PART 2 of the Photon Particle Exists...
Light; a Wave? Or a Particle?

Definitions:

"Transmission as a Particle"...I define as a substance leaving a "position A", flying through space, and that very same substance arriving at "position B". (("The very same substance" means that more mass has not been added to or subtracted from the substance while it was in flight. By the terms "at position B", I don't mean "at point B" or "dot B", because I consider the substance to be "material" occupying real volume (i.e., having "extension").))

Optional Example: Suppose I leave "position A", but bump into, say, "my identical twin". My identical twin is thus pushed to "position B". Would that be "particle transmission" or "wave transmission"?, (since a scanner can hardly tell the difference). My answer is that that would be wave transmission, not particle transmission, because what arrived at position B (my identical twin) is not the same substance as I who left "position A". If the scanner cannot tell the difference, then just ask the twin who is who?

But if the observer accidentally misspells my twin's name, is it alright for the observer to tell my twin to go to the bureau of records and get his name changed, so historical reality will serve the observer's convenience?

No! We don't do that at this website! It's not run by government, nor by a document shredding company, nor scientists preferring the "bizarre", yet.

Definitions continued.

"Transmission as a Wave"...I define as a substance leaving "position A", interacting with other substances, and what arrives at "position B" is NOT the same substance that left "position A".

Optional Example: Suppose I left "position A" but unfortunately encounter some steamrollers that roll me into a "wavy sheet". Thus, what arrives at "position B" is a "wave-shaped" me? My answer is that this is Particle Transmission, not wave transmission, since what arrived at "position B" is the essentially the same substance as left "A", except for perhaps some minor asphalt marks. (Only the shape was changed.)

I think my definitions are much like Maxwell wished, when he wrote of the possibilities; . ."the flight of material substance through space" . .or. . "the propagation of a condition of motion or stress in a medium already existing in space". ⁴

A Major Question Formulated, using modern evidence, and then Asked:
(Using the nucleus of the atom "Protactinium" as an example)

Suppose the massive nucleus of a special atom (say "UX₂") changes into a slightly less massive nucleus ("UZ"), and thus gives off a "light" photon (say "gamma ray"). Thus, the massive atom looses a small amount of its mass, say almost as much as an electron's mass (i.e., "a chip off the old block", so-to-speak). And suppose this chip, of some shape, (maybe even a changing shape) is sent flying away from "position A" toward "position B", nearby. And suppose what arrives at "position B" appears to have significant energy, mass, or both; as if it might be what left "position A" and journeyed at the speed of light.

The Question is, "Was that a transmission 'as a Particle' or 'as a Wave'?"

Problem Analyzed and Question Answered:

In my first website article, "What We See.and Don't See", I argue that there exists an extremely low-density aether, (approximately 10^-20 kgm per cubic meter).

A low-density aether is what an older Newton (about 50 years old) finally was willing to welcome or entertain (i.e., "one NOT founded upon a Dense material ether"). ⁵

("Highlighting" is mine.) It seems unlikely that such a "thin" aether could condense in such high concentration, or otherwise quickly act, to significantly add to or replace the "chip of mass" which flew to nearby "position B". Therefore, what arrived at "B" was very likely, essentially, the same material that left "A", and therefore is a particle!

The above argument, (together with other likely good experimental evidence too long to discuss here) leads me to conclude this:

The Photon "Particle" very likely exists, is real mass, and "flies" through "thin" space!

(Feynman asserted, even more strongly than I, that the photon is a particle, not a wave! Newton and Einstein thought it a particle, also. They all formed those opinions when they were young, long ago, and I think that early step was very commendable. (Each person's definitions may have differed slightly from the others', including from my definitions.)

The following parts may be tedious and boring, so the reader might skip to "Important: Glib Terms may Hide Reality . . . . . "

Optional: Some knowledgeable physicists, however, still do not believe that the photon has real physical existence. They simply regard it as a useful mathematical abstraction, (I sometimes think in terms of "symbols" when I do quick gravitational calculations, but I try to remember that they are just that, " symbols". Of course, an "imaginary pulling line" does not pull, nor have real physical existence "out there", "nor at my website".)

As for the shape of, say, an arriving photon, it may depend on the situation. I don't know if it is spherical-shaped, pear-shaped, watermelon-shaped, pancake-shaped, or banana-shaped. I do believe the photon has a higher concentration of mass (i.e., higher density) than the "aether" in space. ((Although I'm no expert on radio waves, I do not believe that the actual mass of a photon body need be physically stretched out over its entire "so-called wave length" (associated with "one full cycle" by it). I believe that a very short "part of a wave pattern", by a photon of given mass, during which the "aether" stores various amounts of its energy, determines the remainder of the wave pattern it will tend to trace out.))

