Dear Prof. Hossein Javadi,

Your question itself is very informative, and I have nothing to answer it. The last link you provided is of the book you wrote. Congratulations on your publishing the book!

Best regards,

Tatsuo Tabata

Very nice and interesting theme with little history. It can interest every educated man man: one to contribute to the discussion of the photon, and the other to find out more about the photon

Congratulation and Good luck,

Mirjana

,Hossein, I will suggest that a photon may be nothing "really." A photon is a creation we use, to help explain phenomena we observe, which means thinking backwards, and in reality, the "truth" might just be very different.

I'm amazed at the more recent theories, for example giving photons a shape and size. And quite frankly, I'm trying to figure out how a photons that is four meters long can, you know, fit in my eye! But I am intrigued by photons that obey Maxwell's equations, so that makes me think that mankind is slowly approach The Truth.

If photomultipliers work, if light exerts pressure, we can conclude that the wave theory is not the whole truth. I'm very impressed with your historical journey here, Hossein!

,Hossein, I will suggest that a photon may be nothing "really." A photon is a creation we use, to help explain phenomena we observe, which means thinking backwards, and in reality, the "truth" might just be very different.

I'm amazed at the more recent theories, for example giving photons a shape and size. And quite frankly, I'm trying to figure out how a photons that is four meters long can, you know, fit in my eye! But I am intrigued by photons that obey Maxwell's equations, so that makes me think that mankind is slowly approach The Truth.

If photomultipliers work, if light exerts pressure, we can conclude that the wave theory is not the whole truth. I'm very impressed with your historical journey here, Hossein!

,Hossein, I will suggest that a photon may be nothing "really." A photon is a creation we use, to help explain phenomena we observe, which means thinking backwards, and in reality, the "truth" might just be very different.

I'm amazed at the more recent theories, for example giving photons a shape and size. And quite frankly, I'm trying to figure out how a photons that is four meters long can, you know, fit in my eye! But I am intrigued by photons that obey Maxwell's equations, so that makes me think that mankind is slowly approach The Truth.

If photomultipliers work, if light exerts pressure, we can conclude that the wave theory is not the whole truth. I'm very impressed with your historical journey here, Hossein!

,Hossein, I will suggest that a photon may be nothing "really." A photon is a creation we use, to help explain phenomena we observe, which means thinking backwards, and in reality, the "truth" might just be very different.

I'm amazed at the more recent theories, for example giving photons a shape and size. And quite frankly, I'm trying to figure out how a photons that is four meters long can, you know, fit in my eye! But I am intrigued by photons that obey Maxwell's equations, so that makes me think that mankind is slowly approach The Truth.

If photomultipliers work, if light exerts pressure, we can conclude that the wave theory is not the whole truth. I'm very impressed with your historical journey here, Hossein!

Dear Prof. Hossein Javadi,

Your question itself is very informative, and I have nothing to answer it. The last link you provided is of the book you wrote. Congratulations on your publishing the book!

Best regards,

Tatsuo Tabata

Dear Mirjana

I appreciate your attention, thank you so much.

Dear Albert

Thank you for your interesting mentions. I agree with you on: " wave theory is not the whole truth".

Dear Tatsuo

Thank you so much.

Best Regards

Hossein

Dear Gopikrishna

Yes, you are right, but it is not all truth about photon.

A very impressive compilation, Hossein.

My answer is, a photon is a model we created, and may be nothing resembling the ultimate truth. We created this model to explain effects that the wave theory doesn't explain adequately, or at all.

I like the idea of the photon model which also follows Maxwell's equations, because that implies to me that we're getting closer to "the truth." And quite honestly, the idea of a photon that's four meters long is astonishing. Not sure how it fits in my eyes!

Anyway, my short answer is only to suggest that this model, or artifact, that we created, while it might make certain observation work out mathematically, was really created by working backwards. Ultimately, it just might be quite wrong!

Dear Albert

You are right and I like this model too. It helped me to generalize the Maxwell equation from electromagnetism to quantum vacuum.

Physicist have hardly studied the implications of the wave equation. Apart from waves it offers other solutions. For example it offers shock fronts. These vibrations only appear in odd dimensions and they do not feature a frequency. Only an adequate trigger can activate these solutions. Point-like triggers cause shock fronts that by no means can be perceived in isolation. This does not mean that they do not exist. Combined in large assemblies these tiny shock fronts become noticeable. We know these assemblies as photons and as elementary particles. http://vixra.org/abs/1709.0150

As per my 11/12 class knowledge light a form of energy that travel in the form of photons, a kind of energy packets. Like atomic particles photon also an elementary particle.

What is a Photon?

(http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-photon-definition-energy-wavelength.html)

What Is a Photon?

(https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-photon-definition-and-properties-2699039)

Read https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project/Information_Messengers

Dear Hussein Javadi

When Dr. Furuzbakash said before 7 years "we try studding physics as matter - antimatter components". I told him "we need to think of physics other way".

Although you can think that photon is mater - antimatter combinations as Dr. Furuzbakash attended.

The problem is only how? What CHP theory says about matter - antimatter combinations?

Dear Alaa

Excelent approach, thank you.

You wrote: "What CPH theory says about matter - antimatter combinations?"

To answer this question, we should refer to the origins of theoretical and empirical matter and antimatter. Reviews Dirac equation and Sea shows there is a deep symmetry between matter and antimatter, not only for pair production and decay, even in the structure of photon and quantum vacuum. In CPH Theory, two approaches is reviewed one is Dirac equation, and other one is description the quantum vacuum energy. See Section 2 of:

Beyond the Standard Model: Modern physics problems and solutions

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1939123623

Elementary particles can zigzag in time direction. At the turning instants creation and annihilation events occur. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project/Zigzag

“What is a photon really?”

photons are some mediators of the fundamental Nature “EM force” and nothing more. Though they, as the mediators, seems differ from “particles – non-mediators”, first of all that have rest masses, in that rest-mass particles are only one type particles, when rather probably there exist two types of photons “circular photons”, that are radiated by charges in electrostatics, and “simply”/ accepted in physics now photons that are radiated at relaxation of excited states some systems of electrically charged particles.

And, since it is rigorously proven in the “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute

that all/everything what exists in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns and nothing else, photons, as any particle else, are some close-loop [logical] algorithms, which, because of the energy conservation law, uninterruptedly run in the 4D Euclidian sub-spacetime of Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with high frequency ω, rather probably if a particle is at the absolute 3D rest ω=m0c2/ћ; if a particle move in the 3D space with a speed V, ω=m0c2/ћ(1-V2/c2)1/2.

All principal difference of photons and having rest mass particles [besides two-type nature above] is only that photons’ algorithms run in the 3D space only, when running algorithms of rest-mass particles are 4D.

Thus “…Einstein wrote in 1951: “All these fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering the question, what are light quanta?””

This statement, which selects photons as something exlusive, has rather small sense – the questions as “what are electrons/protons/….” are totally equivalent.

Besides the link above see also

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

@Prof. Tabaca @ColinJamesIII, let me use this haiku by Mr. Colin James III, which was one of two haiku I nominated to haikufoundation for their touchstone award.

> April issue:

>

> The haiku below was submitted by a poet who chose to remain anonymous. In some ways,

+this delightful haiku is consistent with that of Tara Murphy. “spotty photons”-this is

+an image worth contemplating.

>

> Trying to connect,

> But from the spotty photons

> No beam gets across.

March issue:

> The second line of this piece by Colin James III has the flow of a traditional haiku.

+The first and third lines do not. But taken together the three lines do have a koan

+quality, which makes it consistent with this month’s theme.

> Prison statistics:

> Black birds pecking at rabbit.

> God gives me food stamps.

> -Colin James III

> We will again close out the column with two haiku by American author Richard Wright,

+who was beset by anger much of his life, but eventually found peace in the Other World

+that is haiku. These verses are from his published collection.

> A cock crows for dawn

> And then a neighing horse tells

> Of spring in his blood.

> Rain drops are tilting

> Pink from magnolias

> In the setting sun.

