the quality of the image perceptibility when these devices are applied. Important quality measures were the Optical Transfer Function and the Detective Quantum Efficiency of the devices. We used the results of Hubel and Weisel that analysed the visual trajectory of vertebrates in order to obtain a model of how information is processed in this visual trajectory. This appears to be quite complicated, but it appears possible to derive some useful thumb rules. The secret is to treat the quantum generation process as a combination of a Poisson process and a subsequent binomial process. The binomial process can be interpreted as being implemented by a spatial spread function. The Poisson process and the binomial process can be interpreted as a new Poisson process with a lower local efficiency. The spatial spread function equals the Fourier transform of the Optical Transfer Function of the imaging chain. The signal to noise ratio in the imaging chain is determined by the DQE of the image detector and the efficiency of the primary Poisson process. In the visual trajectory the information is decoded by processors that only pass information when the signal to noise ratio supersedes a certain barrier value. This prevents that chaotic information reaches the higher layers of the brain.
https://doc.co/CJEQkJ
Daniel,
The problem with waves of any kind is that in free space they all spread their information and thus their energy in all directions. In free space nothing exists that guides these waves by acting as boundary conditions that guides the wave in the proper channel. Only warps have built-in guidance in a single direction and strings of equidistant warps add a frequency to this characteristic. Warps are solutions of homogeneous second order partial differential equations. Waves are solutions of the homogeneous wave equation, which is also a second order partial differential equation.
Our living space is a field that can vibrate and that can be deformed by nearby massive objects. In the absence of massive objects the field is flat, but it can still vibrate. The warps, which are one-dimensional fronts do not deform the field. In contrast clamps, which are spherical fronts deform the field that carries them.
https://doc.co/wM2ciU
Hans, I think we have to leave old and obsolete mathematical models, that are inappropriate and unsatisfactory, and to open our mind towards new physico-mathematical models. It is what I am searching for doing and with this mental aptitude I want to read papers that John proposed.
Best regards.
Prof Jan Koenderink (maths and astronomy/physics background) is a key vision scientist working with the phenomenology of vision mainly through psychophysics. He finds/establishes some serious holes in accepted theory of vision that calls into question the entire approach! For me these holes don't need filling, we need a complete re-think built around a new data potential and a fundamental arrangement.
Jan helped me out with some programming code that contributed to the base Vision-Space technology (disorder replacing blur as the structure of data forming contextual - peripheral - vision). He understands that vision is 'prior to science'. We must study vision as VISION. It's critical to digest the ontology issue to understand the required approach to get to next steps?
There is this dialogue that I am contributing to - it's anecdotal/ conversational (and that's what's required to get new ideas 'out-there' or encourage them to emerge!) and essentially exploring the historic linkage between Art and Mathematics.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_more_present_Art_in_mathematics_or_mathematics_in_Art2#view=586ba7c9f7b67ee6906fdba6
@Jupe, I fully appreciate the convergence of mathematics and art since I think that there is a 'singularity'. After all, why is there never a bad color combination in Nature? I am currently attempting to express evolution mathematically with a mathematician from Cal Tech. I would like to think that the math of art and biology are both reflective of the fractal nature of Nature. My 'space shot' idea is to merge the biologic and chemical/physical Periodic Tables into one common (searchable) database. Your thoughts?
Daniel,
It is fairly easy to create a dynamic model of reality by applying a combination of a quaternionic separable Hilbert space and its companion non-separable Hilbert space. The separable Hilbert space stores the discrete data and its companion stores the continuums. A subspace of the separable Hilbert space can act as a vane that scans this model as a function of progression. This model can be interpreted as an ongoing embedding of the separable Hilbert space into its non-separable companion that takes place in the scanning vane.
