One thing though. Mathematically, infinite isn’t the same as continuous. As far as we have evidence, the physical world isn’t continuous from the mathematical perspective. Which means that Schrödinger’s model can at best match reality under a restricted domain. In truth, it’s probably got error that’s written off as tolerable noise. Any mathematical model that relies on the continuum will have the same issue.
More importantly to me, and why I really appreciate this article, is the recognition that measuring is an interaction, and that it is nontrivial information in the system. It’s too often under appreciated.
So, all along, the photon was the mathematical construct and convenience, while the wave was the physical entity framed as mere substrate for equations? This actually makes sense given that the photon has properties that make it unique among supposedly massless "objects."
It looks like ever since the photon was invented as a partner to the wave, the way to deal with any problems introduced was to simply create increasingly baroque maths. Schrodinger's equation, for example, is only useful if you operate under the assumptions QM is true, right? It "proves" nothing on its own.
In addition to QEM, there's the more recently introduced concept of "quantum foam," which as I understand it is meant to patch up problems with the interdependence between gravity and QM. Like superstrings, all posited to exist just beyond the threshold of human measurement.
It's starting to look like theoretical physics starting in around 1900 and the global financial system have a lot in common. Both largely built on sham foundations that have proven remarkably sturdy despite how shaky the underpinnings can be shown to be.
Under research: Light also has a momentum, a pushing force. It is very weak and some experimental demonstrations of it have been false, so there is some confusion around it. Note that a push can be achieved with magnetic induction. So the pushing force might be caused by the electron-shell reacting to the alternating magnetic field.
You posit that the photon does not exist and light is only a wave? But, what about the electron? Does it exist as a discrete particle? Most would say yes because we can measure that lump of matter in various ways. Electrons have been fired one at a time through the double slit and observed to produce an interference pattern, suggesting it also has a wave-like nature. Sometimes the particle description is more appropriate and other times the wave description is better suited. What is the truth as to what the electron is? Maybe it is just a wave and only a wave. But it's very strange to me how a spread out wave can collapse to a single dot on a piece a photo film.
BTW, thanks for making me think. I enjoyed reading your article.
I'd like to have a discussion of this stuff, SciAnalyst & others. Are you available? I started a forum where it might be handy to discuss at https://substack.webboard.org/cosmology-f3.html
I came to the exact same conclusion, devised almost the exact same experiment as you did, after I tried analysing the quantum eraser experiment from the viewpoint of classic wave theory. And I am not even a physicist or good in math.
If all electromagnetic waves are photons, then how big are the supposed photons that are called "schumann resonance"? Seriously, what were those scientists smoking?
I like this article.
One thing though. Mathematically, infinite isn’t the same as continuous. As far as we have evidence, the physical world isn’t continuous from the mathematical perspective. Which means that Schrödinger’s model can at best match reality under a restricted domain. In truth, it’s probably got error that’s written off as tolerable noise. Any mathematical model that relies on the continuum will have the same issue.
More importantly to me, and why I really appreciate this article, is the recognition that measuring is an interaction, and that it is nontrivial information in the system. It’s too often under appreciated.
So, all along, the photon was the mathematical construct and convenience, while the wave was the physical entity framed as mere substrate for equations? This actually makes sense given that the photon has properties that make it unique among supposedly massless "objects."
It looks like ever since the photon was invented as a partner to the wave, the way to deal with any problems introduced was to simply create increasingly baroque maths. Schrodinger's equation, for example, is only useful if you operate under the assumptions QM is true, right? It "proves" nothing on its own.
In addition to QEM, there's the more recently introduced concept of "quantum foam," which as I understand it is meant to patch up problems with the interdependence between gravity and QM. Like superstrings, all posited to exist just beyond the threshold of human measurement.
It's starting to look like theoretical physics starting in around 1900 and the global financial system have a lot in common. Both largely built on sham foundations that have proven remarkably sturdy despite how shaky the underpinnings can be shown to be.
Fun experiment: The Phase Conjugate Mirror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAy39ErqV34
Seems like protons are like the mercury-droplet in the article, Can I add this as a confirmation?
Protons may be stretchier than physicists had thought. The quarks making up these particles seem to move more than they should in an electric field - https://www.snexplores.org/article/proton-stretch-strong-force-particle-physics-quark
Under research: Light also has a momentum, a pushing force. It is very weak and some experimental demonstrations of it have been false, so there is some confusion around it. Note that a push can be achieved with magnetic induction. So the pushing force might be caused by the electron-shell reacting to the alternating magnetic field.
Update.
This video explains it best. Why light has momentum even without mass? -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvzr2HbbPC8
You posit that the photon does not exist and light is only a wave? But, what about the electron? Does it exist as a discrete particle? Most would say yes because we can measure that lump of matter in various ways. Electrons have been fired one at a time through the double slit and observed to produce an interference pattern, suggesting it also has a wave-like nature. Sometimes the particle description is more appropriate and other times the wave description is better suited. What is the truth as to what the electron is? Maybe it is just a wave and only a wave. But it's very strange to me how a spread out wave can collapse to a single dot on a piece a photo film.
BTW, thanks for making me think. I enjoyed reading your article.
I'd like to have a discussion of this stuff, SciAnalyst & others. Are you available? I started a forum where it might be handy to discuss at https://substack.webboard.org/cosmology-f3.html
https://odysee.com/@StopTheCrime:d/Breaking-News-SHOCKING---Here-is-What-Really-is-in-the-Vaccines:d
-----
Thank you for allowing me to run the guest post and hanging out for discussion, SA.
Not for content, but what are your thoughts on this video, IF you are interested in watching.
If wrong, is it within "Plausibly wrong" or...."making shit up" wrong?
Thank you for exposing the phony photon!
I came to the exact same conclusion, devised almost the exact same experiment as you did, after I tried analysing the quantum eraser experiment from the viewpoint of classic wave theory. And I am not even a physicist or good in math.
If all electromagnetic waves are photons, then how big are the supposed photons that are called "schumann resonance"? Seriously, what were those scientists smoking?