> -Richard Wright

>

I think that photons (like every other particle or wave) are in fact some perturbations of space time geometry. I try to rethink Gerard t Hooft's book (see: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319412849

I already shared it at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_is_the_hidden_part_of_modern_physics/2)

in order to apply his cellular automaton approach to space time geometries. In its final state it should only contain distances between the cells (or maybe points in space, if the quantization vanish).

Best Regards

Andreas

I have answered in other question that you have mentioned here; I will re-answer here:

Dear Andreas Thank you for link and bringing up the book. This book has propounded a quantum mechanics as a tool not a basic way to solve physics problems. I my opinion, we need a new approach on fundamental laws of modern physics that I have propounded in my book. Beyond the Standard Model : Modern physics problems and solutions

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1939123623

I have not yet seen a disprove of the Hilbert Book Model or any of its highlighted subjects that are treated in excerpts such as Article Physical Simplicity

Rediscovered Dark Quanta; http://vixra.org/abs/1709.0150

Origin of Mass; http://vixra.org/abs/1710.0022

Mother of all Field Equations; Article The Mother of All Field Equations

Fermion Symmetry flavors; Article Fermion symmetry flavors

Are these papers so difficult to interpret or is the content so clear and justified that criticism is unnecessary?

The existence of clamps throws new light on the recently discovered gravitational waves.

The existence of clamps conflicts with the validity of the Higgs mechanism.

The stochastic mechanism throws a different light on the binding of elementary particles.

Warps enlighten the essentials of photons but are in conflict with the common interpretation of photons.

Warps and clamps add new categories to the standard model.

The photon is the one-particle excitation of the electromagnetic field, which is a 4-vector field, subject to U(1) gauge transformations. That contains all information necessary for describing all its properties, really.

Once more, it's not useful to either quote personal opinions or to mix up history of physics with physics.

Dear Stam

Foloowing item is not mixing personal opinion and history.

new experiment shows that the probability of absorption at each moment depends on the photon's shape, also photons are some 4 meters long which is incompatible with unstructured concept that means trying to describe the structure of photon is reasonable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.08020v1.pdf

It shows old understanding of photon (such as you wrote in your comment) needs to review.

What is problem?

Viktor T. Toth wrote:

Many people will tell you that photons will occasionally bounce into atoms and electrons. True, but that is not the explanation for the change in the speed of light in a medium. Photons that bounce into electrons are absorbed. That's the only thing an electron can do in quantum electrodynamics: emit or absorb a photon. Even if re-emitted, they are no longer the same photon; they're a different photon, traveling in a different direction. This is scattering, not the reason behind the index of refraction. It is also kind of hard to imagine that, say, a radio wave with a wavelength measured in centimeters or more is slowed down by a medium because individual photons bounce into subnanometer-sized atoms and electrons in that medium and are absorbed and re-emitted by them.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-light-slowed-down-while-travelling-through-a-medium-Id-assume-some-photons-would-simply-miss-the-atom%E2%80%99s-nucleus-and-pass-through-unaffected/answer/Viktor-T-Toth-1?srid=F7rA

Answer is:

When photon reaches to electron, positive side of photon does change the shape of electron, electron absorbs it. But electron is moving and in a fraction of a nanosecond emits photon, but not the necessarily exactly opposite direction of absorption, because in during the absorption and emission, electron has shifted. It is considerable that for a beam of light (a lot of photons), movement of electrons are not detectable (see figure attachment). This property of photon (very weak electric dipole) can describe the absorption and emission energy by charged particles.

For more detail see section 2 of: Beyond the Standard Model: Modern physics problems and solutions

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1939123623

The simplest forms of vibrations are waves and shock fronts. Shock fronts only occur in odd numbers of participating dimensions. These do not feature a frequency. The inside and the outside of the sperical front is flat. Photons are strings of equidistant one-dimensional shock fronts. They feature a frequency and a fixed length. Elementary particles are dense and coherent swarms of spherical shock fronts. The hop landing locations that trigger the spherical shock fronts are forming a stochastic hopping path. A private stochastic process generates the hop landing locations. The characteristic function of the process determines the location density distribution of the swarm. It equals its Fourier transform. That is why the elementary particle shows particle behavior and wave behavior.

This description does not conform to the previous comment.

Photons are not just quantum of electromagnetic energy. Experiments shows that photons are a combination of electromagnetic and gravitational energy. Thus, Einstein's proposal on photons si only partially correct.

Dear C. Y. Lo

I agree with you. In fact photon is dense of potential energy. For detail see section 1 of:

Beyond the Standard Model: Modern physics problems and solutions

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1939123623

“…photons (like every other particle or wave) are in fact some perturbations of space time geometry. I try to rethink Gerard t Hooft's book…to apply his cellular automaton approach to space time geometries…”

the suggestion that the particles in Matter are some closed-loop algorithms that uninterruptedly run on “hardware” of some closed linear chains of fundamental 4D logical “gates” [elements, “FLE”], which are flipping sequently [i.e. the particles are “cellular automata”] was presented yet in 2007 [http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , see also the paper “The Informational Conception and Basic Physics” linked in the SS post on 2-th page;

and this suggestion is indeed grounded only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [again see the link in the SS post on 2-th page], where it is rigorously proven that all what exists in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns and noting else. Outside the conception such ideas are nothing more then some ad hoc claims.

From those times yet more and more people claimed/claim that they “discovered” this fact, without any references, nonetheless, on the informational conception in philosophy and the informational model in physics above; when, again, outside the conception such claims are only non-provable and seems very long time non-testable declarations.

At that it seems as very plausible to suggest also that particles are some disturbances of some dense lattice of the FLEs [of “aether”] that fills the spacetime, when, as that is rigorously shown in the conception, they by any means cannot be “perturbations of space time geometry” fundamentally, both – Space and Time are absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities that are realized in Matter as the [5]4D absolute Euclidian spacetime [in physics]/ [5]4D absolute Euclidian “empty container” [in the objective reality], which fundamentally cannot be impacted/disturbed/transformed by anything in Matter, that only possible Creator of the Universe can do, if exists…

Cheers

Dear Sergey

Interesting comment, thank you. This approach is unable to describe the structure of photon.

Dear Hossein,

“This approach is unable to describe the structure of photon.”

If that relates to the SS post above, then it isn’t completely so. Indeed we cannot describe the structure of photon completely, however for a number of the structure properties there can be rather rational suggestions.

First of all, “usual” [i.e. that are introduced in the mainstream physics] photons, as practically every other particle in Matter, are some closed-loop algorithms that run on the “closed-loop”

[that isn’t totally correct since the running of every, including usual photons’, particles’ algorithms is realized as motions of the particles in the 4D sub-spacetime of Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with 4D speeds, which all have the identical absolute values be equal to the standard speed of light value, c; thus trajectory of flipping algorithms’ gates is always a helix, where the flipping point runs with the speed c√2, thus “materially” the algorithms aren’t closed]

“hardware”, i.e. chains of “logical gates”, i.e. some “fundamental logical elements”, FLE [see the links to papers in the SS post above]

All FLEs have 4 universal degrees of freedom at changing of their states, so the Matter’s sub-spacetime is 4D.

However, besides the motion in this sub-spacetime the particles have additional specific properties – they interact by [at least] four fundamental Nature forces. That seems happen because of that the FLEs aren’t some “4D cubes”, what is sufficient to 4D motion, they have a number additional “faces”, where corresponding charges “are written”, including electric charges seems occupy 1/137 part of total charged particles’ algorithms [at least up to energies lesser then ~100 BeV].

Besides, it seems as very reasonable that particles are some disturbances in/of the dense lattice of FLEs that fills the 4D sub-spacetime totally, where Matter is placed; and all these “aether FLSs” are identical with the particles’ FLEs. The simplest disturbance is sequential flipping of neighbor FLEs along a direct 4D line, which proceeds with the speed c√2 and to start this process it is enough to spend infinitesimal energy. If such flipping aether’s FLE is impacted additionally by some non-zero energy, the flipping cannot increase the speed, and so the line transforms into a helix, i.e. into a particle.

At the electrostatics charges don’t radiate “usual photons”, however they evidently interact, so they radiate another, “circular” photons, when “charged” particle’s FLE flips and impacts at that at that on an aether’s FLEs, which spread flipping in the 3D space having this “charge mark”, it seems as the circles. “Usual” photons appears, it seems, if these circles are additionally impacted that transform the circles into usual photons 4D helixes, the 3D projections of these helixes we observe as EM waves/usual photons.

