Of course not. Emission is due to

A variety of processes

Light is an electromagnetic field.

The question is really asking if there should be many different ways to generate or transform to the same electromagnetic field from substances that are not purely electromagnetic in properties. What kind of equations can be used to describe this process. We note that the properties of matter, mass, charge, spin, color (if any), may completely disappeared in this process. What does this mean?

https://www.dafyomi.co.il/general/info/torahau/torah_authenticity.php?d=16

On a deeper level, the speed of light is not just the speed at which light travels. It is a fundamental physical constant that appears in many areas of physics. Change that and you change the laws of physics themselves, with potentially chaotic and catastrophic consequences for the universe. The absolute value of the speed of light means that the physical laws themselves are uniform, applying to everything and everyone universally. They are absolute and unchanging everywhere. One universal law obeying the word of the One King of the Universe with the infinite exactness and perfection of mathematics.

(Citation from the source).

This might be of interest to you, dear Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan.

To get a photon (light), one must somehow excite the so-called "electromagnetic space". To excite its discrete element corresponding to the future photon, which is still in an unexcited, "invisible" state.

This can be done by an electron in atom during its transition to a lower energy level with the flip of its spin. The electron can do this when it annihilates with its antiparticle, creating two photons for each participant, if the disappearance of the charge can be passed off in some sense as a "spin flip". This can be done by neutron during its beta decay, when instead of one spin of a massive particle, two spins appear for massive and charged particles and one for massless and uncharged particle.

Apparently, there are many such processes. I haven't mentioned Cherenkov radiation yet. Whether there is a single equation for all these processes, I do not know. Most likely no. It would be best to look (ask) Dirac, who worked with the operators of creation and annihilation. This can give at least an abstract formulation of the excitation of photon.

Yours sincerely, Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

There are two issues in your reply that I have been trying to understand.

One is the concept of vacuum excitation [1], which is not so much based on Dirac's concept of a "sea of negative energy" [2] and the "uncertainty principle" [4], but rather on an imagination.

Dirac's "sea of negative energy" is not a definite and necessary concept [3]. Positive and negative energies correspond to negative and positive charges, and there is no absoluteness. The "vacuum energy" derived from it has no basis. Even if vacuum energy does exist, it must be unverifiable because we cannot create or isolate a real "vacuum". In the so-called Casimir effect experiment [5], as long as the equipment exists, it can be assumed that there is no test subject.

The Uncertainty Principle was originally derived from the Fourier Transform pair [4], which yielded the correct expression of the relation E&t

Dear Chian Fan.

The problem of many modern physicists, in my opinion, is the use of generally accepted concepts to solve important fundamental questions that have not yet been resolved, but are increasingly being asked by the scientific community. I will say straight out: "So these questions cannot be solved, as it is impossible to "pour new wine into old wineskins" and get a good product."

Moreover, I do not agree with many generally accepted physical concepts and am trying to create my own. It may sound too bold and defiant, but I can't help it. However, something is working for me, it gives me answers to many unresolved questions and it makes me happy. Let me not have a sufficiently developed mathematical apparatus for my models, that's okay. This is a gainful business, and the history of the development of physics shows that first - new ideas, and only then - the appropriate apparatus.

Therefore, in order.

1. I don't use the concept of vacuum at all with its allowed virtual particles. Instead, in my imagination, there is some "space" or a set of discrete elements that are in some unexcited state with positive energy, just like the ground state of quantum harmonic oscillator. We cannot somehow see or feel these unexcited elements of space until we excite them and get photons as a result. We observe them in the world around us. Even the movement of photons at the speed of light is not fully a "movement". In my opinion, this is just a successive excitation of the elements of such the space, which I call "electromagnetic". Its successive excitation occurs without any loss of energy by photon, since it has nowhere to lose it, except for the excitation of neighboring element of space. From here the constancy of the speed of light, as the speed of excitation of the space, and the existence of the principle of least action, as the least excitation of the surrounding space by a "moving" particle. By the way, "free" particles that have mass "move in space in almost the same way. They simply take the place of photon, which would be in the place of particle, possessing its kinetic energy.