Optional . . . Other Questions and "Answers":

But how about when a photon hits a plate, or passes over a razor edge, or goes through a slit or prism? Suppose it emanates from a star, escapes, and travels a very long distance in space (maybe 2 billion light years)? Then what happens?

When a photon is in a region associated with "high" density (i.e., at or near real nuclear particles), then my argument ("in thin aether") is not applicable, since the density there is thicker. Thus, wave-like results might be expected to occur, and they apparently do!

And when a photon has escaped gravity and traveled a few billion light years though "thin" space, then what? In that case, my argument (i.e., "not enough time passed nor 'thin' space traversed to effect the photon mass") is no longer applicable or true. The photon's mass is then no longer expected to remain rather unaffected (any more than a snowball thrown a long distance through snowy air or in clear mild weather). And I do think a photon particle then looses part of its mass and energy to the aether (i.e., we then say that the "wave action" phenomenon of very slight wavelength lengthening is associated with the photon.)

Important: ("Glib Terms" Can Hide Reality and Opportunities)

I think that most physics books in the 20^th century gave some correct facts, but drew the wrong conclusions, as follows: "Yes, the material which emitted the photon or energy did loose mass. Yes, the emitting material, left behind, indeed now has less inertia and also less weight. But what was emitted, the photon or whatever, somehow has 'no mass', or no 'rest mass', or somehow flew through space with merely a 'mass equivalent' or 'virtual mass' or 'energy equivalent of mass'." In my opinion, that last sentence, or paradigm is just wrong! Did scientists adopt those "glib terms" to mask this fact: That the photon mass flies through space at the speed of light without undergoing an infinite mass increase? Those evasive, glib terms should be regarded as merely a sophisticated sad "vestige" from the "old" days. (Ref. my earlier page 2, my illustration drawings, and interpretation of relativity equations near the end of my article.) I regard those sad "old days" as when "Little Bo-Peep had lost her S/h/e/e/p/ mass, and did not know where to find it". And unfortunately, I think those evasive terms have tended to obscure important realities; realities suggested by the best parts of Einstein's relativity theory. See below!

It is very important to consider the amount of mass that a "decayed" atom lost and also to consider the "lost" mass to be real mass flying through space. And, if only a photon was emitted, we must further consider this: "If the photon delivered more energy than is attributable to its 'forward', (1/2 mc² ), kinetic energy; then what sort of 'outward vibration', spin, wiggle, etc., may the photon also be manifesting?" (I think that question inspired further investigation and interesting discoveries about the photon and matter! Or should have, and if it didn't, it will now in my article!)

"At my website", the real mass which leaves a massive body remains a real mass in space after leaving! (Of course it may eventually break up and add its mass to the aether, or it might encounter, and couple with, additional mass along its travel.) But we do not obfuscate an issue by merely "mathematically transferring energy" from point A to a point B some distance away! Not anymore than we blindly tolerated merely "mathematically delivering gravitational forces" from one body, in so-called "empty" space, to another, and ignoring a lot of other real material that must be in the surrounding area also, to "deliver the punch". (Maxwell tried to make my points, above, earlier!)

(I believe in a "conservation of mass principle". I acknowledge that moving, "colliding" masses give rise to "energy", but I do not say that "mass is the same thing as energy" or "the same thing except for a multiplication constant 'c² ' !")

A lot of paradoxes, and (physically) inadequate ways to address them, arose out of humans' sad avoidance of the following principle: Aether Is Required To help Hold the Masses Together, Even Before Their "Collisions", in the first place! More about that later.))

The following parts may be tedious and boring, so the reader might skip to "Other Examples, and Interesting History".

Optional: Thus, in my applied math; the "equal sign" merely means alike in only one particular way, not that both sides of the equation are the same thing.⁶ And even that "alikeness" might depend on certain "side" conditions. (That also relates to my criticisms of most peoples' interpretations of " E = mc² ".)

It is interesting to note that in major nuclear reactions (such as fusion), the amount mass "disappearing" from the original mass is less than 1 percent. And prior to such "explosion", I believe that much of that ~1% was in the atom's nucleus and already spinning around with the rest of the nucleus, at about the speed of light. And it was held in place by the pressure of the external aether.

Let us imagine a weak, very flexible, hollow tube, of mass "m", spinning like a tornado or beer can, at high speed "c". But imagine the tube "capped" at both ends (by, say, a large u-shaped structure). The tube is thus spinning so that its "centrifugal" force helps maintain a vacuum inside, against a very great external air pressure. Let's imagine that vibration uncouples the ends and caps; air energy rushes in, doing work, that is, transferring additional energy to, say, a machine. And let us imagine that the machine sends more chips flying. The weak "can's" skin, (already moving with "1/2 mc² " of kinetic energy), disintegrates and flies apart as the air enters the "tube" end.