The real picture is, of course, much more complex, because this helixes [and all corresponding 4D helixes of all other particles] is “much wider” then in the description above to form QM interference, etc.

Cheers

Dear Sergey

"Indeed we cannot describe the structure of photon completely..." Yes, We cannot, and presently we do not need to describe structure of photon completely. Science develop step by step.

It is true: Louis de Broglie hypothesis has proposed a wave approach of the photon and the electron, in view to get a synthesis of the wave and quanta. Indeed In his thesis he wrote page 23: (43 on the French original)

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.htm

de Broglie wrote:

“Thus, we get the following statement:

Fermat’s Principle applied to a phase wave is equivalent to Maupertuis’ Principle applied to a particle in motion; the possible trajectories of the particle are identical to the rays of the phase wave.

We believe that the idea of an equivalence between the two great principles of Geometric Optics and Dynamics might be a precise guide for effecting the synthesis of waves and quanta.

The hypothetical proportionality of J and O is a sort of extension of the quantum relation, which in its original form is manifestly insufficient because it involves energy but not its inseparable partner: momentum. This new statement is much more satisfying since it is expressed as the equality of two world vectors.”

(J is the vector impulsion and O the vector number wave)

Now after 93 years of difficulties to understand the duality wave particle it is time to recognize that the nature of the light is only particles and the same for the electron. In “Interference and periodicity” I propose an explanation of them and particularly at low flux of photon.

We are now a century further than the introduction of the wavefunction and still physics has not solved the mysteries that clad onto this symbol. At its lowest levels reality is discrete and embedded in a deformed continuum. The wavefunction is a continuous location density distribution and nobody seems to recognize that this continuous function describes a stochastic swarm of discrete objects.

Dear Hans, Thanks for your comment and Dear All: As far I have understand the equation of Dirac it is a differential equation to find the conditions of the variation of the mechanical action that is of the motion of the electron in interaction with the proton. There is no need to invoke wave properties and the fact to call wave functions the solutions is misleading, there is no proof of a wave character of the electron. The motion implies space variation along the three directions of the space. In its matrix form this equation implies four equations that is four variables. The most natural fourth variable seems to be the mass.

Let me recall how Dirac has gotten his equation. He wrote: “The general interpretation of the non-relativity quantum mechanics is based on the transformation theory, and is possible by the wave equation being of the form

(H-W) psi = 0

i.e., being linear in W or d/dt, so that the wave function at any time determines the wave function at any time later. The wave function of the relativity theory must also be linear in W if the general interpretation is possible.” Page 612 in Proc. Roy. Soc. A117, p610-624, 1928

This hypothesis clearly shows that the fourth variable is the mass. Let us now recall that Einstein in is introduction of its paper on the special relativity of 1905, explains that the laws of the physics should not depends of the place of observation. In the hydrogen atom this implies that the mass must be exchanged between the proton and the electron. This remark completes the work: “The symmetry of the motion, the mass and the quantum state”.

In addition let me underline that in this interpretation of the equation of Dirac the motion implies a component of the motion along the perpendicular plan of the angular momentum.

The Dirac equation is a combination of an equation that describes an electron and an equation that describes a positron. The Dirac matrices combine these two equations.

See: Article The Dirac equation in quaternionic format

We know that Dirac has transformed the Klein Gordon square operator as a product of two linear operators. It is evident that the square operator work for positive or negative charge associated to positive energy or negative energy. With Dirac it has been supposed that one of the linear operator is for the negative charge and the other for the positive. It is surprising that the same operator is use for two different particles. Well, but at this time the variation of the mass giving two flux of matter between the proton and the electron was not considered. In “The symmetry of the motion, the mass and the quantum state”, I explain that: “The hypothesis of exchanges of matter divided into two fluxes of opposite directions brings a simple answer. Indeed each flux is characterized with a direction of the speed of propagation of the grains, they determine the masses active and inert, thus the energy must be considered as positive or negative according to the flux. The classical equation corresponds to the positive flux and the other equation to the negative flux.”

All this discussion leads to consider the motion of the electron as a reality close to the model of Bohr Sommerfeld.

The quaternionic field equations represent the most general form for all field equations. See: Article The Mother of All Field Equations

“….Photons are mechancial representations of the varied-media spacetime velocity and physical characteristics of light waves.The photon particles represented in Klein-Gordon equation…”, etc.

Photons are real mediators of the fundamental Nature force “EM force” and so exist without any relations to by what equations some non-material informational system “ human’s consciousness” describe the EM interactions in objectively existent material system “Matter”.

Sometimes the consciosuness raher adequately describe interactions in Matter basing on the expserimental information and establishing some eventually ad hoc suggestions as postulates in some abstract theories, but it seems evident, that such postulates should have some physical senses.

Just this physical sense the notion/particle “photon” obtains in the informational physical model. The physical sense in this case is that photons are linear close-loop linear algorothms [as any other particle, though] , where “logical gates” are flipped sequently [more “scientifically” photons are “celluar automata”], at that with a very non-zero probability there are two types of photons – “circular photons” and “simply photons” that are considered by mainstream physics.

more – see the SS posts above and the papers linked in the posts.

Cheers

Perhaps the followers of this thread will be interested in the results in the following research:

Detectors of single photons:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.08656.pdf

Photon imaging:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1710/1710.08284.pdf

Virtual photon absorption/emission processes :

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.10357.pdf

Optical absorbance:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.09499.pdf

Photon energy:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1705/1705.04393.pdf

Dear Prof. Hussein javadi,

The photon is the quantum of energy associated with electromagnetic waves (ranging from radio waves to gamma rays through visible light), which has certain characteristics of elementary particle. In quantum field theory, the photon is the mediating particle of the electromagnetic interaction. In other words, when two electrically charged particles interact, this interaction is translated from a quantum point of view as an exchange of photons.

The idea of ​​a quantification of energy transported by light was developed by Albert Einstein in 1905, from Max Planck's study of the dark body radiation, to explain the photoelectric effect that could not not be understood in the framework of a classical wave model of light, but also for the sake of theoretical coherence between statistical physics and wave physics4. The discovery of the Compton effect in 1923, also giving corpuscular properties to light, and the advent of quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality, led us to consider this quantum as a particle, named photon in 1926.

Photons are "packets" of elemental energy, or quanta of electromagnetic radiation, that are exchanged during the absorption or emission of light by the material. In addition, the energy and momentum (radiation pressure) of a monochromatic electromagnetic wave are equal to an integer number of times that of a photon.

The concept of photon has led to significant advances in experimental and theoretical physics, such as lasers, Bose-Einstein condensates, quantum optics, quantum field theory, and probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. The photon is a spin particle equal to 1, so it is a boson5, and its mass is zero.

The energy of a photon of visible light is of the order of 2 eV, which is extremely low: a single photon is invisible for the eye of an animal and the usual sources of radiation (antennas, lamps, laser , etc.) produce very large quantities of photons, which explains why the "granular" nature of light energy is negligible in many situations studied by physics. However, it is possible to produce photons one by one thanks to the following processes:

electronic transition;

nuclear transition;

annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs.

Dr. Adel OUESLATI

excellent and very informative question....i am keeping tab on expert's opinions and views on this question....my only knowledge about photon is what i studied in higher secondary school as "fundamental particles of visible light, having no mass at rest and travels at speed of light in vacuum"....

Dear Adel and all: The statistic of Bose-Einstein has introduced quantum properties to try to solve different problems. About the condensation let me first underline that this property is that of the gas, so we must find this property in the statistical study of the gas. In fact the photons being emitted by the atoms and having all the same speed in vacuum, the statistical distribution of their energy reveals a mechanism essentially different from the one tacking place with the atoms of a gas. You will find a solution of this problem in “Perturbations and Statistical Distribution of the Thermal Energy” on my site.

