Re: What is a photon

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 8:15:24 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000017, 17.06.2025 um 08:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>

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.

>
Wrong. Aether is infinitely fine and infinitely elastic SOLID which
means that all its elements stay fixed relative to each other UNLIKE a
fluid.
>
Get your basics straight and do not lie.

>
Actually I had already written, that I think that 'aether' is wrong.

It is not fluid. If we are talking of aether as a concept let us get
that straight. Nothing original here from us. That is what 19th century
philosophers considered. Based upon the reality of em waves and the fact
that all waves needed a medium for propagation that was logical.

>
So: 'solid' wouldn't rescue the aether concept.

Einsteinians certainly want to out aether but they should have the
minimum honesty of noting that aether was considered not a fluid but a
solid by 19th century theoreticians. And a reality given the fact of
electromagnetic waves. Which was first shown by Shri J C Bose.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

>
The aether is actually meant as 'stuff' (whether fluid or solid), while
I wanted to make stuff out of spacetime.
>
My concept is related, but not equal to the 'aether concept' (which I
think is wrong).
>
It is close, however.
>
>
TH
....

--