The Photon Particle Exists!, but "Aether" Does the Big Jobs
by Carl R. Littmann, written 4-1-2002

Introductory Note:

Readers might first go to my Illustrations 1A and 1B or Summary and Conclusions or Part 1; since my article is about 27 pages long. (Allow some time for Illustrations to download.)  Paragraphs in Italics are Optional and may be skipped or postponed by readers. (Some points made in my previous articles are repeated in this article.)

My illustrations are in "pdf" form, readable by modern computers with free software. Or I will attempt to mail interested readers my illustrations on request, although the article could stand independently.

Abstract: (revised 2-20-2009)

We attempt to ascertain the fundamental nature of light, by using the spirit of Maxwell, Laplace, and Faraday, and also by using some modern experimental facts.  We discuss "5" states of matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas, ‘Radiant’, and ‘Ethereal’.  We note actions: like gravity; and the repelling of like charges; and the repelling of like magnets – where no photons are detected to fly between or against the ‘gross masses’ involved -- to cause the forces and movements.  So, although we conclude that ‘light-photons’ likely exist and are often ‘delightful’; we still assert that ‘Aether’ does the Big Jobs!

We define ‘particle’ and ‘wave’ based on whether an entity, itself, actually travels from one region to a distant region -- or, instead, whether only a transfer of stress occurs along a medium already existing in space, i.e., as a stress is merely transferred from one region to another.  We think that a photon likely exists and that it does likely travel as a material particle.  And we thus discuss how there is more involved than only a transfer of stress in a medium existing in space.  

However, the following major experiment needs to be conducted, and its result published clearly and widely – before we can solve some remaining important mysteries about light:  If, say, one powerful laser beam is crossed by another, can some of its light (or photons) be defected?  Or do photons or beams ‘dodge’ around each other and continue ‘on their merry way’ as if nothing was encountered?  ((I.e., the latter would be a little like electron ‘superconductivity’, or the ‘superfluidity’ of cold liquid helium!  Yet, so far as I could see (using crude cheap laser pointers and my crude eyesight); I detected no deflections.  Of course, if safe, careful, high-sensitivity and high-power tests were conducted by professional specialists, the results might have been different from mine!))

We note two amazing characteristics of a photon, not to be marginalized, and which might hint of the possibility of two laser beams dodging each other during ‘crossovers’:  The ability of photon masses to travel at the speed of light (which ‘elementary particles’ can not do).  And the apparent ability of a photon be deflected by a collision with an elementary particle – but without the photon shattering into two or more separate photons (although the photon may deposit some of its energy and mass in that target)..  

We discuss the losing of some mass by an atom, molecule, or elementary particle, and the corresponding gaining in mass by a photon being assembled there for prompt departure from that parent mass.  That photon then flies away from its parent-mass and from that region.  And the reverse that occurs when the photon arrives at a distant target and is absorbed.  

We discuss how an average highly energized ‘grain’ of aether shares its energy with an elementary particle.  And how that causes an elementary particle to have a minimum quanta of mass and energy.  And we discuss how groups of ethereal grains swirl around in ethereal vortices.  And how an ethereal vortex shares only its quantum of angular momentum with a photon -- and therefore why a photon has no minimum mass or energy limit of consequence – compared to an elementary particle.

We discuss a crude ‘spinning ring’ model of an elementary particle, and we visualize it as spinning in place at the speed of light, C.  Since that elementary particle has not yet commenced its forward travel, it still has that forward ‘degree of freedom’ uncommitted.  And that will affect how much mass increase it acquires, say, if it falls from space toward the earth, and thus while it is increasing its velocity until it hits the earth.  We will contrast that to a ‘photon’ that is already committed to a fixed forward speed, C, and thus it lacks the capacity to add to that speed or ‘degree of freedom’, further.  Thus, if a photon is already headed toward the earth, and the ‘pull’ of gravity adds additional energy to that photon; it will also undergo a mass increase but not a velocity increase.  We will discuss how that leads to a different rate of mass buildup for the photon, compared to as elementary particle -- as each approaches the earth, and more and more aether condenses on each, until they hit the earth.