Now in the study of the black body Planck has used the statistical approach of a physical phenomenon introduced by Boltzmann. As a result he was able to propose a satisfactory fit of the experimental data concerning the distribution of the energy. Using statistics of the gas in the study of the light energy he was introducing the hypothesis of countable particles. There is a difficulty of our physics which is not always clearly realized. Indeed in our scale we have the notion of the continuum that is of measurements taking all possible values along a segment, of energy for example. But the number of the possible values along a segment is much larger than that of the integer numbers, they can always make a discrete series of points along a given segment. As a result the use of atomic statistics in the study of the black body makes the light a phenomenon bound to the atomic scale, thus to the countable. There is no need of wave property. In “The Black Body and the Dulong and Petit Law” you will find a discussion of this problem.

Dear professor Javadi,

i agree perfectly with her that photons must possess a mass and also two elementary electric charges. Each photon is an electromagnetic particle and, to be such it must, necessarily possess within it electric charges otherwise it could not be defined as such. In this note I insert an my equation, published in journal Frontier in Sensors, that unequivocally demonstrates that the photons have a mass and a density proportional to their frequency and that, within them, there are two elementary charges of opposite sign.

The positive one is located in a central core and the negative one rotates on the photon's shell and determines its magnetic field. The equation in question also shows that each photon behaves like a microscopic condenser and, therefore, follows its laws. Moreover, each photon has a kinetic energy that satisfies the equation E = mc ^ 2.

If you want to find further information on how I intend a photon can read the works I published on Frontiers in Sensors and that are also found on Researchgate.

Before finishing, I would like to point out that I made an equation that calculates the speed of light according to the elementary charge.

Thank you for your attention and I salute you distinctly

Pasquale Acquaro

Dear All: From my point of view: consider the interpretation of the Michelson and Morley experiment, it leads to that there is no ether. When Einstein take this hypothesis he does not yet have established the relation between mass and energy E=mc2. But he explain that the law of the physics do not depend of the place of observation. This leads for the hydrogen atom to suppose that the interactions are the result of exchanges of mass under the form of very small grains all travelling with the speed of the light. If this hypothesis is the good one, the emission of a photon is progressive and made of very small grains mass during about one period. It will be progressively absorbed in a new state latter. As a result the energy of the photon if it equivalent to a mass, it does not have the properties of a mass. In this view the property of a mass is to interact with exchanges of small grains. Let me know if you have a better explanation of the properties of the photon.

For the aetherodynamics essence of photon, please see the partially translated section

https://www.dropbox.com/s/znewv69zxswtmj8/translation%20of%20main%20part%20of%20section%209%20-%20on%20photons%20-%20from%20Atsukovsky%27s%20Aetherodynamics%20book.pdf?dl=0

of Atsukovsky's book "Foundations of Aetherodynamics" at

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7j9lo7ifvbt80kl/Atsukovsky_Ether_Dynamics_2003%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0

It offers basis for re-evaluation and physicality of all the light-related topics.

For more information, please inquire at: [email protected]

Black box descriptions exist that describe the consequences of photon emission or absorption. No detailed description and certainly no explanation exist of the mechanism of absorption nor of the mechanism of the emission. Instead the aiming precision that is required for absorption is unbelievable high. Apart from that the model of the photon is still not agreed upon. The common assumption that a photon is an EM wave can easily be proven false.

Physics appears to have a false model both for the photons as well as for elementary particles.

@Slobodan,

The weak points of aether theories is that they apply basic constructs, while the model does not supply a way how nature generates these constructs. A common phenomenon in physics is that a medium interacts with point-like objects. Aether theories cannot describe such phenomena. In contrast such phenomena are easily tackled by continuums that can be described by fields, which on their turn can be described by (quaternionic) functions and more in particular by quaternionic differential equations.

See: Article The Mother of All Field Equations

Article Diversity of floating platforms

The photon is an excitation of a cell of the tessellattice (a lattice of physical space). The size of a cell is about the Planck size, 10^{-35} m. The excitation is characterised by the surface polarisation of the appropriate cell. The polarisation represents sharp spikes directed outside (on one side) and inside (on the opposite side). The photon moves by a relay mechanism, i.e. the state of the cell hops from cell to cell along the line of the motion of the photon. At each hop spikes are gradually tilted, such that coming the section lambda/2 (lambda is the wavelength of the photon) all the spikes becomes combed. Hence, the initial radial symmetry has changed to the axial symmetry. During the next section lambda/2 the axial state of the photon gradually comes back to the initial radial symmetry. The radial symmetry describes the electric field of the photon, the axial symmetry depicts the magnetic state of the photon. That is all.

Regarding Hans' comment/contribution, there exist much more plausible explanation of the aether structures spontaneous and/or induced formations, rather then considering - a kind of (to me otherwise looking as a powerful and sensible/cal ) QM-echanical enchancement: it is the mediation of the homogeneously and isotropical (super-luminal) movement of the aether-substrate related continuum 'particles' that both contribute to structures' formations and their interactions (through velocity and/or pressure gradients - in bot repulsive and attractive manner). The developed/proposed quaternionic algebra framework (first paper), both with its apparently structurally hierarchical framework (second paper) would very well suite both the aeterodynamical structurability and hierarchical organisation of the scales of physical reality, so their extensions beyond the "repository" based ones would be very welcome ...

As for Volodymyr Krasnoholovets' discussion, there similarly is quite good a (at least) parallelism and correspondence with the notions and mechanisms of formation/structure/behavior of photons' (individual - pairs of two thoroidal vortexes and/or sequences of those), with important difference in non-prestructured, but just structurable aether substrate.

@Slobodan

A flexible and powerful modelling platform can support a dynamic model in which stochastic processes generate the basic structures. These processes will generate point-like artifacts that will interact with a field by generating excitations that can deform this field.

See: Article Stochastic control of the universe

and Article Nature's Basic Dark Quanta

These excitations cause gravitation and can extend the field, which represents our living space.

Dear Hossein.

I am impressed with your informative introduction, but as you know, Einstein introduced quanta in 1905 to knock electron, while Compton in 1923 claimed electromagnetic radiation contain quantum (photon), with momentum p=hv/c, but this formula was derived from Einstein mass energy equivalent with Planck's radiation formula, and provided to be untrue, and the momentum used by Compton can't remove electron from atom, this in:

"Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum"

Researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835620_Compton_was_Greatly_Mistaken_Using_the_Quantum

The above paper showed beyond any doubt the introduction of photon was greatest mistake and imaginary particle, while the following papers answer questions faced by scientists in early twentieth century:

1- “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model”

http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf

2- “The Compton Effect Re-Visited”

http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdf

3- “The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue4/Version-3/M0804038698.pdf

4- “Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals)”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue5/Version-2/P08050299116.pdf

Most papers on what photons are, neglect the most intriguing behavior of photons. The human eye can view photons that arrive from a distance of mani light years. Waves cannot do that trick. They cannot travel such distances through empty space without spreading their energy over that space. Further the EM field needs the nearby existence of electric charges. It is unfit to carry information over many light years.

Homogeneous second order partial differential equations support solutions that keep their integrity during long range trips. Photons are constructed from such solutions.

Article Nature's Basic Dark Quanta

Dear Dr. Hans van Leunen

As I mentioned above, the momentum of photon emerged from p=hv/c, we showed through three evidence the formula is wrong, if its so, this means photon was just imaginary particle, as suggested in:

“Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum”

http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol10-issue1/Version-1/E1001013040.pdf

Or you don't think so?

Above I already ascribed what the photon is as it follows from the structure of real physical space. Here I put a picture of the photon from my book titled Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Concept of Physics. Note this determination allowed me to develop a submicroscopic theory of diffraction of light and particles and also the difractionless of light (in special cases); besides, this allowed me to develop a submicroscopic theory of the double-slit experiment. Some other unusual phenomena were also explained in detail.

Dear Volodymyr,

“…the photon is as it follows from the structure of real physical space…”

the real Matter’s spacetime is simply [5]4D emptiness, the emptiness cannot have some structure. Some structure can only have some material medium/aether that fills the spacetime…

Cheers

Volodymyr Krasnoholovets

Please, just take some moments and go through this article, then tell me about the photon you know.

“Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum”

http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol10-issue1/Version-1/E1001013040.pdf

Sergey Shevchenko, I really do not understand what does it mean "emptiness" and especially "[5]4D emptiness". Physical space is derived from a mathematical space, all fundamental physics is derived from the mathematical space that is constituted as a lattice of topological balls (the tessellattice). The notion of a point, which we use in geometry, in topology is revealed as a a topological ball. Then the whole space is filled with such balls and this is nothing; no distortions all is flat, or in other words this is a degenerate space. However, when we allow a fractal law by which the volume of a ball is decreased / increased (for example, following a geometric progression), then a real deformation appears in such a lattice. This is mass; a ratio between the initial volume of the ball (or the cell in the tesselllattice) and the final volume of the ball means the emergence of the physical notion of mass. The notion of an aether was introduced by Democritus in the 5 century BCE who brought this knowledge from India where he visited Mages (wise priests). Democritus interpreted Indian's term "loka" that he learnt from the Mages as something light in comparison with heavy soil; that light substance was associated by him with the air (the aether in the Greek language). Nevertheless, the term "loka" in modern languages is interpreted exactly as "space". Note Democritus told about the structure of his aether: it had atoms; and those atoms had convexities and concavities. Democritus' description of loka (the eather) exactly coincides with pictures of cells of space (shapes of balls in the tesselllattice), which was presented by Michel Bounias and me in our papers on a theory of mathematical and real physical space (2003-2004) and my book titled Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Concept of Physics (2017). What is a topological ball? This is a primary ball, a subtle particle, which is the primary element whose structure and nature cannot be understood; however, its properties can easily be seen as they must be correlated with such notions as mass, electric charge, magnetic monopole, particle, lepton, quark, neutrino, spin, etc. Einstein's spacetime is limited in space by section equal to 1 cm or even 1 m. However, the submicroscopic concept developed in my works is limited with the size much less than Planck's length 10-35 m. Developing physics from this scale to the atom scale, I an derive quantum mechanics using some ticks. However, it is impossible to derive general relativity; this theory that belongs to the section of physics called "physical mathematics" is substituted with the other approach and the notion of spacetime becomes secondary...

Mahmoud E. Yousef, I have read your interesting paper “Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum” http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol10-issue1/Version-1/E1001013040.pdf

You wish to show that in some cases the Compton theory does not work. Why?

This not associated with the determination of light as was done in my works. The situation is deeper. As you know initially was published experimental studied of J.J. Thomson; here is the quotation from wikipedia: Thomson scattering is the elastic scattering of electromagnetic radiation by a free charged particle, as described by classical electromagnetism. It is just the low-energy limit of Compton scattering: the particle kinetic energy and photon frequency do not change as a result of the scattering. This limit is valid as long as the photon energy is much less than the mass energy of the particle: ν ≪ mc2/h, or equivalently, if the wavelength of the light is much greater than the Compton wavelength of the particle.

Now let bus look at Tables shown in your paper mentioned above. You are going much further in the energy of photons than that was used by Compton when he conducted his experiment.

In my book titled Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Concept of Physics (2017) I consider the experiments by Thomson and Compton as they are very important in understanding the nature of the fine structure constant. It is very important the ambient space around the electron by which light is scatter. Here I add a picture from my book that clarifies the situation. You can see that the electron has a deformation coat (arranged by surrounding cells of the tessellattice) that spreads to a radius of the Compton wavelength. Inside this radius there is one more radius, this is Thomson's classical radius of the electron, i.e. this is a sub-deformation coat that includes the electric polarisation of the tesselllattice around the electron.

Thus, coming back to the situations analysed in your paper we can see that in the general case, the scattering is a function of the wavelength of photons. Indeed, photons with larger energies area able to deeper generate inside the electron's deformation coat. The deformation coat is characterised by its own oscillating energy and at the scattering a part of this energy can be passed on to the scatted photon. So, the classical picture of elastic scattering presented by Thomson and Compton will be destroyed.

In principle, if you are interested, we would write something about the deviations marked by you together. Here is my web site whether there is the address, e-mail, and telephone: http://inerton.kiev.ua

@Mahmoud

The mainstream interpretation of the photon is provable false. Photons are not EM waves.

A string of equidistant one-dimensional shock fronts can implement the functionality of a photon. Each element of the string carries a standard bit of energy. All strings feature the same emission duration.

This string has a frequency, but it is not a wave. Our living space acts as the carrier field.

Dear Volodymyr,

“…I really do not understand what does it mean "emptiness" and especially "[5]4D emptiness". Physical space is derived from a mathematical space, all fundamental physics is derived from the mathematical space….”

the explanation of this non-understanding is rather simple: physical space cannot be derived from some “mathematical space”; mathematics is nothing more them some very convenient and effective tool at analyzing of what happens/proceeds in Matter, but nothing more. Thus any mathematics is applicable only if it adequate to the objectively existent in Matter events, processes, phenomena, etc. including the “mathematical spaces” that are used in the physical theories must be adequate to the reality also.

Including if in this case, since Matter and every material objects are some dynamical [that always constantly are changing their states] system/objects, we consider only the this “basic space” [don’t consider, for example a huge number of, for example, “configuration spaces” ], then in the system “Matter” necessarily both the Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” act; and, since these Rules/Possibilities are fundamentally different, this “space” is a “spacetime”.

Besides Matter is the informational system the is based on a reversible logic, and so in Matter’s spacetime two rules/possibilities “Time” act: the “true time” and the “coordinate time”, τ , which with 3D space as the possibilities compose Matter’s “empty container”/spacetime; when just specific for Matter is the coordinate time, . I.e. every material object changes its state in the 4D sub-spacetime, where the temporal dimension/coordinate in a physical theory is the coordinate time.

The 5-th dimension, i.e., the true time, t , is absolutely fundamental universal temporal dimension, which isn’t specific for Matter, it acts in all dynamical objects/systems in whole the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; where the system Matter is only a sub-Set.

Since all material objects, i.e. particles, bodies, etc. always move in this 4D sub-spacetime with the 4D speeds of light in any directions [though particles move only in the positive coordinate time direction, when antiparticles in the negative direction] and simultaneously with the speed of light in the positive true time direction, every Matter’s object is in a 4D sub-spacetime’s point by the condition ∫ds =ct , where integral is by all 4D “ds”, including all predecessors for given object, from the Beginning to given true time moment. So Matter’s spacetime is the [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, where, since the 5-th dimension practically doesn’t take part in Matter’s processes besides the condition above, is in “[]”.

Again, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Possibly useful are, for example,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox

etc. also.

As to he rest in your quoted here post,I usually comment only “official physics” on the RG, and some alternative theories only in some concrete points. Here, for example, that can be the assertion

“….the submicroscopic concept developed in my works is limited with the size much less than Planck's length 10-35 m...”

again, any suggestion in any physical theory/model should correspond eventually to some experimental data. In this case experimentally utmost fundamental only Planck units are known, that are derived from experimentally known “fundamental constants”: ћ [fundamental physical action], c [the standard speed of light], and G [gravitational constant].

However in these 3 constants with rather great probability

only ћ is indeed fundamental; when others are derived

c=lP/tP, where lP and tP are Planck length and Planck time

G is the normalization coefficient G = ћc/MP2, where MP is the Planck mass and, e.g. the potential energy of a two-bodies system, H, H= ћ(lP/tP)[(m1/MP)(m2/MP)]/R, where R is the distance between the bodies, m1 and m2 are the gravitational masses of the bodies.

So when in some theory/model something that is, for example, lesser then Planck length, appears, that seems as rather questionable…

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko, fundamental physics was derived from pure mathematics in my papers published together with Michel Bounias in 2003-2004. In more detail this was demonstrated in my book entitled Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Concept of Physics (2107). 4D is a convolution of 3D space, which shows the presence of matter. The approach based on general relativity /special relativity cannot be applicable at scales less than 1 meter (or the best case is 1 cm). The submicroscopic approach starts somewhere from the size circa 10-160 m. It is quite possible to construct the formalism of quantum mechanics using special tricks, however, the formalism of general relativity is out of the submicroscopic consideration. Gravity is naturally described as a collective phenomenon of a huge number of particles that form a material object.

Volodymyr Krasnoholovets

This paper makes serious claim, it claimed Compton formula is fraud.

