Skip to toolbar

The Particle Model does not have a Photon

Tagged: ,

  • The Particle Model does not have a Photon

     Kasim updated 1 month, 1 week ago 2 Members · 2 Posts
  • David

    Organizer
    October 27, 2020 at 11:52 am

    The reason the particle model exists, is because my father came up with a model for light using multiple particles traveling together at the speed of light that come in waves that define a frequency. This model is neither a photonic model or an aether model. A photon is a particle of light that somehow “magically” conveys frequency in a single particle. Newton tried to make a model for photons with different masses representing different frequencies. That didn’t work.

    You can see our model classifies particles traveling in waves with a regular frequency as “luminic”. Think “waves of bombers” or a show on shower massage where the waves are water drops all traveling at the same speed coming in “waves”.

    See: https://principiamathematica2.com/movement-classification/

  • Kasim

    Member
    October 27, 2020 at 1:22 pm

    The reason why I joined CNPS is because I was dissatisfied with mainstream theories which I thought were trumped up and eventually prove to be false. For example, the strong force was supposed to explain why protons occupy a very tiny nucleus against the humungous repulsive forces.

    Another reason is that they have far too many particles in their Standard Model whose equations fail if those particles have intrinsic mass. So, they postulated that they were created massless and invented the Higgs field to give mass to those particles that interact with it; and those that don’t, remain massless.

    However, on this side of the fence, I’m learning that there are no photons in your particle mode where my understanding is that all particles are treated as waves. I mean I’m new to this way of thinking which is alien to me because I’m weaning myself off the mainstream indoctrination. My fear is that I maybe jumping from the proverbial frying into the fire.

    I sympathise with you about frequency because the mainstream hasn’t adequately explained it to my satisfaction. So, I use the Newtonian definition of light i.e. it’s a stream of particles. You said that Newton tried and failed to equate mass with frequency. Since Einstein has equated mass with energy and Planck equated energy with frequency, there’s a transitive relationship between mass and frequency.

    But this is a difficult concept to assimilate as it doesn’t say what frequency is. So, I postulated that frequency is the number of photons passing a particular point per second. This can only apply to a light beam i.e. a stream of corpuscles to use the Newtonian definition. It also means that the light propagation is longitudinal as Nikola Tesla said, and not transverse.

    At the moment, I can’t see the photon as a wave because of Carl Anderson’s gamma-ray experiments where he showed that a photon can split into an electron-positron pair which can be separated. Have you ever seen a wave split into an electron-positron pair.

    Although I disagree with the mainstream theories, I feel that not everything they say is false and we have to separate the chaff from the wheat. In fact, I define the strong force in terms of the electromagnetic force. Although I don’t believe in the quark theory, let me suspend my belief and consider the quarks. Some are negatively charged and some are positively charged.

    You’d think that these charges will arrange themselves at the lowest energy possible where the positive charges are as far away from each other as possible and the same with the negative ones. This would be helped by opposite charges attracting each other. That way the quarks would be bound by EM forces and not an inexplicable strong force which has to have another false theory made up to explain it.

    So, the particle model, as you define it, doesn’t sit well with me; but it’s early days for me as a new member. I looked at the article in the link and it introduces 4 concepts. At the moment I’m not comfortable with it as I believe that there’s only one force of nature. For this reason I’m studying Andres Gonzales’s Theory of Everything mainly because he proposes that the EM force, carried by the photon, is the only fundamental force in the universe, which is right up my street.

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now