from my forthcoming book
Revised Photon Model
sent to T V F   for review 4/1/35

his week Tom VanFlandern (who advised me to go to the internet with my ideas way back in '94) has just put up a page wherein he and his colleagues at have decided to undertake the unprecedented action of reviewing (for money) papers submitted by amateurs.

This move is so long overdue it is a shame that I didn't think of suggesting it myself. I couldn't be a reviewer but I should have seen the need for this. I hope he makes a boatfull of cash. If he is successful, others may get into the act ... like graduate students looking to make some extra cash on the side. What's needed here also is an E-Rag dedicated to publishing such amateur papers as are deemed by professionals to be readable.

It may be that nothing of great scientific value may ever be gleaned from such an operation but indirectly something good will come of it. The scientific community will not seem to be so aloof and will no longer be divorced from its primary constituency ... all the kooks, nuts and amateurs out here in lala land.

What???! Yes. I, as an amateur (by their standards) am part of their main audience. Let me explain.

My estimate is that there are probably no more that say 20,000 people on earth sufficiently interested in theoretical research to actually be working in any field. About half are professional ... the others are amateurs who accomplish nothing of note relative to the professionals ... but ... they are the ones who buy their books and hoot and holler when they attempt to get away with some of the purest forms of bullshit imaginable. They are the rabble who will not shut up and go away. They demand reasoned simplicity (the only thing they can hope to understand) and will settle for nothing less. Fortunately, that is where the truth is most likely to be found.

Another thing to be accomplished here is the gradual move from scientific cloister to the public display of ideas. Eventually all those scientific journals will disappear and scientists will publish on the Web as they should where anyone can see what they are thinking and doing with their research funding. I expect to see e-journals someday where anyone at all can read what's on the current scientific table (though only bonifide professional scientists will be able to post there) ... everything done in the open forum style.

Well, here's my first 'paper' ... (4/1/35)

    Your recent offer to review material for cash is an idea long overdue. You may find that you get more business than you can handle. Good luck on this venture. Here's my first contribution.
    A few weeks ago I sent my book "The Nature of Existence" to the printer. I should have a few hundred copies shortly. In the book I gave this model of the photon which, after much reflection, decided to 'bet the farm' on. That is, an experiment which failed to detect this formation in the manner specified would be a serious contradiction to my basic thesis. In fact, though the contradiction would be indirect, it would be enough for me to regard my work as having been falsified in its entirety.

TVF Comment: Excellent! Authors rarely put their theories at risk in this way, and the mainstream never does this anymore. You have good instincts at avoiding self-deception, and are sure to have creative ideas of lasting value, whether this particular idea is one of those or not.
I should then just shut up and move on to other things. The proposed experiment may have been done before but I have no knowledge of it. Certainly, I am aware of the double slit individual photon experiment but that's not what I'm after. Your mission (should you choose to accept it ;o) is to find out if such an experiment has been conducted and if so what the outcome was, i.e. locate an abstract that I can read ... or ... offer appropriate advice.
    MS Word count (750) starts after this period >.<
TVF Comment: The manuscript is a bit too compact for clarity in places, especially near the end. I assume adhering to this limit was responsible.

The General Thesis

There are only two basic fields: Alpha - a Euclidean 3-space, and Beta - a 3-dimensional spherical field with its origin centered on any particle. I put the two together as functionally related to make this photon model. [Details omitted for brevity and are not important for this discussion]

TVF Comment: Assumptions out of thin air are generally regarded as implausible, and may turn off many readers. You need to say where these came from. Make it clear at the outset that you are addressing both particle and wave properties of the photon.
A Photon Model

    A problem with photon emission is the localization of individual photons. Models of the field give a description localized in a plane advancing outward symmetrically from an oscillating charge. (Diagrams like the following one imply speciously that the darkened area is somehow linearly localized.)

photonz.GIF - 3kb

    How is it that an individual electron, distant from the oscillating charge, is knocked out of its bound state in an atom, i.e. how does an electromagnetic field spreading out in an ever widening circle collapse on a single charge?
    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.

TVF Comment: 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 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 photon.
TVF Comment: An interesting idea!
illus18.gif - 3kb

    At each node of the oscillation, the symmetry of the photon is changed as in a camera obscura. (The letters XCLNT denote the five geometric types that can pass through a 'pinhole'.) Such a photon will remain linearly localized by oscillating at right angles to the line of motion. It too is a transverse waveform.

    Here energy, in the form of stretched and compressed fields, is emitted along a line by reflection off the high-density front of an accelerating field, over the rear focus and out the back low-density portion of the field. The geometry of the ellipse is such that a ray emanating from one focus and reflected off the side of that ellipse will cross the other focus. The fact that the distorted field is asymmetric, one side compression the other expansion, is the justification for the emission of the photon from the rear. The field is distorted to ellipsoid by acceleration caused by its associated charge (not shown - an expansion or contraction of the local alpha field).

TVF Comment: This section needs elaboration. It is not self-explanatory, except for the general idea.
illus18a.gif - 2kb

Experimental Detection

    If such a photon component exists it must be unpolarizable. That is, an experiment designed to detect individual photons will be unaffected by the relative positions of two picket-fence type polarizers insinuated between the emitter and detector. Any orientation of the two polarizers must produce an identical expectation of detection. (A minor correction for spreading in a plane perpendicular to the grain of the first polarizer might be required but would only enhance any inconsistency with the standard model.)

TVF Comment: In astronomy, the only experiment dealing with single photons is lunar laser ranging. One sends huge blasts of photons in pulses to reflectors astronauts placed on the Moon, and occasionally gets back a single photon from some percentage of the pulses. But the returned light is mostly unpolarized. So this is consistent with your prediction, but can't be claimed to confirm it.

We at Meta Research are astronomers, and may not know all the QM experiments that might bear on this matter. But no other astronomical experiments come to mind that relate. For example, the polarized reflections of radar beams from the Galilean moons of Jupiter require many radar reflections, and are detected statistically.

photon10.gif - 2kb

    An important consideration is that the planar wave photon diminishes as 1/r away from its source whereas a group of linear photons as I propose will spread out as 1/r2 (like bullets). The standard model photon component that advances outward radially from the point of emission jiggles things around but does not lift electrons out of atomic orbits. We detect the signal's information (as in a radio) but any energy detected has been weakened enormously as 1/r from the source whereas the components of the linear sort have diminished as 1/r2 as a group but none of them has diminished at all individually

TVF Comment: Kernel of a great idea. Not sure it works in this context, though.
    A picket-fence polarizer cannot in principle distinguish such photons with handed rotations since an observer inverted in space would see deflections in the opposite hand from the primary observer. However, handed linear photons may contradict the standard model in optically active liquids like L or D-glucose in single photon experiments.
TVF Comment: Text suffers from excessive compaction. Probably, the relevant experiment has never been done because of the difficulty of single-photon detection and lack of a reason to suspect an anomaly in the polarization. But the test proposal is itself a great idea. However, to justify funding such a test, reviewers would want to see how this photon model works to explain other properties of light. Use the following as a checklist to see which properties need explaining.

Wave properties: periodicity, wavelength, frequency, intensity, amplitude, refraction, diffraction, coherence, interference, polarization, absence of mutual collisions, radiation pressure, transverse/longitudinal vibration, sameness of properties for each discrete entity. Particle properties: photoelectric effect (as in your paper); Compton effect.


When (if) I get a review back I'll post it right here.
Received the above comments in red from TVF on 04/03/03

See my reply of 04/07/03

Ebtx Home Page