https://doc.co/WmxXCB
@Torday, Would this singularity be 'us' as natural bio systems exposed to the physical properties in play in this neck of the woods?! SOC and dynamical systems is going to be key for sure. My 'problem' is that I chose to be an artist and spend my time trying to get to grips with what's involved in the act of observation and then to get the understandings operational in technology for evaluation purposes. The issues is I don't have the necessary skill sets to progress the technology and I am outside the set with respect to getting the required funding so I end up being nothing more that a cheer leader with frilly pompoms! It's not worth imagining the scene! The second element of what I can do from an armchair is to theorise about 'the understandings' that are of course 'inference' based. Interestingly and not at all coincidentally, 'inference' is basically the system used to derive awareness. It underpins visual art. There are no lines or edges until we designate them. The 'reality' of inference should underpin all disciplines or at least all disciplines should bear that in mind? I am keen to understand just why it is that we have to 'infer' and this leads me to our relationship to light and what that in turn infers about the fabric of the universe. So that's the circle for me. Until we explore what's involved in us as biological systems being objective we won't understand how to be be objective and develop the technology to perform 'meaningfully' at remote scales and hence we won't be able to 'get at' the fabric of the universe. So for me I can see that rearranging the deckchairs is going to be a useful exercise in that it's going to throw up interesting issues that are bound to pose profound questions but that level of enterprise is beyond my pay-grade! That's not difficult as I don't get paid!
Daniel,
Try: A very short and simple mathematical test model of reality and our universe by Hans van Leunen
https://doc.co/bt6D4r
https://docs.com/hans-van-leunen
John,
I gave these synthetic definitions of art and mathematics in the Manifesto Project:
Art represents the expression of individual and collective human feeling in all different shapes. Art for definition doesn't have bonds except those suggested by individual and collective consciousness.
Mathematics represents the logic of the universal thought that is erected on a basis of axioms or postulates that are accepted by most of human beings and it has objective bonds imposed by the universal consciousness.
Do you think it is necessary to add something to those synthetic definitions? They are welcome.
@sasso. Sorry missed that Daniele.
I think we kind of covered that in our discussion on the other channel? Is vision physics?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_frame_of_reference_is_a_conceptual_construct_What_place_does_it_actually_have_in_physics#586f4be5eeae393f3d4cdb65
Vision is prior-to science and prior-to math (just!). It's an ontology issue that has to be grasped if our models are going to progress. If we can do that, we can get moving on some serious issues that will move us towards new technologies as well as new models.
Daniel,
The main work: selecting the foundation and derive that it extends in a sensible structure such that space and time emerge from that foundation is already done by Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann. The duo introduced in their 1936 paper an orthomodular lattice that they called "quantum logic" and they showed that this lattice finds a realization in the set of closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space.
In fact they were not searching for the foundation of reality. Instead, they searched for reasons why the Hilbert space was suitable for modelling quantum physical theories. In that period John von Neumann doubted between Hilbert spaces and projective geometries. Later he definitely selected the Hilbert space. The separable Hilbert space was discovered in the first decades of the twentieth century by David Hilbert and others. Much later the non-separable Hilbert space was added in the form of a Gelfand-triple (rigged Hilbert space).
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5690
Dear Hans
First thank you for John Jupe to invite me to this smart question:
Quantum mechanics tells us that light can behave simultaneously as a particle or a wave. However, there has never been an experiment able to capture both natures of light at the same time; the closest we have come is seeing either wave or particle, but always at different times. Taking a radically different experimental approach, EPFL scientists have now been able to take the first ever snapshot of light behaving both as a wave and as a particle. The breakthrough work is published in Nature Communications.
When UV light hits a metal surface, it causes an emission of electrons. Albert Einstein explained this "photoelectric" effect by proposing that light – thought to only be a wave – is also a stream of particles. Even though a variety of experiments have successfully observed both the particle- and wave-like behaviors of light, they have never been able to observe both at the same time. A research team led by Fabrizio Carbone at EPFL has now carried out an experiment with a clever twist: using electrons to image light. The researchers have captured, for the first time ever, a single snapshot of light behaving simultaneously as both a wave and a stream of particles. The experiment is set up like this: A pulse of laser light is fired at a tiny metallic nanowire. The laser adds energy to the charged particles in the nanowire, causing them to vibrate. Light travels along this tiny wire in two possible directions, like cars on a highway. When waves traveling in opposite directions meet each other they form a new wave that looks like it is standing in place. Here, this standing wave becomes the source of light for the experiment, radiating around the nanowire. This is where the experiment's trick comes in: The scientists shot a stream of electrons close to the nanowire, using them to image the standing wave of light. As the electrons interacted with the confined light on the nanowire, they either sped up or slowed down. Using the ultrafast microscope to image the position where this change in speed occurred, Carbone's team could now visualize the standing wave, which acts as a fingerprint of the wave-nature of light.