Its known that Einstein introduced quanta in 1905 to knock electron from atom in his photoelectric effect, it was opposed by most scientists, till he was rescued by Compton in 1923, who claimed electromagnetic radiation contain quantum (photon), with momentum p=hv/c, but I discovered this formula was derived from Einstein mass energy equivalent with Planck's radiation formula, and we proved his claim is untrue, and the formula is wrong, and since quantum (photon) is based on this formula, therefore photon is an imaginary particle, only existed in imagination of some scientists, can you dispute this analysis?

"Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum"

Researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835620_Compton_was_Greatly_Mistaken_Using_the_Quantum

Hans van Leunen

I totally agree with you, photon doesn't exist, but what mechanism which can explain the nature in it’s different phenomena? Is it the string or sometimes else? I came with many papers explaining all these, did you check them?

“The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism”

http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/68_IJFPS_Sept_2014_72_79.pdf

“Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant”

http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/vol1/issue10/67.NVEE10087.pdf

Then the photoelectric effect, as Planck’s formula gives us the radiation energy, we driver the Radiation Magnetic Force (FmR) by Eq. (24), as a force embedded in electromagnetic radiation which removed electron from atom, in: “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model”

http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf

The Compton effect is an interested mechanism, and the famous Indian scientist Raman suggested a century ago, it’s a reproduction of secondary electromagnetic radiation, as given in: “The Compton Effect Re-Visited”

http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdf

We solved the Double Slit Experiment which Richard Feynman said it’s impossible to be solved classically, this is in: “The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue4/Version-3/M0804038698.pdf

The last experiment for wave particle duality is the electron Diffraction, we solve this in: “Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals)”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue5/Version-2/P08050299116.pdf

Dear Mahmoud E. Yousef, I would like to recall you that astronomy is based on photons and also the whole laser optics too. The Compton effect is used particularly in nuclear physics when one measures radioactivity searching for those or these isotopes (e.g. 137Cs), which I did many times by our measuring devices. In your papers I can see you operate with electric filed and magnetic field. But these two fields have elementary carriers, which are called photons. Some researchers record single photons in their experiments and even demonstrate the absence of the diffraction phenomenon when the time interval between travelling photons is very long. Nevertheless, you of course have rights to reject photons. However, what will you use instead of them? How will you determine this something new?

Physicists are perfective capable to handle photons without knowing their structure because they sufficiently know their behavior.

Light is a probability wave (or wave package) of photons.

Article Science with Blinders

Volodymyr Krasnoholovets

What is your position from the formula p=hv/c used by Compton in his 1923 paper, based on what we wrote on the paper? Can you defend the formula?

"Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum"

Researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835620_Compton_was_Greatly_Mistaken_Using_the_Quantum

Dear Volodymyr,

Sorry, but I cannot comment your book; since don’t know what proceeds in Matter below Planck scale; and, again, any physics, including fundamental one, can be derived only basing on some experimental data; and if some mathematical approach is used, it should have well grounded experimental base.

Cheers

Our early training in physics encourages us to imagine photons as little pellets flying through the air, and to see wave-particle duality as a paradox. This view persists from the debates on quantum mechanics early in the 20th century. Much has happened in the past 80 years, however. Quantum optics and field theory have developed a very sophisticated mathematical formalism for treating photons, and this formalism affects how we view photons.

My aim in this paper is to present the basic results of quantum field theory of photons as they relate to the ontology of photons. Often, we have the impression that the formalism of quantum has been basically unchanged since the 1920’s, and all that remains is to sort out the philosophy. This is not the case. Field theory, for which Dirac deserves mote the of the original credit [1], was developed at great length in the 1950’s, most notably by Feynmann [2], and was applied specifically to the theory of photons in the 1960’s. Louisell [3] wrote the earliest classic text, which is still quite useful; more recent classic texts of the field theory of photons are Siegman [4] and Mandel and Wolf [5]. A general text for quantum field theory is Ref. [6].

Far from being a canonized and established theory mathematically, the theory of photons and detection of photons is still active. A recent, very important contribution is Collective Electrodynamics, by Carver Mead [7]. This short book, written by one of the most respected scientists in the field of photonics, presents a number of new results which may have a great impact on our view of quantum jumps and quantum paradoxes.

This paper has two sections. In the first section, I review the main results of quantum field theory of photons. Carver Mead has argued that photons, and the electromagnetic field as a whole, is not “real,” that is, it is ontologically dependent on the quantum field of charged particles (called the “Dirac field”), so that we could completely account for all experimental results without invoking the idea of electromagnetic field or photons. I argue against this view, and present evidence that the most natural way to interpret the results of field theory is to treat the electromagnetic and Dirac fields on equal footing. The field theory does lead us to view photons themselves, however, as ontrologically dependent on the electromagnetic field, which is a deeper underlying entity. These results, by and large, and not controversial among quantum optics physicists.

In the second section, I present a short summary of Carver Mead’s analysis of quantum jumps. I argue that this analysis is promising, but still incomplete. It also does not depend crucially on his view of whether the electromagnetic field is real.

As part of this, I discuss the interpretation of Mead (and a forerunner, John Cramer [8]) of the EPR paradox. This “transactional” interpretation has promise, but again, has not been well fleshed out.

The material of Section 1 is not controversial among quantum optics physicists. The material of Section 2 is novel, and not likely to be embraced by physicists immediately without more fleshing out.

In general, the EPR paradox has not often been analyzed in terms of field theory, and the views of Cramer and Mead have not gotten a lot of attention in the philosophical world. I hope this changes. One of the things which makes this approach promising is that it is not just aphilosophical interpretation; it is also a program of calculation which may lead to testable predictions.

Dear Adriana

Thank you for comment and interesting attachment.

This article has not shown photon is unstructured or has sub-elements.

Sergey Shevchenko, if you do not know my works, please do not comment. Thanks.

Dear Adriana Santos-Caballero, the notion of photon cannot be disclosed in the framework of the conventional knowledge base, which may include quantum physics, quantum field theory, etc. This is because modern disciplines operate with notions that were recognized as fundamentals though undetermined. Physicists do not work in terms behind the Standard Model and using different parts of the Standard Model they wish to build a unified theory of all fundamental interactions, on in other words, the theorem of everything.

However, from the mathematical point of view, before we start to construct the theorem of everything, we must prove the theorem of something. In other words, we have to disclose a detailed pattern of each notion used in fundamental physics. This automatically means that we have to start from something very different, which however, will result in physics. How to do this? It was demonstrated in my book titled Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Concept of Physics (2017). Here is the link to the flyer for the book: http://inerton.kiev.ua/SS&SDCP.pdf. Besides, on amazon.com one can look inside of the book (Preface, Introduction and the first sections). The main idea is to start from pure mathematics just to understand what is space in which all physical evens occur; then how particles appear, what is a particle, what is mass, what is charge, etc. Only when all these basic knowledges become clarified, we can start to construct physics at different scales starting from the size of lepton and quark, then the atom size, and so on up to the scale of the universe. Besides, doing so, we can see what is mechanics of quarks, baryons, nucleons, etc. Then we can construct the formalism of conventional quantum mechanics. Then we can derive the Maxwell equations (and it is interesting, the magnetic monopole is found in these equations!!) A detailed theory of the photon was done starting from the interpretation of this object.

After that we can create the phenomenon of gravity – to derive the Newton’s gravitational law and a correction to it, which allows us complete resolve all the problems that researchers have been discussing in the gravitational physics and cosmology for years (in particular, a pair gravitational potential, dark matter, dark energy, acceleration of the universe, etc.).

Of course, since I am a physicist, all the claims were verified experimentally in condensed matter, optical physics, plasma physics, nuclear physics and astrophysics. My colleagues and I have made several devices that measure new quasi-particles introduced in my works, inertons. Besides, we have arranged different set-ups in which we verified different new ideas and hypothesis. Etc.