Differences arise when the particle moves curvilinearly or with acceleration. In some sense, the excitation of space in this case may turn out to be uncompensated by its spin, and the particle may give rise to a photon, having lost some of its energy.

2. I am categorically against the classical concept of "space-time" when it is used to describe the behavior of small quantum particles. There is a separate understanding of the length of the "electromagnetic" space, generated by manifestation of photon's quantum of action through its momentum λ=h/p, the elements of time τ=h/ε and their connection through the speed of light c=λ/τ, which for large number of excited elements add up in the representation of classical time and space. By the way, there is also a similar idea about the "nuclear" space, the excited elements of which are protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus, as well as electrons separate from the nucleus. In "nuclear" space there is also no "movement" as such, instead of it there are also very interesting and specific excitations of the elements of the space. More about this, maybe later, when you open a special discussion in ResearchGate.)

3. I do not like quantum field theory because it is based on harmonic oscillators, which bear little resemblance to action quanta - elements of discrete spaces, which I would like to consider as the basis of physical spaces. I am indulgent about the Schrödinger equation, in which the wave function describes not so much the dynamic properties of particle with mass as the external conditions of its motion in the surrounding space. When the motion of particle must be periodic in the quantum of action h (wavelength λ=h/p) and be its integer. But I respect the Dirac equation for relativistic electron, in which it was necessary to take into account in the four-component wave function not only the translational motion of the electron, but also its spin. But in which the "sea" of negative values of the electron energy was incorrectly interpreted, which should be considered as a "sea" of the possibilities of the electron to temporarily turn into the positron in the course of its movement. Otherwise, the (gravitational) distortion of space in the direction of electron motion would cause the photon emission, which should not be the case with its uniform and rectilinear motion.

4. I really like Maxwell's classical equations for describing the electromagnetic field, the simple classical laws of gravity, electrostatics and magnetism, as a manifestation of a large collective of quantum particles, each of which synchronously and in a specific way perturbs the surrounding space. And here's something else. A different sign of electric charge can in no way mean the energy of different sign, which the particle with such a charge possesses. The different sign of the charge e is just the different direction of the quantum of magnetic flux μ=h/e around the particle in relation to the direction of its spin (to be the right-handed or left-handed).

5. I consider the Higgs field to be a misunderstanding and complete disgrace in modern physics. Explain the presence of the inertial mass of the particle and modestly keep silent about the gravitational mass, for the origin of which some other reasons are sought, despite the identity of these masses. It's like considering the side of the moon (or an ordinary coin) facing us as the result of one process and guessing about what could be the reason for the origin of the other side.

Thus, your new questions are no better or worse than the old ones. They are still built on outdated ideas about nature and cannot give us answers to questions that go far beyond these ideas.

Yours sincerely, Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

Thank you very much for commenting, letting us know your valuable thoughts. And sincerely accept any of your criticisms.

Let me also say a few words about my opinion.

In the theory of Evolution, "randomness" is a fundamental motivation. In physics, any idea, no matter what it is based on, no matter how imaginative it is, no matter how crazy it is, even if it seems to be random, may contain the right idea. I try to learn, to understand, and especially to find the common things that exist among them.

I believe that the phenomena of classical physics are correct, and that the theories of modern physics consistent with observations should not be discarded. I base my questions on just that, and use logic to think about potential directions.

As Sergey Shevchenko suggests, we could all experience a kind of romantic physics together.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Stephen I. Ternyik

I believe that light is the border or bridge between physics and theology. If we talk about God, then light is created by God; if we talk about physics, then light is eternal and the driving force behind everything.

"Light is the least physical of all creations. A photon of light goes from zero to the speed of light instantly, without any acceleration time. It is the only thing in the universe which is absolute. Even space and time yield to it, contracting and dilating to preserve its absolute speed."

These are two crucial words (from the link you given) that reveal the unique quality of light. Physics need to explain them accurately.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Every moment of the day (1/1080 of an hour, about 3.33 seconds), there is a shift of Light in the world, dear Chian Fan Am in agreement with your observation that the progress of science is based on the integrative history of human ideas.