Einstein, at an advanced age, wrote a friend that he regretted he was never able to form a clear concept of a ‘photon’.  And among the various currently proposed models, I do not claim mine is the best.  For example, there exists a model -- where a ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ mass particle exists; and they mutually orbit one-another at velocity ‘C’, as that pair also ‘spirals’ forward at speed ‘C’.  That is an alternative photon model, helpful in many ways.  But there seems to be a variety of types of lights, some differing subtly with one another regarding some actions they cause.  And perhaps that may require different models for those lights!  But if a ‘spiraling dipole model’ is more appropriate; then my ‘2-dimensional’ illustration becomes merely a 2-dimensional projection of the actual ‘3-dimensional’ spiraling route of one of the dipole’s charges.  And then the spiraling dipole can maintain its full (1 mc^2) worth of kinetic energy during its entire flight, (without continuous energy exchanges between it and the spring-like supporting aether -- each cycle). 

We discuss the widely held beliefs that ‘the Naturalist World’ is ‘dualistic,’ ‘paradoxical,’ ‘contradictory,’ and/or ‘indeterminate’ at some level, (as if Nature is ‘flawed’ or inadequate).  But we conclude that it is, instead, the approach of many scientists that is ‘flawed’, and coupling that with scientists’ limitation in observing all of reality -- thus Nature just appears flawed to many scientists.  We discuss the history of those human flaws, limitations, and overconfidence; and its sad continued escalation.

PART 1 (Dualism, Paradoxes, Inconsistencies: In "Nature"?, or rather in Humans?)

 During Newton's time, there was extremely great progress made in precisely calculating and predicting major world events, including various motions.  But that progress was made at a very heavy future "cost", as Newton likely realized in his later years!

 Let me give a somewhat oversimplified, but fair, example. Essentially, the "algorithm" of the powerful, useful, and predictive "Law of Gravity" goes like this:

1.      Imagine two bodies of masses in otherwise pure empty space.

2.      Imagine a "pulling line or string between them".

3.      The pulling force of attraction, that thus naturally arises, is proportional to the product of each body's internal mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Thus scientists need NOT ever contemplate what else, besides the bodies, is also in space that is really causing the so-called pull!¹)

Historically, the math and the associated simple "images," and their applications were learned and developed to the hilt, and justifiably.  But in my opinion, an equally important lesson was entirely missed by most people, along with a worsening omen for future generations when it continued to be ignored.²  It was this: Humans had moved into an age in which their powerful, useful and predictive "imagining" and math would be match by another great, but sad, truth: That such imaging was utterly as far away from the actual realities of the real world as bad luck could have it!  And if that ((the underlined (problems) in 1, 2, and 3 above)) continued to be ignored, or only superficially addressed, humans would encounter this: The great frustration of seemingly continued intractable "paradoxes", "dualisms", "inconsistencies" and vexing behaviors of nature. And humans, of course, would blame that on nature, not on themselves, as the problems continued!  Some people would even finally run away from any real concept of  "cause-effect", and just embrace a world of mathematical abstraction and statistics!  Others would devise "glib", evasive terms to obfuscate the problems, and further fill an already bulging scientific dictionary.

These types of problems actually arose in certain other fields, such as politics, but Thomas Paine successfully addressed it there.  He wrote:  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."  "It is by tracing things to their origin that we learn to understand them, and it is by keeping that origin always in view that we never forget them".

And he wrote about "kings" (although it applies also to "pulling lines", and "field images" in "so-called 'empty' space"):  "Although kings are of our creation, they have become the gods of their creator". ³

 In this article, I will do my best, to separate what I decipher to be the "Real", from the extremely effective (but erroneous) imaging, i.e., field lines and associated math, so-called "empty space"-- things which after long habitual use, merely seems "real".  Of course, I, too, can error, regarding details; and what is regarded as nearly unquestionable scientific truth might change.  But I think the reader will be able to understand my arguments and my conclusions.

   What follows is tedious and may be boring. The readers should consider skipping to Summary and Conclusions or to "A Major Question Formulated", or may continue with the below, etc.

Optional  Comments:

   In my article, I use a simplistic, materialistic approach.  Thus, I hope to uncover a few basic realities, and to construct a mechanical analogue for a few of light's actions.  Laplace and Maxwell were far more capable than I am.  But they lacked some modern experimental evidence.  This evidence should now be mixed in with their spirit of inquiry, and conclusions drawn.  (I consider light to be a very complicated, multifaceted, subtle, and difficult subject, and I will only try to address the "bare bones basics".)

Intro/Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Conclusions | References | Illustrations| Home

(Readers’ comments always welcome)
For my Email and address, see my Homepage