But "independently"(as previously indicated), around "1/2 mc²" more of great "air (pressure) energy" becomes available, to the machine (transducer), which might send other chips flying. Or it might add a vibration or spin (i.e., associated added energy) to the can's skin, that has already begun "flying".

The point is that the amount of energy, that seems to be associated with a spinning or moving mass, "m", need not be limited to "1/2 mc² ", i.e., it depends on the circumstances! It might even be "mc²"!

((The above underlined also applies to a small amount of mass lost from (what "appears" to be) non-travelling emitting materials, (for example, emitting materials which are spinning but without simple "translational" motion). This "lost" material may have been lost during fusion or fission, for example. And such "temporarily lost" mass does "turn up" elsewhere, but it is not always easy to find! ))

(Now, back to the "tube" examples.) If the spinning tube is curved around like a ring, so it closes on itself, consider this: If it pops and sends its disintegrating "skin" flying; you may also hear the energetic "thunderous bang" of air molecular sound energy, as well as detect the "flying skin". These two energies must both be added, to get the total energy associated with the (system) event! The point is my underlined paragraph above. (I'm not advocating replacing the simple, quick expediencies of Einstein's deservedly famous " E = mc² " algorithm).

Other Examples, and Interesting History:

When an electron is emitted, at nearly the speed of light, from a decaying neutron, the electron is considered to undergo a mass increase. (i.e., The mass of the electron is considered to have actually increased on its expulsion or when it flies through space at such high speed.) Sometimes, when a protactinium nucleus "decays", a photon is emitted and sent flying through "space" at the speed of light. The photon "gets by" without an increase in its "flying mass", even though it goes forward at the speed of light. (It might, of course, undergo a slight "glib, evasive language change", instead. But isn't that the way that humans have sadly always tried to solve most of their problems?) But, anyway, even when the so-called "relativistic electron mass increase" is also taken into account, we still have the following potential "mystery":

In the cases of the emitted electron and emitted photon, the "conventionally" calculated forward "kinetic energy", for each "flying mass", is " mv² ". But that is LESS than the actual energy which the flying mass transferred from the emitter to the target!

Thus, there is an implication of ‘another motion which is hidden’, possibly a cyclic spring-like motion; and that, possibly, ‘the spring’ is hidden too. (I would prefer that the ‘spring’ be called ‘aether’, instead of ‘field lines’, but call it something!)  And, incidentally, there is yet another possibility:  That that ‘hidden motion’ might consist of a pair of mutually orbiting sub-particles, which together comprise the photon.  And that that pair is orbiting one other at velocity ‘C’ while the pair also advances forward at velocity ‘C’.  Thus, the spiraling pair would host a full (1 mc²) kinetic energy without exchanging energy with the ‘aether springs’, in route.  However, in most of my article, we will, instead, simply assume that most photon flights consists of a vertically oscillating photon, supported by ‘aether spring action’ and energy exchanges between the aether and photon mass -- as the photon proceeds forward.

What somewhat surprises me is that Einstein did NOT tell "the future DeBroglies" and others, (way back in 1905), the following: "Other motion, like 'matter waves', 'spin', vibration, spring-like motion, etc., should occur and be associated with travelling photons, nuclei, and electrons, based on differences between ( mv²) and Einstein's new, '1mc² > mc², etc.,' theories". (Einstein did help DeBroglie later, in 1924.)

Suppose that the "hidden mc² " of energy is due to a vertical oscillation between the photon and it associated aethereal "spring". Then, for an instant of each half cycle; the vertical motion of the photon has ceased, and all that ( mc² ) energy is stored in the "aether-spring". ((This would seem to correspond to the instant when both the "E and H fields" of an "electromagnetic wave" are "judged" to be a maximum (per standard physics textbooks).)) Then, at another instant of each half cycle; the vertical speed of the photon is a maximum, and its "vertical" kinetic energy is " mc² ". Then none of that " mc² " energy is stored in the aether-spring. (This would be the instant when both the "E and H fields" of that "electromagnetic wave" are judged to be zero.)

So when Einstein's "1mc² > mc² " paradigm is interpreted correctly; I think that it already "contains" the "classical electromagnetic paradigm"! (i.e., some "general stuff" hidden already in Einstein's "special stuff".) And isn't that consistent with the mathematical treatment for the high-speed expulsion of the electron by the disintegrating neutron? That is to say, "we simply make important 'relativistic calculations and predictions', without concerning ourselves with 'coulombic attractions and its complicated work'." And we get good results with Einstein's "relativistic calculations and predictions" alone! ((We will discuss later why the mass change of an elementary particle (when accelerated to nearly the speed of light) is so different from a photon's, (the photon being "emitted at the speed of light").))

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