“…Should all light-emitting processes be described by the same equations? God said, "Let there be light"…”

- God really said “Let there be Matter” [including “light”], however before this claim “God”, i.e. at least [practically for sure, more see SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can-science-prove-the-existence-of-God/97] Creator of Matter, developed corresponding design, which well rationally, rigorously scientifically, and in full accordance with all really reliable experimental data is seems really described essentially in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model , 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force:

- fundamentally absolutely for sure nothing else than informational system Matter is, in accordance with really outstanding von Weizsäcker and Fredkin-Toffoli findings, based on a simple binary reversible logics, which [the logics] is actualized as that Matter is some “automaton” that is “materialized” as basing on the ultimately fundamental “material hardware” – binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE].

So the corresponding Matter’s utmost fundamental and universal spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where the XYZ dimensions correspond/are fundamentally necessary to 3 FLE degreases of freedom at changing of an FLE’s state “FLE binary flip”, and the cτ-dimension corresponds/is necessary to realize FLE reverse flips; the absolutely universal time ct-dimension corresponds/is absolutely necessary for any changes could happen at all.

However FLE hasn’t only 4 degreases of freedom above, that is a complex logical structure, where at least 4 logical marks that correspond to at least 4 known now fundamental Nature Gravity, Weak, Electric, and Nuclear/Strong forces , which can be – and are - actualized at some concrete – impacts on FLE, so Matter’s spacetime has at least metrics cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), where g,w,e,s, are the “Forces dimensions”.

So everything in Matter exists as always constantly moving with 4D speed of light obligatorily in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) disturbances in the lattice, which are created at impacting of any FLE in lattice; utmost numerous disturbances are close-loop algorithms that so always constantly cyclically run [what is also determined by FLE design] – “particles”.

There exist a number of just stable algorithms – that are stable particles that compose ordinary matter; besides at impacts on FLE the created algorithms can have some defects and so can with a probability break at any tick, the algorithms that can exist more than one tick are “unstable” particles; say, electron is a stable particle, while truncated electron’s algorithms “muon” and τ-lepton are unstable.

At that every particle has some “Forces’ charges” - some sections of their algorithms that are marked by Forces, which at constant the algorithm running produce specific disturbances in the lattice “Force mediators”, FlEs in which are marked by Forces, and when such propagating with speed of light FLE hits in marked by the same Force FLE in algorithm of “irradiated” particle, that results in that the irradiated particle obtains 3D momentum, and if is free moves in space, at statics – [at least for Gravity and Electric Forces] along 3D line between the interacting particles; however some impacts on mediators/particles algorithms FLEs result in creating of new particles.

The post is rather long already, so more possibly in other posts here, now - more see the papers that are linked above.

Cheers

So let’s continue the SS post on page 1, more concretely to the thread question. In the post above it is pointed that interactions of everything in Matter – first of all particles, and thus further bodies, etc. happens at impacting on either some the FLE lattice’s FLE [with creation of a new particle], but mostly at impactions on some particle’s algorithms FLE, and, at that, at least at not extreme impacting momentums/energies ,

- since every particle indeed at every given time moment is “a point” – i.e. as flipping at this moment the algorithm’s FLE [example – electron’s algorithm “logical length” is ~2.4x1022FLEs] ; when particles interact by Forces, that happens only if the radiated by a Force mediator hits on just the flipping FLE, and, at that, this flipping FLE has the same Force mark,

- and, in turn, if the particle is impacted so that is accelerated, the radiated mediator – while the mediators fundamentally aren’t particles, and so don’t carry energy – transforms into specific particle; for Electric Force that is a photon, which, though fundamentally isn’t “radiating E-Force mediators” particle, however its algorithm is composed from E-marked FLEs, and so

- photons directly impact on charged particles – and, seems as well probably impact also on E-mediators; so, say, more 1.022 MeV photons create from [mostly nuclei] E-mediators e± pairs;

- while the e± algorithms run in opposite “command orders”, and at the pair annihilation [mostly a pair of] photons is radiated.

