Request for Comment Clarification
for recently submitted paper

to: Tom VanFlandern - MetaResearch.org

T   
hank you for your balanced response to my emailed doc file of 04/01/03. I hope that you get many takers for your new paid review venture. This could become one of the most useful things on the net for amateurs as they (we) suffer horribly from "auto-editing". Perhaps there will some day be an "E-Journal of Readable Amateur Papers".

I am in agreement with most of your comments. I did try to compact the piece too much and should have omitted the first and last paragraphs altogether. However, I would like some clarification of the following comment.

In reference to these paragraphs

The standard wave model does not adequately explain the localization of the photon's energy in a particular place after it has traversed an interstellar distance. That is, as the wave spreads out generally in a plane, the amplitude of the wave decreases as 1/r and after, say, 10 light years travel that nil amplitude knocks an electron out of orbit in a particular atom here on earth. One must suppose that all of the circular waveform is in contact with all other parts (in this case over a diameter of 20 light years) and that that form somehow decides by unknown statistical methods to knock a certain electron out of orbit. And ... the entire waveform knows instantaneously that it must collapse on that particular electron and discontinue progress away from its point of origin.

My proposed solution is that the common photon possesses another aspect. It emits, along with the above planar wave, a linearly localized wave in a direction parallel to the oscillation of the electron that is analogous to the drop of water emitted upward from a pond when a stone is dropped into it. Since it does not deteriorate over time, it functions as the particle aspect of the standard model

Your comment of 4/03/0 to the above

"You assume the impulse to the electron is applied all at once. But it might be applied in many successive small impulses photon-after-photon until a critical level is reached. The latter picture at least gives a clue why only light with the same frequency as the electron is effective. In your model, why does electron ejection have a frequency dependence, with all light at the wrong frequency ignored?"

My understanding of the phenomena is ...

1st   There is the black body experiment of Planck from which it was deduced that a discrete amount of energy is associated with wavelength ... the well known e=hv

2nd   We have photoelectric effect experiments wherein a metal is exposed to light of frequency 'v' such that no electrons are ejected from the metal no matter what the intensity of the incident light at that frequency. Then, when the frequency is raised ... at some point electrons are ejected from the metal ... and ... that emission is dependent on the intensity, i.e. greater intensity equals more electron emission and lesser intensity equals less emission of electrons. And ... the electrons are ejected even if the intensity is reduced to single photons incident on the metal.

From such experiments it was conjectured (initially by AE) that light was a particle and not a wave. The implication is that an electron cannot be removed from an atom by any number of photons whose energy is less than the binding energy of the electron, i.e. the electron cannot accumulate energy from several photons as I believe you are suggesting. "...But it might be applied in many successive small impulses photon-after-photon until a critical level is reached."

Further, if the incident light is of greater energy than the binding energy, the leftover energy appears as excess kinetic energy of the emitted particle (ala the Compton effect).

3rd   We come to the double slit experiment wherein a photon emitter (device unknown to me) is set to give out one photon at a time which travels through a slit in a piece of "new shirt cardboard" to a detector (presumably a photographic plate with the whole experiment done in a dark room). If one slit is present the number of 'spots' on the photographic plate forms a continuous smear. But if another slit is opened adjacent to the first, the phenomenon of interference occurs producing a series of discontinuous bands on the photographic plate.

The purpose of the experiment was to see if photons were indeed particles, i.e. if particles they must go through only one slit or the other and thus produce the same continuous band that one slit produced. Because this was not the case ... and ... no one had any reasonable geometric answer ... the subject was relegated to "quantum weirdness" and wave-particle duality became the 'logical model' of the photon.

Now, we could acquire the new shirt cardboard from the Jolly Green Giant and put the second slit on the other side of the room. Then, we would get the continuous band again (although I would concede that 'some' experimentally undetectable interference occurred). So, in the double slit analysis, we only succeed in constraining the photon wave model to 'a small place' and not to a point which would require it to go through one slit or the other, i.e. linear localization but not perfect linearity which would prevent the interference pattern.

Also, the double slit experiment will give (in terms of present theory) the same result whether the photons come from the emitter or from Betelguese. A photon is identical to any other photon of the same frequency regardless of its place or time of origin.

4th   Feynman then gave the elegant mathematical solution of a 'sum over histories' wherein the photon takes every possible path to the target point thus accounting for the interference pattern.

5th   Equality of photon emission and absorption is required by "T" symmetry.

6th   The number of waves in a photon "wave-train" must certainly be finite. But the number of such waves is required by present theory to sum to the same energy (e=hv). So, when I have to choose from 'N' possibilities, I always choose the number "one" ... there is one wave in the photon (by Occam's razor) unless another number would yield to experimental detection. And this could be the case for if we extend a photon train, the duration of the electromagnetic interaction would be lengthened or decreased according to the number of waves that would have to arrive such that the entire energy bundle is delivered to the recipient electron.

Your comment in this case seems to me to be inconsistent with at least some to the above experimental results. Do you agree?

Now, I say ...

That the sum over histories explanation is inadequate because it fails to account for all the paths to other possible target points ... like some other place on earth of even in another solar system. How do we account for the fact that the entire wave form (which basically expands like ripples on a pond - planar localization) collapses on just this target and not some of the other uncounted trillions of possible targets?

The double slit experiment is, I believe, one which might be done hundreds of times per year in the course of teaching experimental physics in colleges. To try my little variation would only require removing the "new shirt cardboard" and going to the closet at the back of the lab to get two polarizing sheets and setting up and running the experiment at least twice, long enough to collect a smear of data points on the plates. If I am right it won't make any difference if the polaroid sheets are parallel or perpendicular. The smudge will be substantially the same. If wrong, the difference will be unambiguously apparent to anyone ... one with smudge, one without.




Ebtx Home Page
EBTEXT Forum