Dear Hans,

Photons are particles forming the electromagnetic field and they are also waves. Their de Broglie wavelength is the same that the one associated to their wavelength of the electromagnetic field. And the electromagnetic wave propagates at the velocity of light as the photons contained within the electromagnetic field. Thus it is very difficult to separate the concepts that you say: electromagnetic waves and photons.

What is true ,and I agree with you, is that it isn't so straightforward to obtain an electromagnetic macroscopic wave just adding photons. For instead we have pure magnetic fields or pure electric fields which in principle nobody has distinguished their physical behavious in spite to have a very different macroscopic one.

Daniel,

Try to approach the problem from the other end. Look at the solutions of the wave equation. Part of them concern waves. Ignore them. Look at solutions that get triggered by single shot actuators. part of these solutions are shock fronts. Two kinds exist. Study their behavior.

(Quaternionic differential calculus offers two second order partial differential equations. One of them is the quaternionic equivalent of the wave equation. The other splits into two first order partial differential equations. Also this second equation offers shock fronts as its solutions but it does not support waves.)

Without wave guides and only EM waves available no stars would be perceivable. Photons are not constituted by waves.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project/Quaternionic_Field_Equations

Dear Hans,

In the link that you have written there is only classical electromagnetism written in quaternionic algebra. There is not relation with photons or quantum electromagnetic field in a Fock space with creation or annihilated operators and so on. This formalism is very far of providing you one answer to your question.

An alternative view:

Entire space, outside basic 3D matter-particles, is filled with an all-encompassing universal medium, structured by quanta of matter. Transfer of cyclic variations of distortions in universal medium is an electromagnetic wave. See: Universal medium

Photons are the most basic 3D matter-particles, created, sustained and moved by universal medium. Each photon has a disc-shaped 3D matter-core that spins about one of its diameters at spin speed (frequency) proportional to its 3D matter-content and moves at the highest possible linear speed with respect to universal medium. 3D matter-core of photon provides its particle-nature.

Movements of photon’s 3D matter-core are accomplished by structural distortions formed in latticework structures of surrounding universal medium. These rotating and linearly moving distortions have many similarities with EM waves in each plane. This part of photon provides its wave-nature. Both, the 3D matter-core and structural distortions in universal medium in immediate surroundings, together form a photon.

Electromagnetic waves, being wave-like transmission of distortions in latticework structures of universal medium, tend to disperse and hence their rages are limited. However, wave-like character-producing distortions in universal medium, being associated with 3D matter-core of photon, is self-sustaining due to its self-stabilizing property. These distortions exist as long as 3D matter-core is stable. However, during travel through long distances, 3D matter in photon’s 3D matter-core gradually reduce until photon dies due to lack of its 3D matter-core. Very low-frequency wave (property) about dying photon, left after disappearance of its 3D matter-core, remains in universal medium and appears to us as CMB Radiation. See: CMB Radiation

Photons, being 3D matter-particles, are affected by gravitational attraction towards other 3D matter-bodies. This effect is restricted by limitations in orientation of its 3D matter-core. EM waves are not affected by gravitational attraction.

Under special conditions, paths of photons may be affected by electric fields. Electromagnetic waves are always affected by electric fields.

Etc. See: Nature of Light , ‘MATTER (Re-examined)’.

Daniel,

Little difference exist between the mathematics that is developed by humans and the kind of mathematics that reality obeys. A solution of a second order partial differential equation will describe a phenomenon that is triggered by a corresponding actuator,

Photons are strings of equidistant one-dimensional shock fronts that are solutions of a second order partial differential equation and that are repetitively triggered by an emitter. These are vibrations of a field that acts as our living space. EM waves are solutions of a second order partial differential equation that are caused by a periodic and harmonic actuator. It is a vibration of the electromagnetic field. This field fundamentally differs from our living space.

Nainan,

Please define the mathematics that supports your vision. If you cannot supply this, then your vision will be classified as a fantasy.

See: "Structure in Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0086

please check the attachment

Dear J.A.J. van Leunen,

Thanks. Fantasies are great.

Did Newton have a perfect mathematical theory, when he noticed apparent attraction between matter-bodies?

Or;

Do you have a mathematical theory to appreciate an object, previously kept in the cupboard, is still there?

See: ‘Existence and reality’ without mathematics at http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0387v1.pdf .

Regards,

Nainan

Nainan,

As soon as you couple three dimensions to a location, then you are already in the middle of applying mathematics. In the deepest foundation of physical reality exist no numbers. Thus, there no time and no space exist. Only relations exist. Still from this foundation emerges a structure that already applies numbers. The deepest foundation is an orthomodular lattice. It is a relational structure. About 25 axioms precisely define that structure. It is pure mathematics. Classical logic features a quite similar relational structure. Only three of the axioms differ. A special branche of mathematics treats the relational structure. It is called lattice theory. One of the discoverers of the orthomodular lattice was Garrett Birkhoff. He was a specialist in these structures. The structure that emerges from the orthomodular lattice is a separable Hilbert space. It is a special kind of vector space. The Hilbert space uses numbers to define the inner product of two vectors.