All these interactions seems really are different, and so are “described by the different equations”, however the above is only an initial “Planck scale” introduction in this topic now, which is the base of further development, where the processes will be described in detail,

- say, radiation of photons at relaxation of unstable electronic shells in an atom seems fundamentally differs from the case when an accelerated electron radiates – despite that electrons in atoms are heavily accelerated, the atom radiates nothing – just so QM appeared; but QM till now doesn’t answer why and how that really happens; while the SS&VT models of Forces doesn’t contain now as well to this answers – and other effects/processes - questions above.

And to

“…As Sergey Shevchenko suggests, we could all experience a kind of romantic physics together…”

“Romantic era” in physics” is mentioned in a few SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO7_Is_there_a_minimum_value_of_m_in_the_mass-energy_equation_Emc2/6 as just as natural and permissible only for “young” physics [first couple of dozen of years in 1900s] i.e. when rather strange solutions of fundamental physical problems, since were consistent with rather poor experimental data, looked as quite scientific ones, despite that were well “crazy” as be in fundamental contradiction with earlier “classical physics”.

Nonetheless the solutions , what is more important - really often based on completely transcendent – and mostly wrong – postulates; the utmost known case are the SR/GR theories that are based on fundamentally impossible, but postulated as real, interactions in systems “material objects-spacetime –material objects”.

The last happened, again, because of that in the Romantic era and till now in mainstream physics all really fundamental phenomena/notions were/are completely transcendent, and so the authors of the theories postulated for the phenomena, in this case first of all “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, really “too crazy” fantastic properties.

But now physics can – and so must – be already adult, while romanticism at adulthood too often isn’t adequate to the reality

– as that we see now, when innumerous too romantic publications with fantastic “holes”, etc., “quantum Gravity that unite GR and QM”, “string”, “brane”, etc., “theories”, “Higgs theory that makes Standard [particle] model” flood the mainstream scientific and pop-scientific publication sources, etc.

Just so physics-2023 really is the same as physics-1980, and on 90% as physics-1940, containing at that all fundamental flaws that exist from Romantic era – and numerous ones that appeared after; what, again, now for any normal human looks as a tooo infantilism.

Again – any really scientific and really fundamental development of any science, including physics, can be only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions are really scientifically defined, i.e. only basing on the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and only if everything in fundamental physics will be considered on Planck scale, i.e. basing on the SS&VT informational physical model, which is based only on rational scientifically assumption and where are no any “crazy” ones; i.e. as decoding of logical structure of FLE.

Cheers

The observation that you are talking about is the measurement systematology [ not to be mistaken for measurement states ] . .. .. . For a single photon, on absorption, the energy can only be transferred to the measurement system in its entirety. This is particle-like. If the measurement system is very spatially small, then all the energy will be transferred to a very small spatial region. However, notice that it depends on the measurement system being spatially small.

A photon is a quantum of energy in an electromagnetic field mode. The spatial extent of the field mode is actually given by the dissipative pattern. So what do you do? Well you need a theory that describes the observed phenomenon. So that tells us the spatial extent of the photon ,,,,,,,,,,,,, However, our monitor relies on absorption of the photon, apperceived by conscious agents and our absorbers are extremely small, and only one can absorb the photon. This is where the Born rule and collapse hypothesis come in. The collapse hypothesis corresponds to the local detection of the quantum. The Born rule states that the dissipative pattern is just the probability distribution for observing the photon. What we can say is that the photon was absorbed at that point. However, the physicality of the collapse is NOT established by this description of events. That's purely an inference.

Microscopic processes are not observable

1) We can regard the processes of "light emission" and "photoelectric conversion" as two kinds of "measurements" in which no third party is involved. They should reflect the "wave nature" and "particle nature" of the microscopic system. wave nature reflects the process of interaction, because it has scale, and particle nature reflect the result of the interaction. Since the process itself cannot be observed, the result appears as a "collapse". Strictly speaking, the process itself is not measurable, because measurements of any nature either lead to a "collapsed" result or do not work (e.g., infrared light detected by a visible light sensor).

