Recommended Posts

The Terminal Velocity Photon

Dennis L. May

10218 Mills Road, Novinger, Missouri 63559-2124, USA

Email: dennislmay@yahoo.com

(Dated: March 8, 2012)

In this first of several papers we address an entirely classical description of quantum mechanics, one which preserves identity and causality, does not require an artificial false dichotomy implied by wave-particle duality and one which replaces the "Guiding Waves" of de Broglie-Bohm mechanics [deBB] with an entirely particle based description supported by the synchronized hyperchaos [classical physics in complex non-linear systems] work of Gregory S. Duane [1,2]. In this first paper we discuss a particle based solution to the speed of light in vacuum.

With the introduction of the concept of wave-particle duality a bargain was struck within the physics community concerning the properties of electromagnetic radiation and particles exhibiting quantum wave characteristics. Some calculations are done using wave properties, others as particle interactions - but with the ether abandoned there was nothing to support wave action. Wave-particle duality solved this by allowing particles of all kinds to travel in vacuum without an ether. Additionally waves were no longer actually waves but probability distributions in the form of wave equations in the quantum field. The reality of the quantum field and whether or not it qualifies as an ether is never clearly defined. When the localized discontinuous nature of quantum phenomenon dominates the particle description is used.

It is said that wave-particle duality is a fundamental underlying principle which cannot be described by classical means. In effect a claim is made requiring a new philosophy abandoning identity and causality in order to deal with what cannot be described solely as "particle" or solely as "wave". Several successful competing models embrace some form of this new philosophy - all eliminating the dichotomy by abandoning identity and causality. A false choice was foisted upon physics - live with an inexplicable dichotomy or abandon identity and causality. We take the view that identity and causality can be preserved while doing away with the dichotomy. Once you abandon identity and causality it is not surprising that many models are capable of producing partially correct results - in fact it would seem the number of available partially correct models should be unlimited. Choosing among the limitless possibilities then becomes a matter of personal philosophy, culture, taste and the political influence of orthodox historical legacies. To further complicate the subject, the lack of identity and causality in such models makes it problematic that precise descriptions of the physics involved can be formulated. It would seem fundamental that all descriptions abandoning identity and causality must contain elements lacking clarity. Discussions of quantum mechanics have been heavily burdened by questions of interpretation from the beginning. When identity and causality are preserved the set of correct solutions and their descriptions should narrow down to logically equivalent clearly defined propositions and approximations thereof.

In all of known physics elastic and inelastic collisions conserve momentum. This fundamental observation lies at the heart of explaining the speed of light in vacuum.

In an elastic collision we have:

m₁u₁ + m₂u₂ = m₁v₁ + m₂v₂

In an inelastic collision we have:

m₁u₁ + m₂u₂ = (m₁ + m₂)v

In our particle based quantum mechanics we assume photons and other quantum particles are extended bodies composed of yet smaller particles. The space between large particles is inhabited by a constant flux of smaller particles which interact with and are exchanged among larger particles. An analogy of this arrangement is free floating water drops in humid air. Water molecules are exchanged in both directions between the water drops and the surrounding air.

In the case of a photon traveling at the speed of light in vacuum we have what is observationally known to be a very stable system. The photon exists in what can be described as a stable terminal velocity mode. Using the water drop analogy again - terminal velocity indicates a balance of forces leading to a constant velocity. For a water drop this usually means gravity pulling down until increasing air resistance balances the downward force - leaving the drop moving at a constant speed. What forces balance to leave a photon moving at a stable terminal velocity?

The terminal velocity photon is in apparent thermal equilibrium with its environment. Elastic collisions conserve energy, inelastic collisions do not. As in a molecular gas in thermal equilibrium, the existence of inelastic collisions implies other collisions are super-elastic [possessing more kinetic energy after the collision than before]. Across all elastic, inelastic, and super-elastic collisions we end up with elastic collisions on average. The terminal velocity photon along with the particles composing the space it is traveling through form a system in apparent thermodynamic equilibrium.

When we examine elastic and inelastic collisions in nature the physical properties of the colliding bodies determine whether or not a collision is elastic or inelastic. In a variety of collisions higher speeds tend to produce inelastic results while lower speeds are more likely to lead to elastic collisions. For our purposes we will assume a work function must be overcome for a collision to become inelastic. For identical particles this amounts to a relative velocity determining whether a collision is elastic or inelastic.

