On the Nature of Photons
Sven Gelbhaar
18 November 2008 – 29 December 2008
In 1845 Michael Faraday discovered that light can be bent around a magnetic
field. This effect is named after him; it is called the Faraday Effect, or
Faraday Rotation. Because of this experiment we now refer to light as
electromagnetic radiation, for it confirmed the connection between the two.
This connection, however, hasn’t been explored further since then.
The experiment consisted of transmitting light parallel to a magnetic
field. The observed result was that the two interacted in that the
magnetic field (along with the object emitting it) shifted, and Newton’s
Third Law withstanding, the trajectory of the photons was also reciprocally
altered. (1) Before we jump to the obvious conclusion that photons are
merely electrons, or comprised of the same constituent particles as
electrons, let us examine any possible counter-argument.
Polarizers were employed in the Faraday Effect experiment. This suggests
that light (photons) are capable of being polarized, and we all know that
electrons cannot change their electronic polarization. Does this suggest
that photons are electrically neutral? No. You will note that once the
photons emerge from the back of the experiment they have the same
polarization, meaning that there is no evidence whatsoever that the photons
were ever any different (electric) polarity.
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what is meant by polarizers, however. (2)
Perhaps it means polarization as in the oscillations of the ‘wave’ of light
a concept I’ve previously disproven in the paper From Wave Theory to
Quantum Mechanics. If that is the case then all these ‘polarizers’ would
do is to concentrate the stream of photons as discussed in another previous
paper of mine dealing with the conjugation of individual photons in respect
to speed and trajectory. (see also: Phased Arrays)
How could electrons achieve relativistic speeds? I have already offered an
argument against relativistic mass as having arisen because of the optical
illusion for which we have the limited speed of light to blame (Lorentz
Transformation), and the fact that there is no proof that this concept
exists in nature at all. The paper is entitled On Relativistic Mass. It
is perfectly plausible, with all of this in mind, that electrons could
indeed achieve the speeds necessary to masquerade as an entirely different
particle (or ‘force carrier’ in the industry’s vernacular) called the
photon.
Now let us explore some corroborating evidence. Allow me to present: The
Eye. You may be familiar with these naturally occurring optical devices,
as most people possess them. At bottom, how do these work?
As you can see from the illustration above, and any other diagrams of eyes
for that matter, there is no magic component that mysteriously converts
photons into electrons. The optic nerve simply sits there, if you’ll
ignore the lens and the variable resisters we’ve come to call rods (etc),
and receives electrical energy straight from the outside world to be
processed by the occipital lobe. If photons were anything other than
electrons no current would be produced, and we as a species (amongst
others) would be blind.
Now let us come full-circle and take a gander at the other side of the
spectrum: How light is made. I can readily think of four separate ways:
nuclear processes (fission, fusion), the light bulb, the light emitting
diode (LED), and fire.
Light produced by either fission or fusion is easy enough to understand.
Either elements are compressed into heavier incarnations with parts to
spare (light), or conversely, heavy elements shed parts (neutrons, etc) and
thereby emit light in the form of freed electrons under the guise of
photons.
The light produced by fire is similar in its creation to that of nuclear
fission and fusion, in that electrons are freed by the chemical
transmutation of the fuel by oxygenation provided enough heat is present to
allow for this.
The incandescent light bulb works by forcing electrons through a narrow
medium, creating a bottle-neck and therefore more heat in this medium. The
electrons, having so much inertia from traversing the previously
un-restricted medium now ‘bounce’ off each other (electric repulsion) in
ostensibly (but not actually) random trajectories, and once again we
perceive them as light.
The light emitting diode (LED) consists of semi-conductive material that
has intentional impurities, that is, it has non-semi-conductive material
throughout. It works on the same principle as the incandescent light bulb
in that electric current is suddenly faced with a repulsive force the
electrons freely flowing through semi-conductive material suddenly run into
a resistive material and is thereby ‘bounced’ off it into seemingly random
directions.
I’m sure there are other methods of generating light, but I’m going to stop
myself here. It seems, at least to me, self-evident that there is no
process that (magically) converts electrons into photons.
Using the above framework, let us examine whether we can still explain all
of light’s phenomena such as reflection and refraction. Reflection is
easy, as it is simply the rejection of spare electrons (photons) due to
electromagnetic repulsion the presence of sufficient electrons to repel
the intruding photons. Refraction can also be explained in that the speed
of the transmission of electrons (photons) is altered in speed and/or
trajectory based upon the density of the composition of whatever material
it is made to traverse, which in turn affects how much electromagnetic
attraction (to the nuclei) and repulsion (to the existing electrons) it is
subjected to. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a form of Newton’s Cradle
takes place, with the replacement of existing electrons by those that are
made to ‘shine through’ the medium. This principle may very well explain
why light that is transmitted through Caesium vapor will increase in speed
by a factor of around 312 times.
References
- http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/eo.htm 28 DEC 20082.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization 28 DEC 2008