2) There are no interactions without processes, i.e. there are no instantaneous processes that do not occupy time. This is a three-fold problem: a) Time is empty, i.e., time as a universal field does not play a role. b) According to the Uncertainty Principle, the absence of time implies a process of infinite energy; the absence of space implies a process of infinite momentum. c) The absence of time implies the destruction of causality; and it also implies that an infinitely informative event has occurred.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

The thread question is answered in a few SS posts, including in links in the posts, though, above, but it seems it is necessary to repeat here some points, as comments to

“…They should reflect the "wave nature" and "particle nature" of the microscopic system. wave nature reflects the process of interaction, because it has scale, and particle nature reflect the result of the interaction. Since the process itself cannot be observed, the result appears as a "collapse". …”

- again, particles – as everything in Matter is/are only some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base - the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of the primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), which is nothing else than the infinite by definition “empty container ”.

If we consider utmost fundamental and universal 4 digresses of freedom at changing of FLE state – “binary reversible flip”, the spacetime metrics is [5]4D (cτ,X,Y,Z, ct).

All/every disturbance are created at an impact on some the lattice’s FLE, which causes propagating in the lattice “FLE flipping point” as sequence of FLE-by-FLE sequential flipping, which propagates in the lattice – and so in the 4D space and so all disturbances propagate in the lattice/4D space with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, what is determined by the main FLE properties - FLE “size” and FLE “flip time”, which are equal to Planck length and Planck time.

However here is a nuance if disturbances are a particles. To cause “flipping point” propagating with the speed of light in the lattice in a 4D direct line is enough infinitesimal 4D momentum/energy impact – “FLE have zero inertia” in this case,

- however if the momentum P [“bold” means 4D vector] isn’t infinitesimal, FLE cannot flip in time interval lesser than its intrinsic Planck time, and so FLEs in the created and propagating “FLE flip point” precess

– what results in that the flipping sequence becomes be close-loop, and this created “close-loop algorithm” is just the created particle, where the flipping point moves along 4D “helix” line with the speed c√2, but the front of the helix moves along P direction with c, having momentum P=mc, energy E=Pc, radius of the “helix”, λ=ћ/P, and the flipping point intrinsic “helical” angular momentum, spin, S, is equal to ћ. Though Sisn’t 4D vector, it has direction along P, and so Lorentz transformations are as they are. More see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

So – every particle at every given time moment exists – and so interacts - as the ~Planck length size “point”, but this point in other time moments are on other the helix’s points, just so particle at in reactions is observed also as “wave”.

Correspondingly that

“…2) There are no interactions without processes, i.e. there are no instantaneous processes that do not occupy time….”

- really is a vague claim. Interactions happen practically instantly – in Planck time, that is another thing, that, say, at emitting of a photon at relaxation of an atom electronic shell excitation, the emission of “whole photon” with E=ћω occupies time interval 1/ω.

However that

“…. This is a three-fold problem: a) Time is empty, i.e., time as a universal field does not play a role. b) According to the Uncertainty Principle, the absence of time implies a process of infinite energy; the absence of space implies a process of infinite momentum. c) The absence of time implies the destruction of causality; and it also implies that an infinitely informative event has occurred.……”

- is simply a transcendent/irrational – and so really wrong, claim. “Time” is the really absolutely fundamental phenomenon – element of the “Logos” set [what are “Space” and “Time” more see first pages in the linked paper above], which – as that is rigorously scientifically defined in the really philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, exits absolutely objectively always – being actualized as the time dimension [“ct-dimension” in Matter’s spacetime above] where all/every changes happen, and at every change of something this something moves in this dimension on corresponding time interval;

- time absolutely fundamentally by any means is some “field”;

- QM objects/events/effects/processes exist fundamentally because of that the “Logos” set element “Change” is logically self-inconsistent, so just to overcome the logical prohibition of changes and to make some change it is necessary to spend some portion of a next “Logos” set element “Energy”, while the logical resistance to changing is the “Logos” set element “Inertia”,

- however it is impossible to overcome logics completely, and so on QM scale the state of changing something remains be “illogical” – uncertain, what is only quantative ly described as the Uncertainty Principle; etc. more again see the linked above papers.