An interesting property of the conservation of momentum is the difference in the impulse you receive during elastic versus inelastic collisions. When you are struck from behind and the collision is inelastic - you move forward from the added momentum but you are also dragging extra mass along. When you are struck from behind and the collision is elastic - you more forward from the hit but you are not dragging the extra mass along. The particle you were struck with is directed away from your direction of motion in the center of mass frame of reference.

How is the terminal velocity photon able to maintain a uniform speed while in apparent thermodynamic equilibrium? When the swarm of particles composing a photon are moving they are stuck from all directions by the smaller particles comprising the space they are traveling through. Those particles striking from the forward direction have added velocity making inelastic collisions more likely. Those striking from the rear are more likely to produced elastic collisions. The particles composing the photon are individually impacted then redistribute the results of those impacts to the photon as a whole. Since the swarm is in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings the number of inelastic collisions must be balanced by a similar number of emissions carrying the energy in super-elastic collisions. With the inelastic mass and energy distributed to the volume of the swarm, the emission of mass is presumed to be radial - imparting no net momentum to the photon as a whole.

Early modeling discovered [1984-1990] and the work of Duane [1,2] confirmed that the swarm must remain diffuse. In other words particles traveling from the outside need to be able to penetrate the volume from any direction before interacting. A "solid" photon cannot achieve a terminal velocity other than zero and a "solid" photon cannot participate in the complex non-linear exchanges required of quantum systems.

This situation may be summarized in computer form.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Physics_Frontier/photos/album/408323353/pic/2134390606/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc

When the velocity is zero there is no net force. When the speed increases from zero there is a net force pushing the photon to move faster. Eventually faster speed causes the net force to decrease due to the increasing momentum of collisions from the forward direction. A terminal velocity speed is reached when the forces again balance. Increasing the speed beyond this point causes a force slowing the photon again.

[1] Duane, G. S., 2001: Violation of Bell's inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353.

