Logical Implications from New Discoveries

Photo Shows Light As Wave And Particle For First Time ...

image source: unariunwisdom.com

Recent scientific discoveries set me thinking about the implications.

E=mc2 being one where ‘E’ stands for energy, ‘m’ stands for Mass and ‘c’ stands for the speed of light. But ‘c’ does NOT stand for the speed of light! ‘c’ is an electro-magnetic constant.

The people at CERN recently discovered an as-yet un-named particle that was going a bit faster than the accepted speed of light, so the length of the standard METRE was adjusted slightly.

Another scientist has found that PHOTONS have mass.

From this it is just a hop step and jump to state that ‘PHOTONS’ Cannot be travelling at ‘The Speed of Light’!

This then leads to some rather interesting data points.

Is light a wave or a particle?

What if it is BOTH all the time and the point of view makes it seem like one or the other!

Hypothetical explanation follows, please do not throw up your hand and say ‘Rubbish’ until you have read to the end!

Photons come in different shapes/sizes, like little di-poles(propellers) tuned to specific wavelengths. The length of a Photon is a function of the wavelength, this allows for maximum energy to be carried at a specific wavelength.

Photons Spin. Photons carry a charge. Like charges repel hence the outward propagation from light emitting bodies.

The rate of spin and speed of outward propagation are a function of how much energy the photon is carrying. The spin accounts for the apparent omni-directional energy exchange with stuff. The spin accounts for the straight-line properties of photons, external energy is required to change a photons course, direction and speed.

The very small difference in speed would be very hard to measure as a Photon has very small mass therefore can be accelerated to very high speed, close to that magic constant ‘c’.

This explains the Blue stars and the Red giants. It explains our G2V stars’ spectrum. It explains why moonlight is not hot.

Visualize a Photon like a propeller, faster spin delivers faster air movement. Bigger propellers require more energy to move at the same rotational speed as a small propeller.

Logic in Action.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (16)

  • Avatar

    Ken Hughes

    |

    Have you considered the possibility that the “wave” comes from spacetime? Photons are then particles but moving through a wavelike environment. For space time to be wavelike, it has to have energy, a field of energy which varies sinusoidally. There is much logical evidence that this field of energy is what we experience as time. In both Special and General relativity, time slows down (red shifts) when and where energy increases, and in a circular way (Lorentz). This “circular” relationship with speed is exactly what you would expect from moving through this wave of energy. ‘and you’re right. photons never quite reach the speed of light (strangely). They all travel very, very slightly slower depending on their energy. Counter intuitively, higher frequencies travel marginally slower than lower frequencies as demonstrated by the supernova SN1987 observations, and the MAGIC telescopes observations of the blazar in Makarin 501. They showed clearly that higher frequencies took marginally longer to reach us over vast distances but the fool in astronomy have tried to talk these results way rather than examine how they could be explained. Read “The Binary Universe” – Theory of Time. https://uppbooks.com/shop/product/the-binary-universe-a-theory-of-time/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    Is the ‘faster then light’ particle you mention Micheal that which was found during one run of the CNGS experiment? When the results were thoroughly checked, it was found the neutrinos did not travel faster than light to Gran Sasso, the result was some computing error if I remember right.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    “…please do not throw up your hand and say ‘Rubbish’ until you have read to the end!”

    Okay, I read it to the end.

    “Rubbish!”

    The “logical implication” being that someone failed to do any research before thowing out their unfounded opinions.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      You can make statements with-out evidence!
      I did rather a lot of research, I explained a logical, NOT scientific view of observable effects, where is your evidence?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        You want evidence of your lack of research?

        “Photons carry a charge.”

        Photons do not carry a charge.

        “The rate of spin and speed of outward propagation are a function of how much energy the photon is carrying.”

        Neither spin, nor speed, is a function of a photon’s energy.

        And “logic” is not just one’s opinion. Logic should start from solid facts, or the end result may be “logical”, but incorrect.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    Most physicists subscribe to Particle-Wave Duality to explain the double -slit experiment. When light acts like a particle – it’s a particle….when it acts like a wave – it’s a wave – see?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Michael Clarke