Cheers

Howdy Folks,

To catch up on everything here and in cited articles would be a career decision. However, ". . . light-emitting processes . . .." is an opening because of recent thoughts on another thread.

It occurs to me to wonder about the control of the setting and product of the process, and to wonder when and how in the "happening of emission" each is dominant. Juan Weisz emphasized the variety of initial states from which emission may occur, while in Chian Fan 's list of questions we find "We can not know the light-emitting process, but we can be sure that the result, the final output of photons, is the same." I wonder whether we have a question like in evolution "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" here. That is, "Is the thing that is capable of producing light, itself light?" - the egg, or does it matter that "We note that the properties of matter, mass, charge, spin, color (if any), may completely disappeared in this process." - the chicken, the latter appearing much more complex than the egg?

Is not a resolution of this discussion in the plasticity of energy? One may see the complexity of the source as a variety of "faces" or "persona" of energy, a portion of which energy is redistributed during emission to the "persona" of energy called a photon. We buy E = mc2 regularly without deep comprehension, but we find the pain of kicking a brick very different from burning a finger, because we perceive inertial mass as quite different from thermal energy in those circumstances. Similarly here, we see the sources of the several photon emissions listed as very different. Were we to see them as potentially undifferentiated energy because energy is that plastic, and recognize that it is the opportunity of emission, when the qualities of a photon are present in the source and resonant with the qualities of photon propagation in the environment, that "happens the emission," we would have the problem conquered by division. The equations must be matched in transition, but equations of transformation of source energy to photon qualities mated to equations of qualities of photon propagation would be a solution. The latter would be the same in all emissions, while the former would be as individual as the emission sources described. How these equations are written would be based on the investigator's worldview and theories.

Note the implication in the preceding that photon emission is not like archery, where the launching of a arrow by a bow is independent of the subsequent propagation medium, although it is true that one better take a cross-wind into account in the latter to succeed at a target.

Happy Trails, Len

There are few things wrong with this question.

One) light is a three dimensional phenomenon in nature that cannot describe by one dimension equation.

Two) science perception of light is unknown due to origination of light testing in past to now.

three) light in science is not natural light that we observe from suns, All light that we think is light, it is artificial light or flashlight, not the natural light that it does not have constant speed, because natural sunlight with massive frequencies and wavelength cannot have constant speed. Thus, science is wrong with light and sunlight.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

Am i right? thanks.

I believe it may be possible with something like a complex matrix based equation with a vast amount of output data to generally cover a wide range of processes related to light, but generally no. As @Javad Fardaei said their are inherent blockers to answering this question in a logical way. It is still a valid question, but I believe the answer would simply be no.

Howdy Folks,

You got me thinking about this topic and additional ideas have surfaced. I shall start with comments on the emission types listed by Chian Fan. These are just my views after study and thought.

Type 0 - Naturally existing light.

“This philosophical assumption is important. It is important because it is impossible to determine whether it is more essential that all light is produced by matter, or that all light exists naturally and is transformed into matter.” It is even more interesting that the energy is either light or matter in this sentence, as it is often treated. Overlooking the classic problems of A – not A that cling to things that exist, our experience is that the character of light or matter is internally dynamic! At best the persona of energy involved is existing while becoming its dynamic self as wave, particle, light, matter. Actually, the physics community does not agree on how they exist, so it may help to notice that formally here. To focus on this awareness we treat the photon as becoming instead of being. We see emission as a transient process in photon becoming.

Type I - Orbital Electron Transition.