[2] Duane, G. S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1917-1932.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terminal Velocity Photon Dennis L. May 10218 Mills Road, Novinger, Missouri 63559-2124, USA Email: dennislmay@yahoo.com (Dated: March 8, 2012) In this first of several papers we address an entirely classical description of quantum mechanics, one which preserves identity and causality, does not require an artificial false dichotomy implied by wave-particle duality and one which replaces the "Guiding Waves" of de Broglie-Bohm mechanics [deBB] with an entirely particle based description supported by the synchronized hyperchaos [classical physics in complex non-linear systems] work of Gregory S. Duane [1,2]. In this first paper we discuss a particle based solution to the speed of light in vacuum. With the introduction of the concept of wave-particle duality a bargain was struck within the physics community concerning the properties of electromagnetic radiation and particles exhibiting quantum wave characteristics. Some calculations are done using wave properties, others as particle interactions - but with the ether abandoned there was nothing to support wave action. Wave-particle duality solved this by allowing particles of all kinds to travel in vacuum without an ether. Additionally waves were no longer actually waves but probability distributions in the form of wave equations in the quantum field. The reality of the quantum field and whether or not it qualifies as an ether is never clearly defined. When the localized discontinuous nature of quantum phenomenon dominates the particle description is used. It is said that wave-particle duality is a fundamental underlying principle which cannot be described by classical means. In effect a claim is made requiring a new philosophy abandoning identity and causality in order to deal with what cannot be described solely as "particle" or solely as "wave". Several successful competing models embrace some form of this new philosophy - all eliminating the dichotomy by abandoning identity and causality. A false choice was foisted upon physics - live with an inexplicable dichotomy or abandon identity and causality. We take the view that identity and causality can be preserved while doing away with the dichotomy. Once you abandon identity and causality it is not surprising that many models are capable of producing partially correct results - in fact it would seem the number of available partially correct models should be unlimited. Choosing among the limitless possibilities then becomes a matter of personal philosophy, culture, taste and the political influence of orthodox historical legacies. To further complicate the subject, the lack of identity and causality in such models makes it problematic that precise descriptions of the physics involved can be formulated. It would seem fundamental that all descriptions abandoning identity and causality must contain elements lacking clarity. Discussions of quantum mechanics have been heavily burdened by questions of interpretation from the beginning. When identity and causality are preserved the set of correct solutions and their descriptions should narrow down to logically equivalent clearly defined propositions and approximations thereof. In all of known physics elastic and inelastic collisions conserve momentum. This fundamental observation lies at the heart of explaining the speed of light in vacuum. In an elastic collision we have: m₁u₁ + m₂u₂ = m₁v₁ + m₂v₂ In an inelastic collision we have: m₁u₁ + m₂u₂ = (m₁ + m₂)v In our particle based quantum mechanics we assume photons and other quantum particles are extended bodies composed of yet smaller particles. The space between large particles is inhabited by a constant flux of smaller particles which interact with and are exchanged among larger particles. An analogy of this arrangement is free floating water drops in humid air. Water molecules are exchanged in both directions between the water drops and the surrounding air. In the case of a photon traveling at the speed of light in vacuum we have what is observationally known to be a very stable system. The photon exists in what can be described as a stable terminal velocity mode. Using the water drop analogy again - terminal velocity indicates a balance of forces leading to a constant velocity. For a water drop this usually means gravity pulling down until increasing air resistance balances the downward force - leaving the drop moving at a constant speed. What forces balance to leave a photon moving at a stable terminal velocity? The terminal velocity photon is in apparent thermal equilibrium with its environment. Elastic collisions conserve energy, inelastic collisions do not. As in a molecular gas in thermal equilibrium, the existence of inelastic collisions implies other collisions are super-elastic [possessing more kinetic energy after the collision than before]. Across all elastic, inelastic, and super-elastic collisions we end up with elastic collisions on average. The terminal velocity photon along with the particles composing the space it is traveling through form a system in apparent thermodynamic equilibrium. When we examine elastic and inelastic collisions in nature the physical properties of the colliding bodies determine whether or not a collision is elastic or inelastic. In a variety of collisions higher speeds tend to produce inelastic results while lower speeds are more likely to lead to elastic collisions. For our purposes we will assume a work function must be overcome for a collision to become inelastic. For identical particles this amounts to a relative velocity determining whether a collision is elastic or inelastic. An interesting property of the conservation of momentum is the difference in the impulse you receive during elastic versus inelastic collisions. When you are struck from behind and the collision is inelastic - you move forward from the added momentum but you are also dragging extra mass along. When you are struck from behind and the collision is elastic - you more forward from the hit but you are not dragging the extra mass along. The particle you were struck with is directed away from your direction of motion in the center of mass frame of reference. How is the terminal velocity photon able to maintain a uniform speed while in apparent thermodynamic equilibrium? When the swarm of particles composing a photon are moving they are stuck from all directions by the smaller particles comprising the space they are traveling through. Those particles striking from the forward direction have added velocity making inelastic collisions more likely. Those striking from the rear are more likely to produced elastic collisions. The particles composing the photon are individually impacted then redistribute the results of those impacts to the photon as a whole. Since the swarm is in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings the number of inelastic collisions must be balanced by a similar number of emissions carrying the energy in super-elastic collisions. With the inelastic mass and energy distributed to the volume of the swarm, the emission of mass is presumed to be radial - imparting no net momentum to the photon as a whole. Early modeling discovered [1984-1990] and the work of Duane [1,2] confirmed that the swarm must remain diffuse. In other words particles traveling from the outside need to be able to penetrate the volume from any direction before interacting. A "solid" photon cannot achieve a terminal velocity other than zero and a "solid" photon cannot participate in the complex non-linear exchanges required of quantum systems. This situation may be summarized in computer form. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Physics_Frontier/photos/album/408323353/pic/2134390606/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc When the velocity is zero there is no net force. When the speed increases from zero there is a net force pushing the photon to move faster. Eventually faster speed causes the net force to decrease due to the increasing momentum of collisions from the forward direction. A terminal velocity speed is reached when the forces again balance. Increasing the speed beyond this point causes a force slowing the photon again. [1] Duane, G. S., 2001: Violation of Bell's inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353. [2] Duane, G. S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1917-1932.

A comet moving a zillion miles an hour through empty space in a straight line (a geodesic actually) has zero net force acting on it.

Velocity does not imply force. It is change of velocity that implies force. Force is the time rate of change of momentum.

Basic physics: true for Newton, true for Einstein.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

A comet moving a zillion miles an hour through empty space in a straight line (a geodesic actually) has zero net force acting on it.

Velocity does not imply force. It is change of velocity that implies force. Force is the time rate of change of momentum.

Basic physics: true for Newton, true for Einstein.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It appears you did not understand what I intended to say. Did you have any specific

questions about the topic at hand?

D

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://f1.grp.yahoof...20Photon-V1.PDF

http://tinyurl.com/7zm4xjc

Same paper scanned to .PDF with graphic included.