Hans & Volodymyr

Sorry I realized some of the links are not opening, here are the papers with proper links:

“The Magnetic Interaction” http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/links/Papers/MY.pdf

“The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism”

http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/Radiation_Mechanism.pdf

“Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant”

http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/vol1/issue10/67.NVEE10087.pdf

“The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model”

http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/Photoelectric_Effects.pdf

“The Compton Effect Re-Visited”

http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdf

“The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue4/Version-3/M0804038698.pdf

“Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals)”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue5/Version-2/P08050299116.pdf

Photon is not the wave but strongly related to the wave. I mean the retarded wave. Recently I have proved that photon is the mutual energy flow. The mutual energy flow is produced by the retarded wave and the advanced wave. The mutual energy flow is responsible to transfer the photon's energy from the emitter to the absorber. However the retarded wave and the advanced wave do not join the energy transfer. The retarded wave and the advanced wave only help to build the mutual energy flow. After the mutual energy flow is built, the retarded wave and the advanced wave is time-reversal returned. The retarded wave and the advanced wave is balanced out by the two time-reversal waves corresponding to the retarded wave and the advanced wave. Hence photon is noting else, photon is just the mutual energy flow. The mutual energy flow do not decrease with 1/r. It looks as particle in the place close to the emitter and the absorber. It is looks wave in the middle between the emitter and the absorber. It is thin in the two ends close to the emitter and the absorber. It is thick in the middle between the emitter and the absorber. It can carry the energy and momentum from the emitter to the absorber. For details please seen:http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=726&paperId=4042

Dear S. Ren Zhao

Thank you for the interesting comment, I saw your article.

Do you mean that a photon is not a wave-packet?

You wrote:"Photon is nothing else, it is just the mutual energy flow."

What about the mass of this "mutual energy flow"?

Regards

Hossein

If you want to investigate photons, then you must start with a trustworthy modelling platform in which fields occur in a natural way and behave according to suitable differential calculus.

Eighty years ago, two scholars introduced quantum logic. It is a relational structure that emerges into a separable Hilbert space. Quantum logic is an orthomodular lattice that is quite similar to classical logic. The orthomodular lattice is a set that restricts the kind of relations between elements that it tolerates. The orthomodular lattice does not contain numbers. Thus, notions such as time and space make no sense inside this lattice. This changes in the Hilbert space. The Hilbert space is a vector space that applies numbers to specify the inner product of pairs of vectors. These numbers must be members of a division ring. This implies that every non-zero number must own a unique inverse. These numbers deliver the eigenvalues of operators that map the Hilbert space onto itself. This turns the Hilbert space into a repository of data that can be archived in these numbers. The most elaborate division ring is the number system of the quaternions. These number systems exist in many versions that distinguish by the coordinate systems that sequence their members. Thus, on top of a single vector space exist a large series of separable Hilbert spaces that each use a private number system to define their inner product values. In each separable Hilbert space, a reference operator applies this number system as its eigenspace and this eigenspace acts as a private parameter space. A special category of operators applies the eigenvectors of the reference operator and the target value of a quaternionic function that belongs to the corresponding eigenvalue of the reference operator to define the eigenvalues of the new defined operator. This procedure combines the Hilbert space operator technology with function theory and indirectly with differential and integral calculus.

Quaternions are ideally suited as storage bins for dynamic geometric data that consist of a time stamp and a three-dimensional spatial location.

A real number valued progression parameter defines a subspace that is spanned by all vectors that are eigenvector of a reference operator and share the real part of the corresponding eigenvalue with the progression parameter. This subspace divides the vector space in a historic part, the current static status quo, and a future part. Thus, after sorting the real parts of the eigenvalues, the combination of separable Hilbert spaces form a dynamic model.

One of the separable Hilbert spaces acts as a background platform. The parameter spaces of the other Hilbert spaces float over the background parameter space. If this background Hilbert space possesses infinite dimensions, then it owns a companion non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. The defined operators in this non-separable Hilbert space contain continuums as eigenspaces. Quaternionic functions describe these continuums. Quaternionic differential calculus describes the dynamics of these continuums.

In this base model a series of separable Hilbert spaces float over the background Hilbert space and the non-separable companion of the background separable Hilbert space embeds these floating platforms. The symmetries and chirality of the corresponding parameter spaces may cause a dynamic chiral symmetry breaking during the embedding process.

In this environment photons operate. They vibrate the living space of all discrete objects that we call the universe. It is a field that can be described by quaternionic functions. The photons must be described by solutions of the differential equations. One of them is the quaternionic equivalent of the wave equation. It offers solutions from which photons and light beams are constituted.

See: http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~labs/dynamical/pedagogy/vb/3dpart2.pdf

Dear Ren Zhao,

I have been extremely interested in and puzzled by the consistent formulation of the electrodynamics that goes beyond the naive formulation of superposition of two 'waves' going in opposite directions in space ...

The story of the related issues apparently started with quite famous Einstein-Ritz "Auseinandersetzung" on existence of outbound and inbound waves, whereas they "agreed to disagree": Einstein accepted only outbound, and Ritz - both.

I appreciate very much your approach, which presumably goes along thoe lines, and would like to know if you may have some related material that goes along lines of classical electromagnetism/electrodynamics ?!

Kind regards,

Slobodan Nedic

FIELD EQUATIONS

The quaternionic first order partial differential equation appears to be the mother of all field equations. It applies the quaternionic nabla and this differential operator behaves as a quaternionic multiplier. Thus, the quaternionic multiplication rule acts as the template for the quaternionic first order partial differential equation.

QUATERNIONS

c = cᵣ + c= ab

≡ (aᵣ + a) (bᵣ + b) = aᵣbᵣ − 〈a, b〉 + abᵣ + aᵣb ± a×b

Here the real part gets subscript ᵣ and the imaginary part is written in bold face.

The right side covers five different terms.

〈a, b〉 is the inner product.

a×b is the external product.

± indicates the choice between right and left handedness.

THE QUATERNIONIC NABLA

Partial quaternionic differential equations that apply the quaternionic nabla ∇ describe the interaction between a field and a point-like artifact.

∇ ≡ {∂/∂τ, ∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z}

∇ ≡ {∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z}

∇ᵣ ≡ ∂/∂τ

τ is progression or proper time.

PARTIAL DIFFERENTIALS

In the quaternionic differential calculus, differentiation with the quaternionic nabla is a quaternionic multiplication operation:

Φ = ϕᵣ + Φ = ∇ψ

≡ (∇ᵣ +∇) (ψᵣ + ψ) = ∇ᵣψᵣ − 〈∇, ψ 〉 + ∇ψᵣ + ∇ᵣ ψ ± ∇× ψ

ϕᵣ = ∇ᵣψᵣ − 〈∇, ψ 〉

Φ = ∇ψᵣ + ∇ᵣ ψ ± ∇× ψ

〈∇, ψ 〉 is the divergence of ψ

∇ψᵣ is the gradient of ψᵣ

∇× ψ is the curl of ψ

Some of the terms get new symbols

E = −∇ψᵣ−∇ᵣ ψ

B = ∇× ψ

HIGHER ORDER DIFFERENTIATION

Double differentiation leads to the second order partial differential equation:

ρ = ∇*ϕ = (∇ᵣ−∇) (∇ᵣ+∇) (ψᵣ+ ψ) = (∇ᵣ∇ᵣ+〈∇, ∇〉) (ψᵣ+ ψ)

= ρᵣ+J

This equation splits into two first order partial differential equations Φ = ∇ψ and ρ = ∇*ϕ.

ρᵣ = 〈∇,E〉

J = ∇× B −∇ᵣE

∇ᵣ B = −∇×E

SECOND ORDER PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

Two quite similar second order partial differential operators exist. The first is described above.

(∇ᵣ∇ᵣ + 〈∇, ∇〉) ψ = ρ

This is still a nameless equation.

The second is the quaternionic equivalent of d’Alembert’s operator

(∇ᵣ∇ᵣ − 〈∇, ∇〉). It defines the quaternionic equivalent of the well-known wave equation.

(∇ᵣ∇ᵣ − 〈∇, ∇〉) ψ = φ

Both second order partial differential operators are Hermitian differential operators.

SOLUTIONS

All solutions have advanced and retarded components.

The homogeneous second order partial differential equations offer solutions that occur when actuators trigger them.

Waves

f (τ, x) = a exp (i ω (cτ-|x-x' |)); c=±1

solves

∇ᵣ∇ᵣ f = 〈∇, ∇〉 f = −ω² f

One-dimensional shock fronts

ψ = g(x i±τ)

Spherical shock fronts

ψ = g(r i±τ)/r

SHOCK FRONTS

Shock fronts only occur in odd dimensions.