The history of reading the nature of Nature from equations, despite the limitations of the models of Orbital Electron Transition dynamics, is itself astounding. These magnificent efforts to “get a handle” on photon emission and its detailed variations deserve applause and affirmation, but the readings do not. When we are ignorant, it is better to plead ignorance, rather than to create word sets that get hardened into absurdities. People forget that the emitting atom and departing photon are not in the least “uncertain” or “confused.” That many scientists must resort to the myth, “random,” is not noticed by the participants. No anthropomorphism is intended here, just natural interactions of the participants, the excited atom and the photon. One could observe as a possible description, that during the emission event the process involves factoring the orbiting photon energy into a lower orbit energy plus a difference energy between orbits. The latter would be the photon energy available to propagate.

Type II - Accelerated motion of charged particles emitting light.

THE critical insight leading to our understanding of electromagnetic radiation was conceived by James Clerk Maxwell, namely an electric displacement current that produced magnetic effects! How is a photon emitted? It seems like during photon emission an excited atomic or molecular state pushes into the electromagnetic wave propagation medium, or non-medium, by means of electric displacement as a current. That current builds an electric field state with which it continues to oscillate as a photon. Once a photon is propagating, the physical process by which it was initiated fades like the form of a parting friend in fog, or like an impedance change in an acoustic or other signal transmission system. What started it becomes irrelevant.

Type III - Particle reactions, Nuclear reactions: Any physical reaction process that produces photon (boson**) output.

1) the Gamma Decay. Similar enough to Orbital Electron Transition with alpha particle emission here.

2) Annihilation of particles and antiparticles when they meet. The energy of colliding personae is redistributed to energy of departing personae. Photons emerge as their source energy is coupled to their propagating photon personae.

3) Various concomitant light, such as during particle collisions. The source energy personae cast is larger than a departing pair, and they all leave.

4) Transformational light output when light interacts with matter, such as Compton scattering. The becoming of the energy personae of the light and of the interacting matter incorporates the energy of interaction transferred in a modified becoming for each.

Type IV: Various redshifts and violet shifts.

These are not emissions of light, they are modifications of photon becoming. That the modification is a “new” photon is open, but not seen as helpful here.

Type V: Virtual Photon?

Until we know what it is to be emitted, a virtual photon seems to be a verbal placeholder in a table used to describe electromagnetic interactions we cannot explain.

Emitted Photon Persona

As noted under Type I - Orbital Electron Transition, the critical insight leading to our understanding of electromagnetic radiation was conceived by James Clerk Maxwell, namely an electric displacement current that produced magnetic effects! To describe a propagating photon energy persona, at first glance one chooses the electric displacement current as the relevant motion for kinetic energy and the electric field it produces the relevant concentration for potential energy. But, displacement current of what and concentration of what? Dielectric polarization is physically real, but what is an electric displacement current “in space” or even “in spacetime?”

A charged object is moved by another charged object “at a distance” and we say that the charged objects impose on their surroundings “an electric field.” Charged objects can attract or repel one another, which event indicates polarity in the charged objects and direction in their fields. Numerous speculations exist that posit of what the field consists. The fact that electric object motion produces magnetic effects and that magnetic object motion produces electric effects, leads to the preferred speculation that in propagation nothing else is involved and electric and magnetic effects are one another’s “of what.”

This mutual support may be produced by an electron in an excited atom and imposed on a non-medium of propagation because none is needed. Given “of what” the potential energy of combined electric and magnetic fields would be produced by the electric displacement current and a “magnetizing flow,” and the kinetic energy potential energy would proceed. (The “magnetizing flow” term needs help, but for me the mixture of non-uniform designations among electric and magnetic effects, and among systems of terms and circumstances, creates uncertainty in meaning. Please offer the right word and meaning for the magnetizing flow producing magnetization. At least “magnetizing flow” is clear, hopefully it is valid as well.) The key to this description is that the magnetic effects of electric field changes and electric effects of magnetic field changes are the mechanism of energy storage and release as a photon propagates, a photon energy persona.

But, what about “matter” or “corpuscle.” “Is the thing that is capable of producing light, itself light? . . . If there aren't any elements of light in it, then how was it created? . . ..” Explaining to myself how waves and corpuscles could appear in photon measurements has produced a possibility that I offer here. That the result depends on the detector capability is about the measurement, but what is the photon that allows either to be measured?