Dennis

Identity and causality are basics in philosophy - this paper discusses an original approach to the most basic physics of these most basics concepts. This paper outlines the most fundamental errors of logic, philosophy, and science in orthodox quantum mechanics - in other words it explains where and when modern physics went off the rails on this particular topic.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://f1.grp.yahoof...20Photon-V1.PDF

http://tinyurl.com/7zm4xjc

Same paper scanned to .PDF with graphic included.

Dennis

Identity and causality are basics in philosophy - this paper discusses an original approach to the most basic physics of these most basics concepts. This paper outlines the most fundamental errors of logic, philosophy, and science in orthodox quantum mechanics - in other words it explains where and when modern physics went off the rails on this particular topic.

Dennis

Isn't it strange how well quantum theory predicts physical outcomes.

Do you have any vetted (by experiment please!) falsifiers of quantum theory?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://f1.grp.yahoof...20Photon-V1.PDF http://tinyurl.com/7zm4xjc Same paper scanned to .PDF with graphic included. Dennis
Identity and causality are basics in philosophy - this paper discusses an original approach to the most basic physics of these most basics concepts. This paper outlines the most fundamental errors of logic, philosophy, and science in orthodox quantum mechanics - in other words it explains where and when modern physics went off the rails on this particular topic. Dennis
Isn't it strange how well quantum theory predicts physical outcomes. Do you have any vetted (by experiment please!) falsifiers of quantum theory? Ba'al Chatzaf

Did you have any questions about the ideas presented in the paper?

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://f1.grp.yahoof...20Photon-V1.PDF http://tinyurl.com/7zm4xjc Same paper scanned to .PDF with graphic included. Dennis
Identity and causality are basics in philosophy - this paper discusses an original approach to the most basic physics of these most basics concepts. This paper outlines the most fundamental errors of logic, philosophy, and science in orthodox quantum mechanics - in other words it explains where and when modern physics went off the rails on this particular topic. Dennis
Isn't it strange how well quantum theory predicts physical outcomes. Do you have any vetted (by experiment please!) falsifiers of quantum theory? Ba'al Chatzaf

Did you have any questions about the ideas presented in the paper?

Dennis

I pay no attention to philosophical views. I am interested only in the math and correct predictions. Philosophy is word games. The math and the experiments are substantial. So I guess I have no questions or comments other than to ask why does quantum theory (properly normalized) predict so well if it is so wrong? that seems strange to me.

Ba'al; Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://f1.grp.yahoof...20Photon-V1.PDF http://tinyurl.com/7zm4xjc Same paper scanned to .PDF with graphic included. Dennis
Identity and causality are basics in philosophy - this paper discusses an original approach to the most basic physics of these most basics concepts. This paper outlines the most fundamental errors of logic, philosophy, and science in orthodox quantum mechanics - in other words it explains where and when modern physics went off the rails on this particular topic. Dennis
Isn't it strange how well quantum theory predicts physical outcomes. Do you have any vetted (by experiment please!) falsifiers of quantum theory? Ba'al Chatzaf

Did you have any questions about the ideas presented in the paper?

Dennis

I pay no attention to philosophical views. I am interested only in the math and correct predictions. Philosophy is word games. The math and the experiments are substantial. So I guess I have no questions or comments other than to ask why does quantum theory (properly normalized) predict so well if it is so wrong? that seems strange to me.

Ba'al; Chatzaf

You want a philosophical answer? It isn't "so wrong."

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a philosophical answer? It isn't "so wrong."

--Brant

That is the conclusion I came too. Anything that predicts correctly must be taken seriously. Which leaves another question: why do so many Shi'ite Objectivists complain about quantum theory. Who cares if it is weird and counter-intuitive. It gives the right answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a philosophical answer? It isn't "so wrong."

--Brant

That is the conclusion I came too. Anything that predicts correctly must be taken seriously. Which leaves another question: why do so many Shi'ite Objectivists complain about quantum theory. Who cares if it is weird and counter-intuitive. It gives the right answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It cannot be successfully integrated with relativity - a fact that has been understood since 1925. Deterministic and indeterminstic theories have entirely different foundations. Orthodox quantum mechanics cannot explain a great many things and must resort to fuzzy definitions and arm waving at numerous junctures. Progress in theoretical physics has gone entirely stagnant as string theory has been attempted to integrate deterministic and indeterministic theories.

