Re: What is a photon

Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Bertitaylor:

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?

This has a reason, but a little complicated one:
'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space.
But this aether isn't 'relative'.
I mean:
if you want to fill all space with aether, you would need space and aether in the first place.
But I wanted something else and somthing compatible with 'big-bang theory'.
I think, that big-bang theory is actauylly wrong, but not entirely.
Instead of one single timeline as in in bb-theory, I wanted multiple timelines, which could run into different direction and which denote local time.
So: any point in the universe is placed upon a timeline, which points to a remote big bang.
But these big-bangs are all different and the axes of time point into different directions.
So, 'space' had to be 'relative', too, and also matter.
This would actually make 'aether' impossible, because aether had to be there, before that stuff could fill all of space.
My own concept is based on a different idea. The best discription could be found in the book 'From Zero to Infinity' by Prof. Peter Rowland.
Unfortunately this book is not easy to read and also very expensive.
But my own 'book' is much easier to read and actually free:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH

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
--