Re: What is a photon

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 8:56:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote:
>

On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote:

A photon is

>
A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties
of light called the 'photoelectric effect'.  It can have
some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it
can have meaning that varies between people.  It is not
obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer
to that specific theory concerning light or not.

>
The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory.
Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
his theories on relativity.

>
>
My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named
'structured spacetime'.
>
In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually
a standing wave.
>
That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
>
My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
>
These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
>
The equation is simple:
>
q' = p* q* p^-1
>
Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
>
The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the
inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
>
Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
certain points of a single structure.
>
If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
'roll away'.
>
This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
'photon'.
>
If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into
some structure, which blocks its movement.
>
Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity
is charging up the plate.
>
My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
>
BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
>
As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE
and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
>
And GE can be proven!
....
>
>
TH

Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as
the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
universe?
If you can believe in dinosaurs and thus go against JCI metaphysics who
not believe in aether?
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--