Madhur,

Just phrasing a set of equations does not pose an explanation of a physical object. You must define a modeling platform in which these equations make sense. A combination of a non-separable Hilbert space and a series of separable Hilbert spaces that the non-separable Hilbert space embeds can constitute that platform. This base model can implement dynamic fields that interact with discrete artifacts and in that way constitute the objects that we perceive in the universe.

See: "Structure in physical reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0086

Dear J.A.J. van Leunen,

Thanks.

Mathematics is a very good tool to confirm or to reject a concept before it can be subjected to field experiments. It saves lot of time, effort and money which is required to do the same through repeated experiments. But, trouble starts when mathematics starts to dictate concepts, which are in the realm of imagination or fantasy.

In formal or abstract logic that is used in mathematics, we have the advantage of being able to decide whether an interpretation is valid or not without being psychologically influenced by statements. Notations given in mathematics have no specific meanings. They may be given many different meanings. Thus, it becomes much easier in mathematics to tell a good reasoning from bad, when arguments are exhibited in their skeleton form in notations. In this form, they are just ‘propositional functions’. However, conclusions reached in mathematical treatments cannot be considered ‘assertions’ until meanings are assigned to notations used. Only then, they become ‘propositions’. Resulting statements may be true, false or nonsense. Consequently, similar conclusions reached mathematically (using propositional functions) in two sets of arguments do not guarantee similar conclusions, when propositions are used. This fact is often overlooked by those who insist on mathematical treatments as the sole criteria for a good theory.

Mathematical analysis superseded conceptual thinking during development of modern physical theories. To those, who were frustrated by inability of science to provide a logical concept that suits equally to all physical phenomena, emergence of mathematical analysis as major factor to determine validity of newer theories was a boon. They became free to indulge in imaginary theories that could be proved by mathematical treatments alone, despite their irrationality and conflict with common sense.

Is the lattice that was mentioned by you a real physical entity? If so, what is its substance? All real entities need substance (that would provide them with objective reality and positive existence) to exist. Nothing can exist without substance (stuff by which it is formed). I doubt if mathematics can provide substance to a real entity. I think ‘GOD’S WILL’ is much simpler and effective than foundational structure emerging from existence of relations (between what?) in mathematics. With sufficient deliberations, any assumption can be proved mathematically.

Regards,

Nainan.

Nainan,

The reasoning is as follows. Reality is very complicated, but at the same time it appears to be very coherent. It obviously possesses structure. When this structure is investigated, then when diving deeper, this structure becomes increasingly simple. At it low end the structure owns a foundation. The way back to more complicated levels is particular. Like a seed evolves in a particular plant, will the foundation evolve into a structure that we can observe as the physical reality in which we live.

The foundation is so simple that we can easily comprehend it. It certainly is a physical item, but at the same time humans have discovered that structure and added it to their library of structures. This is what the duo Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann did when they discovered the orthomodular lattice that they called quantum logic. They also discovered how this structure evolved into the next more complicated level of the structure. This structure is a separable Hilbert space. On its turn, this structure evolves in a very restricted way in an even more complicated structure that can already act as a powerful dynamic modelling platform.

This description shows the intimate relation between physical reality and what humans call mathematics. It makes little sense to deny this relation. It is far better to accept it and use it for explaining reality.

Dear Hans Van Leunen,

Thanks for sharing your article. Do you know the orbital angular momentum in reference of optics. That is variation in phase of optical wave front. Same concept is also true for EM radiation through antenna. OAM occur due to orbital motion of electron and spin angular momentum occur due to spin of electron along its own axis.

In optics its very easy to demonstrate the OAM as compare to radiation through antenna.

Higher frequency (~THz) electromagnetic wave, similar to a moving photon (rest mass ~0).

MASER may be the suitable example.

Mahdur,

The emitter of the EM wave and the emitter of a photon both determine the polarization of the generated signal. The referred paper contains a picture that shows both what happens in flat EM wave and what happens in a string of one-dimensional shock fronts. The picture shows circular polarization. If the black vectors do not rotate, then the polarization is linear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Wave_model

The Hilbert Book Model considers photons as vibrations of our living space rather than as vibrations of an electromagnetic field. That does not take away that these vibrations show many similarities.

Dear J.A.J. van Leunen,

Thanks.

Reality is not at all complicated, but we choose to make it complicated. An example is about space, which is commonly understood as an imaginary container of infinite extent that accommodates all real entities. Most physicists cannot agree even on nature of space, if it has any. Each of many theories on space has spaces with different properties and each one named after a person.