    |

    Feynman referred to Photons as having spin, he drew them on blackboards as arrows pointing in different directions. Science states that energy emissions are omni-directional. It is an observable fact that the sun’s energy is radiated in all directions. Electrons in a vacuum tube form a cloud around aheated boron coated cathode, NOT a layer, a dynamic cloud as they all try to get as far away from other electrons as possible.
    OBSERVABLE fact!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Michael,
    The photon was created by Einstein to explain the photoelectric effect.The wave theory of light explained all the properties of light but the photoelectric effect appeared to present a problem. If light was just a wave it would take time to transfer enough energy to an atom and dislodge an electron causing a current and the current was instantaneous. Einstein’s solution was to create the photon where a bundle of waves could act like a particle (with no mass) and dislodge an electron from an atom. Light was a particle or a wave depending on what the physicist wanted. (How’s that for logic?)
    The photoelectric effect is where light of a particular wavelength strikes a bare metal or crystal causing a current. Since metal bonds and crystals have electrons that are dislodged from their parent atoms and are held by ionic charges there is no need for light to add all the energy needed to dislodge an electron from an atom. If light were an electromagnetic wave all it would need is enough energy to disturb the balance between the attractive and repelling forces holding the electron. Light with a wavelength matching the ionic bonds could instantly dislodge an electron causing a current.
    The photoelectric effect is another version of the piezo electric effect but instead of mechanical pressure distortion a bond light of the right wavelength does it.
    There is no particle nature (photon) of light. It is a disturbance traveling in the electric and magnetic fields permeating the universe and its speed depends on the strength of those fields.
    Herb

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Hi Herb,
      what you are saying is essentially the same as Einstein said, except he named that property of Energy a Photon. Electro-magnetic energy transfer requires one very important property, it has to have a structure that is the right length and orientation for the energy to either leave or be received. The spinning Photon satisfies this requirement.
      Michael (Logician)

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi again Michael,
        You only create/discover things to remedy discrepancies with current theory. If the wave theory of light is able to explain the observed behavior of light you do not need to create a particle (photon). Light was thought to be a particle until the Young experiment showed an interference pattern that could not be explained by particles.The wave theory was adopted because interference was a property of waves and it also could explain the other behavior of light. Those who wanted to retain the particle nature of light raised the photoelectric effect as an objection to the wave theory, but it is not a valid objection. There is no need for the photon and the unsupported assertion of it having a constant speed in a vacuum that results in everything else becoming variable and the utter insanity off today’s physics.
        Herb

        Reply

  • Avatar

    dave jr

    |

    Michael,
    If light is a spinning particle, then the whole EM spectrum must also be ‘photons’ as such, only not visible to the human eye due varying rates of spin. It is fun to think of wavelengths being defined by a particles’ rate of spin. But it doesn’t make any sense. Why doesn’t an object increase in weight (mass) when it is heated up? All those ‘particles’ colliding and piling up enough to raise temperatures surely should leave some residue behind? Wave theory makes sense, or as you say, is logical. Waves transfer energy (light is a form of that), not mass.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Wrong! The size of ‘Proton’ is one dipole at the frequency giving maximum energy transmission/capacity. Rate of spin being the relative energy of the mythical ‘Photon’
      The spin explains the omni-directional effects of energy transfer ability.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Chris

    |

    If light is a particle then different forms of light would have to be different particles. The particle of one type of light, say visible, would have a particle with one nature while ultra violet would have a different nature. Each type of light has its own frequency. If the light varies in frequency then if it is also particle then each type of light would have particles that behave differently. A for instance is solar power. Ultra violet light increases the energy of an electron causing it to go across the junction, visible doesn’t do this. Different frequencies causes different effects on other materials. So then different particles would also have to have an effect on materials that also vary with the materials. So if the particle theory is to be accepted it will have to account for all types of reactions with other materials, which means that there will probably need to be many different types of photons.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Michael Clarke

    |

    Wrong again! It is Energy pure and simple yet complicated. The mythical ‘Photon’ is a parcel of energy spinning according to the wavelength of the energy it is composed of. The rate of spin is proportional to the energy.
    Wavelength of ‘Light’ equates to the size of the spinning dipole effect.
    Energy equates to the rate of spin.
    The spin is what makes the omni-directional effect of universal energy transfer possible.
    I an not sure if this continues into the X-ray and Gamma ray wavelengths but it seems likely.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Chris

    |

    The problem with the spinning photon to determine wavelength is which longitudinal line to call 0. When Earth’s 0 longitude was designated it was arbitrary, so here in this case. Without it we cannot say when a day passes, one complete spin. That happens on every point around it. Some pulse would have to come from it in order to establish the start/end of a wavelength.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Michael Clarke

    |

    The length of the dipole is determined by the frequency, Short and fat at high frequency, long and thin at lower frequency. The center point of the dipole is the axis of spin. The energy of the photon relates to the ability to move at almost the speed of light.
    Look at it this way. The energy travelling to the Hubble telescope from far far away is invisible until Hubble ‘see’s it. It may have been bent this way and that by gravitational lensing but it had NEVER hit any other object, hence Hubble could ‘see’ it. Add to that Hubble is out there and subject to other energy (Photons) coming in from all directions, which are not ‘seen’ until Hubble looks in their direction.
    Spinning Photon at high energy going very very fast with exactly the right orientation for Hubble to ‘see’ it.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via