Spherical shock fronts integrate into the Green’s function. They quickly fade away. For that reason they only temporarily deform the carrier.

The Green's function has some volume. Thus the spherical shock fronts pump some volume into the carrier field. That volume locally deforms the field and subsequently spreads over the field. It persistently expands the field.

PHOTONS

Photons are strings of equidistant one-dimensional schock fronts. Each front carries a standard bit of energy. The string obeys the Einstein-Planck relation E = h v. Consequently, all photons share the same spatial length and the same emission duration.

See more of this in https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project#The_behavior_of_continuums

Dear Added an answer,

I mean photon is not the wave for example the retarded wave. Photon is not a particle some thing like bullet. Photon is mutual energy flow which is created by a retarded wave and the advanced wave. The retarded wave is sent from emitter. The advanced wave is sent from absorber. Photon's energy, momentum, action/reaction, mass all is carried by the mutual energy flow. Mutual energy flow are the part of additional energy when the two waves superposed. We know that if one field amplitude is 1 then two fields superposed the energy will be 4 instead of 2. After superposition the energy has an additional part. The mutual energy flow are the additional part of energy when the retarded field and the advanced field superposed. The mutual energy flow perhaps same as what you mean particle wave. But particle wave is a very general concept, each person's particle wave can be different. 'The mutual energy flow is a very concrete concept. Mutual energy flow is support by the mutual energy theorem which I have derived in 1987, it is even discovered by Welch in 1960. Details can be seen in Chinese https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%92%E8%83%BD%E5%AE%9A%E7%90%86

However Welch did not call it as energy theorem but a time-domain reciprocity theorem, that obstruct people think there is a energy from transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna.

I was clear the energy transferred from transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna is through mutual energy. But what the self-energy do? I mean the retarded wave sent by the transmitting antenna and the advacned wave sent by the receiving antenna? Do These waves also join the energy transfer? 30 years later, I finally got answer: It is No! they do not transfer any energy! The two waves of Maxwell do not transfer any energy! The energy is only transferred by the mutual energy flow. Photon is a small antenna system. The emitter is corresponding the transmitting antenna. The absorber is corresponding to the receiving antenna.

All particle include photon, electron and so on are all mutual energy flow. The self-energy flow perhaps has been sent out by the transmitting antenna or emitter, but they are balanced out or cancelled completely by two time-reversal waves. All particle are consist of these 4 waves, instead of 1 wave or 2 waves. Thank you very much for interesting.

If your photon model can explain the two slit phenomenon and the fact that the human eye can see stars at distances of several millions of light years, then it might be trustworthy. Of course, it must explain the photoelectric effect. Else you better seek a new model.

About the concept of particle

Generally, we have almost the same understanding and imagination of large objects (at the level of molecules and larger). But in the case of subatomic particles, there is no clearly defined and visualized concept, and there are many uncertainties, especially in the case of photon and graviton. Therefore, any theory offers certain understanding (such as loop and string) of these particles. In discussion with my dear friend Daniel, I enjoyed his imagination. He wrote; "...since I consider gravity to be a localized phenomenon with rapid attenuation and to be a space deformation like the rubber sheet of Einstein, I maintain that gravitons are not particles -- indeed, I believe all bosons are wavelike field phenomena. Even Higgs never proposed a Higgs particle -- he proposed the Higgs Field that "clusters" many wavelets to a denser state. He was a Field Theorist as I am. To me, all is a field and condensed energy moving wavelets at different frequencies." [1]

However, in CPH Theory we are using the particles for graviton and photon without any images of them.

1 - http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1892648&gid=1892648&memberID=10044563+(http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fgroups%3FviewMemberFeed%3D&memberID=10044563)&viewMemberFeed=

Dear Slobodan Nedic

Thank you very much for interesting. As I remember Einstein support the advanced wave exist. Ritz against the concept of advanced wave. But am not very clear. Any way Einstein has no publication about this topic. Wheeler-Feynman's absorber theory, Schwarzschild, Tetrode and Fokker action-at-a-distance have the theory about advanced wave. John Crammer transnational interpretation for QM also need advanced wave.

Most people think the advanced wave is time-reversal wave that is wrong. Actually the retarded wave and advanced waves all have their time-reversal wave hence there are 4 wave for a particle. This is the difference of my photon model with others. The new theory must started with new axioms which are self-energy principle and mutual energy principle.

Dear Hans van Leunen,

My photon model "mutual energy flow" can explain double slits excrement. The photon can run a distance hundred light-years without decrease. The mutual energy can carry the energy, momentum, action/reaction and mass from emitter to the absorber. It should meet your request. Details please see: http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=726&paperId=4042

Dear Javadi, Your question itself is very clear and informative.

Regards

Dr S Pandey

Dear Sadanand

Thank you for the mention.

Please read "Dark Objects"; http://vixra.org/abs/1901.0174

The STOE suggests a model of light as photons directed by an aether like component of the universe. A model of interference as made and simulation done. A new experiment was done. The experiment rejected the Fresnel-Huygens (wave) concept of light.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference

specifically

Article Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation progra...

Photons are the most well-known and least understood particles in modern Physics. This article describes the properties of the "Photon" and provides answers for questions like:

1). Why do photons propagate with the speed of light and cannot propagate slower while all other the particles propagate slower than the speed of light?

2). What is the mass of a photon?

3). How do we calculate the mass of a photon and is the mass of a photon in every direction the same?

4) Why are some "photons" accellerated by a gravitational field while other photons are not accellerated or decelerated by a gravitational field?

5). What is inside the photon and which forces keep the photon stable?

6). What is the difference between a photon and an electromagnetic pulse?

These questions will be answered in the publication "The Inertia of Light and the Isotropic and Anisotropic Properties of Electro-magnetic Mass" ( http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=301&doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20190702.11 )

in the "American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics" ( http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=301&doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20190702.11 )

This article is part of the special issue: "The Interaction between Gravity and Light" ( http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/specialissue/301005 )

Abstract:

Photonics is the physical science of light based on the concept of “photons” introduced by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century. Einstein introduced this concept in the “particle-wave duality” discussion with Niels Bohr to demonstrate that even light has particle properties (mass and momentum) and wave properties (frequency). That concept became a metaphor and from that time on a beam of light has been generally considered as a beam of particles (photons). Which is a wrong understanding. Light particles do not exist. Photons are nothing else but electromagnetic complex wave configurations and light particles are not like “particles” but separated electromagnetic wave packages. This new theory will explain how electromagnetic wave packages demonstrate inertia, mass and momentum and which forces keep the wave packages together in a way that they can be measured like particles with their own specific mass and momentum. All we know about light, and in general about any electromagnetic field configuration, has been based only on two fundamental theories. James Clerk Maxwell introduced in 1865 the “Theory of Electrodynamics” with the publication: “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” and Albert Einstein introduced in 1905 the “Theory of Special Relativity” with the publication: “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” and in 1913 the “Theory of General Relativity” with the publication ”Outline of a Generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of Gravitation”. However, both theories are not capable to explain the property of electromagnetic mass and in specific the anisotropy of the phenomenon of electromagnetic mass presented e.g. in a LASER beam. To understand what electromagnetic inertia and the corresponding electromagnetic mass is and how the anisotropy of electromagnetic mass can be explained and how it has to be defined, a New Theory about Light has to be developed. A part of this New Theory about Light, based on Newton’s well known law in 3 dimensions will be published in this article in an extension into 4 dimensions. Newton’s 4-dimensional law in the 3 spatial dimensions results in an improved version of the classical Maxwell equations and Newton’s law in the 4th dimension (time) results in the quantum mechanical Schrödinger wave equation (at non-relativistic velocities) and the relativistic Dirac equation.

Dear Wim

Thank you for comment and articles link.

This is exactly the question hovering in my mind. Intuitively, I thought the electromagnetic wave e.g., with 1Hz, has strong wave property but very week particle property without mass. The election has obvious wave-particle duality with the well-known mass of 9.109×10−31kg. While I think the photon is something in between, considering the electromagnetic spectrum. It is good to know from the question that the photon is a very weak electric dipole according to recent studies. Wim's recent paper also answers other interesting questions.