[“The foundation is so simple that we can easily comprehend it. It certainly is a physical item, but at the same time humans have discovered that structure and added it to their library of structures.”] As you say, structural formations are observed everywhere. A physical structure definitely cannot exist without fundamental physical substance. Hence, substance (a common one) is the foundation of all structures in universe. Substance has to exist before any other structure. It is very simple for mechanical ability of substance to provide mechanism from within it for further development of structures, which have objective reality and positive existence. Substance and structures developed from it are physical items and they are not at all difficult to conceive. High-ended mathematical theories can only confuse and complicate logical reasoning. I believe; step by step development from the single assumption on existence of fundamental substance and simple mathematics can explain almost all physical phenomena.

I have no knowledge of different mathematics, you mentioned and I am not interested in them. My foremost aim is to develop a simple physical concept based on a single assumption that can logically explain all physical phenomena under all conditions. More than one assumption/postulation/axiom will certainly produce circular reasoning and falsification. (I think 25 axioms are far too many in any theory). If you have not read so far, I implore you to read a short essay of two pages, Existence and Reality , at http://vixra.org/pdf/1802.0086v1.pdf .

Regards,

Nainan.

Nainan,

What is substance? Has a field substance? What generates substance?

The lattice of classical logic has the same number of axioms as the orthomodular lattice has. Only three axioms are different.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project/Relational_Structures

My experience is that trying to understand physics without sufficient knowledge of the corresponding math is cumbersome. Human intuition usually misguides.

The link to your paper is http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0387v1.pdf

The paper gives no clue about what substance is and how it is generated.

Dear J.A.J. van Leunen,

Thanks.

Creation would not know anything about the creator. A moving body would not know what, how, when or by what mechanism it was moved. It would know only about itself and its state with respect to external environment and any action it is doing. Similarly, substance, the most fundamental entity, is beyond definition by products of substance (the rational beings). However, by our intellect we can infer some of its properties by analysing its actions on other similar objects. Substance is not generated but substance generates real entities.

Substance (or stuff) forms all real entities. It provides objective reality and positive existence to real entities. In other words, all real entities depend on substance for their existence. Yet, substance is beyond definition. We would not know how it is generated, sustained or destroyed. Because of our and all other material object’s existence in universe, we can be sure of its existence. We may call substance by any name. In material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. Hence, I prefer to call substance as matter. Matter, in turn, (due its ability to exist) forms all other real entities and their dynamic actions, including: electromagnetic waves, photons, fields, etc.

It is from the single assumption on ‘existence of matter’ that I concluded that your statements given in initial post

“A photon can travel many light years through empty space and after that trip it can still be detected by a human eye.

An electromagnetic wave requires a powerful transmitter and huge receiving antenna antennas to bridge the distance. between two planets.

The path of a photon is not affected by electric charges. The electric field is certainly influenced by nearby electric charges.

So the usual statement that photons are electromagnetic waves must be false.

Photons are not waves and their carrier is not the electromagnetic field.”

are reasonably true. I find that actions, described in your statements, are results of simple mechanical actions by quanta of matter in universal medium (without much help from mathematics). Mathematics would come later to quantify and predict results of actions.

It is reasonable to depend on mathematics to apply proper corrections, whenever our intuition or reasoning misguide us. But it is not right for mathematics to dictate our intuitions or logical reasoning. When concepts are formed to justify mathematics, it is no more physics.

Regards,

Nainan.

A cording to the new electromagnetic field and photon theory of the mutual energy principle and self-energy principle, photon is consist of 4 waves: a retarded wave and an advanced wave and 2 time-reversal wave. All energy flow these 4 waves are canceled. However the retarded wave and the advanced wave can produce the mutual energy flow which doesn't cancelled. The energy of photon is transferred by the mutual energy flow. Hence photon can be seen as the mutual energy flow. However photon actually need 4 wave to build.

Many photons together can build a macroscopic wave. This macroscopic wave can be seen as a retarded wave. However in this case we must assume the absorber are uniformly distribute on the infinite big sphere.

Hence photon is build up from waves. But macroscopic wave is built from photon.

If you like to know the details of the mutual energy theorem, the mutual energy flow theorem, the mutual energy principle and the self-energy principle, please visit

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbsT3-cyNFoWud8WIBw4roQ?view_as=subscriber

Dear Zao,

How do you explain that a photon emitted from a star can be detected by a human eye?

Fist the energy of the photon is not reduced. We should know that the wave reduce with the distance, hence our human eye received is not wave but photon, photon is not the wave. What photon is? I assume photon is the mutual energy flow which is build by the retarded wave send by the emitter and the advanced wave send by the absorber in our eye. Hence our eye is not just receiving the wave inactively it send wave actively.