@ Herb Spencer

Dear sir, you are applying unacceptable method of convincing your audience in what is the truth. Simultaneously, not referring to the explicitely expressed objections, without respect to anyone to be free in understanding the world as it is seen by the observer. For instance: writing "Just keep your head stuck up the wrong paradigm" you are stating as it were certain that some paradigm (which one exactly - no word about this) is wrong. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION IN THIS WAY, PLEEEEASE!

Hossein I am not a Physicist. Check the following as you send/asked the question. You are an expert you should find out.

Physical Model of a Real Photon with Substructure and Mass-

Kenneth D. Oglesby, 25 September 2016

(http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0359v1.pdf)

The interaction of photons with the matter.

(http://meroli.web.cern.ch/meroli/lecture_photon_interaction.html)

Mechanism behind photon absorption and photon emission

(https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mechanism-behind-photon-absorption-and-photon-emission.703021/)

What is the mechanism of absorption of photon by charged particle?

(https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-mechanism-of-absorption-of-photon-by-charged-particle)

Dear Jetty

Thank you for comment and links.

They have not explained the mechanism of interaction photon and matter;

Please following article, because it is the first time that has observed of photon and atom that is not compatible with quantum mechanics.

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

http://phys.org/news/2016-12-interaction-atom-photon-quantum-devices.html

For this reason we need to understand the structure of photon.

Structure of the Photon

(http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C990809/docs/butterworth.pdf)

Is there a model of photon structure?

(http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22898)

Photon Structure

(http://www.desy.de/~ameyer/hq/node6.html)

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHOTON IN HARD HADRONIC PROCESSES

(https://cds.cern.ch/record/341523/files/9712518.pdf)

Antigravity within the photon

(http://peswiki.com/antigravity-within-the-photon)

Dear Jetty

I appreciate your attention and trying on this issue, thank you so much.

I have seen them before, they do not shown what a photon is made up of, in addition they are not able to describe which properties of photon elements makes photon's electric and magnetic fields.

I suggest see my work on photon structure:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303988070_Generalization_of_the_Dirac's_Equation_and_Sea

Article Generalization of the Dirac's Equation and Sea

Photons are another mathematical invention with no correspondence in reality.  It was invented to "fill the gap" in the pairwise interaction between two electrons because mathematicians have rejected the more physical concept of "Action-at-a-Distance" ['far action'] introduced by Newton in his model of gravity [but he too over-simplified by making gravity act instantaneously].  This 'abolition of time' has been followed by most mathematicians since, as it makes the calculations easier.  It is more philosophically consistent to adopt the universality of asynchronous interaction [far action] for all interactions, like the electromagnetic interaction.  There is then no need for another existent to 'fill the gap'.   I will expand on this critique in later papers, but in the meantime check out my posted papers:

See my UET1 ; UET2 and UET6 papers. 

Dear Herb

But concept of photon was able to describe physics problems such as photoelectric effect and De Broglie Wavelength.

However, I hope see your description and articles.

My paper on 'light' (UET6) is on my page on Academia.edu.

My next paper will address the apparent wavelike effects of electrons.

Photons are not things but interactions.  Object-oriented thinking has persisted for too long, so they are not 'made of anything' ; we need to refocus on relationships.  That's why I have labelled my theory: UET=Universal Electron Theory; only electrons exist and everything else material is constructed from them alone and their interactions.  Hard to get used to this revolutionary idea, as metaphysical assumptions are rarely challenged (or even discussed!!) in physics. 

Thanks, Hossein,  for your interest. 

@ Herb Spencer

The UET6 is inconsistent, since it refuses existence of other particles which are observed since at least 80 years. A promise of  next papers, which should explain how other particles are built of interacting electrons is just a simple manipulation. The fact that  it is "hard to get used to this revolutionary idea" [of UET6 ?] is due to complete incompleteness of the presentation.  An illustrative postulate, or claim, or just a guess (?) from section 6.3.1:

"Momentum is always conserved across each complete interaction but not  at all times in between (contrary to the Helmholtz continuous energy hypothesis)"

All this without any description of when the time in between  begins or ends, when the interaction happens to be complete and how or when  it is incomplete, and what is special in  the momentum that the same cannot be true for energy. No, it it completely impossible to accept the excerpted sentence as a scientific point of view. So, please, don't be kidding  your potential readers on having a theory of physics.

Dear Joachim:

I am not denying the existence of composite particles, but this has been deferred until UET9 and UET10, which are not ready for publication.

The subject of UET6 were optical experiments: to provide a non-carrier explanation.  If you are impatient, too bad I don't expect to convince everyone even when all my work is published.  Just keep your head stuck up the wrong paradigm and see how little progress has been made over many years with bad assumptions.  If you want to understand my theory then read more of the earlier UET papers (all on Academia.edu).

@ Herb Spencer

Dear sir, you are applying unacceptable method of convincing your audience in what is the truth. Simultaneously, not referring to the explicitely expressed objections, without respect to anyone to be free in understanding the world as it is seen by the observer. For instance: writing "Just keep your head stuck up the wrong paradigm" you are stating as it were certain that some paradigm (which one exactly - no word about this) is wrong. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION IN THIS WAY, PLEEEEASE!

Dear Joachim:  I do NOT expect to change the minds of most of the present generation of professionals as they are too invested in their current mindset; so they will continue "to just add another brick in the wall", doing 'normal' science.  

Max Planck recognized this inherent conservatism (as he himself recognized was one, which is why he had problems with his own revolutionary quantum suggestion).  I agree with Planck's prognosis: "new ideas only get adopted by the next generation"; so I am immune to antagonism for shaking the consensus of the orthodoxy.  If you don't read my work then how can you criticize it?

I was told this evening that "science progresses with every funeral."

Not so: science progresses more gently, each and every time a careful experiment makes yet another theory untenable.

Not so.  Interpretation is the necessary step and these are debatable.

Very few experiments are Go/Nogo.