While this phenomenon shows the wave-like nature of light, it simultaneously demonstrated its particle aspect as well. As the electrons pass close to the standing wave of light, they "hit" the light's particles, the photons. As mentioned above, this affects their speed, making them move faster or slower. This change in speed appears as an exchange of energy "packets" (quanta) between electrons and photons. The very occurrence of these energy packets shows that the light on the nanowire behaves as a particle.
Hans, think that is useful for your question.
Regards
Saeed,
My investigation of photons is that they are not waves. Waves need a periodic source. In my opinion photons are strings of equidistant warps and warps are solutions of a homogeneous second order partial differential equation. They are one-dimensional fronts. The front has no frequency. Warps carry a standard bit of energy. It represents a bit of information. It keeps its shape AND its amplitude during its travel. Warps travel with light speed. The string of equidistant warps obeys the Planck-Einstein relation E = h v. Consequently, independent of their frequency, all photons must feature the same spatial length and the same passage duration. The photon emitter must keep generating warps until it has reached its planned spatial length. The carrier field of warps is not the EM field. Instead, the embedding field (=gravitation field) is a more likely carrier candidate.
The long range behavior of photons allow them to travel distances of light years and after that trip, they can still be detected by a human eye. (We can see stars). In free space nothing withholds a wave from spreading in all directions. After a trip of a light year, the wave would have negligible amplitude. It will not be able to trigger a small detector.
In the described experiment the individual warps may have interacted with the electrons.
If I am wrong and the photon is a wave, then also that wave must have a spatial length. However, in free space waves tend to spread. It is possible that the measuring setup created an EM field along the path. In that case, an EM wave can have been created rather than a photon. Waves are also solutions of a homogeneous second order partial differential equation. Warps can travel huge distances without losing their integrity. Waves cannot do such a trick.
Daniel,
Warps are one-shot one-dimensional shockfronts. They are 'vibrations' AND they show particle behavior. They are not waves. However, you may call shockfronts shockwaves. Shockwaves are not genuine waves. Waves have a periodic harmonic activator. Wave packages disperse when they move. Photons are strings of equidistant warps. For that reason, they possess a frequency. The important fact is that photons have a fixed spatial length that is the same for all frequencies.
The wave equation has solutions in the form of one and three-dimensional shockfronts. Quaternionic differential calculus offers an analog of the wave equation and another homogeneous second order partial differential equation. Both equations offer solutions in the form of shockfronts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation
Daniel,
Current physics is serving applied physics well, however, in most cases, it does not explain very well what it describes. A precise description usually suffices to apply a theory in practice. For example, you can apply electric charges if you know how they behave, while you do not know what the origin of electric charge is. The Hilbert Book Model explains the origin of electric charge. The HBM does not bother much about how electric charges can be applied.
The HBM clearly indicates what is testable and what is fundamentally not testable. Even with the most sophisticated equipment available, most of the aspects of physical reality are not testable.
I am preparing a list of aspects where the HBM differs from current physics. The counter already surpasses one hundred aspects. Are they testable? Well the HBM is a purely mathematical model. Is mathematics testable? This depends on what you mean by testable.
The HBM offers two views: a storage view and an observer's view. According to the scientific method, only the observer's view contains aspects that are testable.
If we confine to photons, then the HBM indicates that independent of their frequency, photons locally must feature the same spatial length and the same passage and emission duration. This is something that can be tested. You probably need very sophisticated equipment to perform that test.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Applied Mathematics
- Differential Equations