Repeating, repeating, and repeating the claim that because quantum mechanics produces good results [in some areas - while being unable to address others] there is no issue continues to forget that there are several QM approaches that all produce good results but are foundationally incompatible with each other.

The orthodoxy produces good results but painted into a corner because of a poor foundation.

If anyone comes up with a question concerning the paper let me know. I take the foundations of arguments seriously. The ability to continue advancing science requires it. Theoretical physics has gone stagnant - to me the reason is obvious - abandoning identity and causality has opened the floodgates for an unlimited number of arbitrary assertions to pose as science.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a philosophical answer? It isn't "so wrong."

--Brant

That is the conclusion I came too. Anything that predicts correctly must be taken seriously. Which leaves another question: why do so many Shi'ite Objectivists complain about quantum theory. Who cares if it is weird and counter-intuitive. It gives the right answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It cannot be successfully integrated with relativity - a fact that has been understood since 1925. Deterministic and indeterminstic theories have entirely different foundations. Orthodox quantum mechanics cannot explain a great many things and must resort to fuzzy definitions and arm waving at numerous junctures. Progress in theoretical physics has gone entirely stagnant as string theory has been attempted to integrate deterministic and indeterministic theories.

Neither has any other vetted theory been integrated with relativity. It is clumsy having to carry two theories around. One for gravity and one for not-gravity. But it is doable and it has not halted the progress of physics. I hope you will write us when a an experimentally corroborated Theory of Everything has been cooked up. That day has not yet arrived. But maybe, soon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a philosophical answer? It isn't "so wrong."

--Brant

That is the conclusion I came too. Anything that predicts correctly must be taken seriously. Which leaves another question: why do so many Shi'ite Objectivists complain about quantum theory. Who cares if it is weird and counter-intuitive. It gives the right answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It cannot be successfully integrated with relativity - a fact that has been understood since 1925. Deterministic and indeterminstic theories have entirely different foundations. Orthodox quantum mechanics cannot explain a great many things and must resort to fuzzy definitions and arm waving at numerous junctures. Progress in theoretical physics has gone entirely stagnant as string theory has been attempted to integrate deterministic and indeterministic theories.

Neither has any other vetted theory been integrated with relativity. It is clumsy having to carry two theories around. One for gravity and one for not-gravity. But it is doable and it has not halted the progress of physics. I hope you will write us when a an experimentally corroborated Theory of Everything has been cooked up. That day has not yet arrived. But maybe, soon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The Theory of Everything or at least an integrated theory of physics will necessarily be totally indeterministic or totally deterministic. Physics may not have entirely halted but 1 1/2 generations with essentially no progress is not a good sign. We have exponentially multiplying arbitrary fixes to theory precisely because the indeterministic path has no real foundation to contain such growth or any real way to decide among any number of competing arbitrary fixes.

Indeterminism does away with identity and causality making it impossible to differentiate any arbitrary number of solutions.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a philosophical answer? It isn't "so wrong."

--Brant

That is the conclusion I came too. Anything that predicts correctly must be taken seriously. Which leaves another question: why do so many Shi'ite Objectivists complain about quantum theory. Who cares if it is weird and counter-intuitive. It gives the right answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It cannot be successfully integrated with relativity - a fact that has been understood since 1925. Deterministic and indeterminstic theories have entirely different foundations. Orthodox quantum mechanics cannot explain a great many things and must resort to fuzzy definitions and arm waving at numerous junctures. Progress in theoretical physics has gone entirely stagnant as string theory has been attempted to integrate deterministic and indeterministic theories.

Neither has any other vetted theory been integrated with relativity. It is clumsy having to carry two theories around. One for gravity and one for not-gravity. But it is doable and it has not halted the progress of physics. I hope you will write us when a an experimentally corroborated Theory of Everything has been cooked up. That day has not yet arrived. But maybe, soon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The Theory of Everything or at least an integrated theory of physics will necessarily be totally indeterministic or totally deterministic. Physics may not have entirely halted but 1 1/2 generations with essentially no progress is not a good sign. We have exponentially multiplying arbitrary fixes to theory precisely because the indeterministic path has no real foundation to contain such growth or any real way to decide among any number of competing arbitrary fixes.

Indeterminism does away with identity and causality making it impossible to differentiate any arbitrary number of solutions.

Dennis

You are philosophically offended by all of this. I am not. I just keep my eye on the correct predictions and keep track of all the technology the flows out of our philosophically imperfect science. Somehow I am not bothered. I focus on facts. You focus on principles. You are unhappy and I am not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now