The electric and magnetic fields in a propagating photon have normal vector orientation, but they are in phase. When both fields are zero, the energy of the photon must be kinetic in the form of electric displacement current and magnetizing flow that are producing electric and magnetic dipole moments. At that time, the current and flow are like the bob of a pendulum at the bottom of its arc. I see this as the corpuscle state of a photon. The pendulum bob’s speed is maximum and its momentum carries it to the top of its arc in that direction. Similarly, the field generating processes of displacement current and magnetizing flow produce the increasing electric and magnetic field strengths toward their potential energy maxima. I see this as the wave state of a photon. The result is a persona of energy called a photon.

Textbooks say it differently, often with little explanation in all that formality. This is a discussion thread, where I have it wrong, please discuss.

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Chian Fan,

My reply on your Type II emissions was quite inadequate, sorry, this is better, or as Tchaikovsky noted about a new symphony, "It's not worse than the others." A better treatment of the "Plasticity of Energy" is in preparation and will appear on my RG site soon, "On the Plasticity of Energy and Energy Personae." Hopefully, it also will not be worse than the others.

Type II - Accelerated motion of charged particles emitting light. A charged particle in relative motion is a current with associated fields. Acceleration of the charged particle changes the associated fields, and thereby mimics the dipole moment action in a photon. The electric and magnetic dipole moments modify the fields through a photon they initiate.

1) Blackbody: The initial success in calculation of blackbody radiation was enabled by an assumption that it was produced by oscillators, the frequency of which was linked to their energy by a measure of action known as Planck’s Constant. At a given frequency, the emission occurred in discrete energy events. Common use therefore alleges that electromagnetic energy is quantized. Wrong! Electromagnetic action is quantized! Further, Kinetic Theory establishes that gaseous emitters are not a collection of oscillators, they are a collection of particles and particle groups (atoms, molecules) engaged in independent translation between collisions. Accelerations of individual charged particles and the charged particles in atoms and molecules are abrupt. The emission of photons of Planck’s Constant action occurs from these abrupt, effectively quarter-cycle thrusts of the kinetic energy of displacement current and associated magnetic flux. The action of the photon is fixed, while the frequency and energy of the photon are determined in the individual “thrust.”

2) Radio: In an antenna, charged particles are in driven oscillation by an electrical signal. In this case additional quarter-cycles of forcing (four per cycle) occur, but one is enough. The additional photon emissions strengthen the transmission, but do not create “long photons.”

3) Synchrotron: Field energy deflecting a charged particle produces dipole moment effects which become the core of an emitted photon. Deflection and emission occur during the kinetic energy phase of the photon being emitted. This is posited to avoid complex field structures, but siting the action in the kinetic energy rings true in itself. Photon emission and propagation must have an action value equal to Planck’s Constant.

4) Bremsstrahlung: Again, fields change the velocity of a charged particle. It may increase or decrease, but the change mimics the dipole moments of a photon which are coupled from the energy persona of the charged particle in motion to the energy persona of a photon propagating away. The photon energy is supplied by the charged particle kinetic energy when it is decelerated, and by the accelerating field energy when the charged particle is accelerated.

5) Cherenkov: The difference velocity appears in the energy persona of the charged particle as dipole moments and the emission follows as above. The energy source for the emitted photon is the kinetic energy of the charged particle which is partitioned into the two departing personae, the charged particle and the emitted photon.

Thank you for raising this question and discussion. I had not thought these things through enough in the past and they are of great interest to me. I expect improvement, especially through discussion, but my new awareness in these posts rings true, and feels good! Again, thank you!

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

Thank you for your inspiring views. Thank you for your efforts in answering my questions, and more importantly, for physics.

It will require some time for me to learn and understand your points. There is no doubt that it will be of great help to me.

I look forward to the paper you are preparing and sharing more and better insights with us.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

ON THE PLASTICITY OF ENERGY AND ENERGY PERSONAE

• August 2023
• DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14175.23201
• License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
• Preprint