A Model for the Propagation of Visible Light and Other Rays

[danshawen]

There is no type-error, we meant to say "compile" as a colorful form of speech to declare that yaldons can integrate with the periodic table of elements.

If you can find a mistake within these 30 pages of YT: The Propagation of Rays, please let us know so we can provide a better service for all. Thank you.

"Comply" = "integrates with"

"Compile" = "converts a higher level computer language, such as Fortran or Flex into a machine specific assembly of more rudimentary operations like load accumulator."

I hope you don't depend on spell checkers to provide one meaning where another was meant or intended. Do you have a version of your theory that was NOT spell checked? What a waste of an otherwise palatable theory that would be.

 

[exchemist]

Can you please be more case-specific with your question? And is this question part of the 30 pages of The Propagation of Rays.

Just to add to my question about discrimination between current theory and your new one, it occurs to me that since your yaldons are said to have mass, they should presumably:-

(a) have a mass that can be measured in some way, separate from any molecules - can this be done? - and
(b) they should presumably carry away momentum and energy continuously from any of the molecules in motion that they surround, as they will constantly be making collisions with the atoms. Is this what we observe?

P.S. a further thought: how would this theory account for selection rules and other symmetry effects in spectroscopy? For example, nitrogen has no IR spectrum, due, according to current theory, to its lack of a transition dipole. How would yaldons explain this?

 

[yaldonTheory]

I don't agree that a Yaldon exists, the way you describe it, but I do think there is a Yaldon-like effect that has a key role in the propagation of light. Out of appreciation for YT and for keeping the thread content specific to the 30 pages linked in the OP, I will simply reference a new thread, in AltTheory, where I will mention some details about the Yaldon-like effect, but without the Yaldon particle.

An Alternative to Yaldon Theory: A Wave Particle Suggestion

Maybe this will help you recognize the yaldon particle's existence:

Scientists today detect the existence of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. We state in YT: The Propagation of Rays, that yaldons fill the universe with an average speed of $$s_y$$, and a mass of $$m_y$$. Then the energy of a single yaldon in the universe will be $$E_y$$.

We can formulate this into the following equation:

$$E_y=m_y s^2_y$$ (this is the energy of a single yaldon)​

In this way, the Yaldon Particle Theory can satisfy the existence of dark matter and dark energy as both matter and energy.

 

[yaldonTheory]

"Comply" = "integrates with"

"Compile" = "converts a higher level computer language, such as Fortran or Flex into a machine specific assembly of more rudimentary operations like load accumulator."

I hope you don't depend on spell checkers to provide one meaning where another was meant or intended. Do you have a version of your theory that was NOT spell checked? What a waste of an otherwise palatable theory that would be.

Currently you are avoiding the issue and committing the "straw-man" logical fallacy. We asked that you would simply point out a mistake that we have made in these 30 pages.

Apparently, you can not.

Instead, you are creating an unrelated argument in order to divert attention. If you really feel we are mistaken, then logically find our fault within these 30 pages. For the integrity of this thread, we ask that you no longer "harp" on the issue of word choice, since this issue is unrelated to Physics or Math.

You are basically acting as a "stumbling block," hindering the progress of this thread. Currently, these 30 pages address about 15% of our entire theory. We no longer feel that this is the most suitable environment to discuss the rest of our theory. Thank you.

 

[yaldonTheory]

Just to add to my question about discrimination between current theory and your new one, it occurs to me that since your yaldons are said to have mass, they should presumably:-

(a) have a mass that can be measured in some way, separate from any molecules - can this be done? - and
(b) they should presumably carry away momentum and energy continuously from any of the molecules in motion that they surround, as they will constantly be making collisions with the atoms. Is this what we observe?

P.S. a further thought: how would this theory account for selection rules and other symmetry effects in spectroscopy? For example, nitrogen has no IR spectrum, due, according to current theory, to its lack of a transition dipole. How would yaldons explain this?

All of this pertains to the other 85% of our theory, and we are unable to discuss that here and now. Especially since this will require a lot of dialogue and illustration. Thank you.

 

[danshawen]

You are basically acting as a "stumbling block

And so is the rest of science.

Thank you.

 

[hansda]

The Yaldon Theory was developed in order to present a model in physics that will explain the phenomena which we are surround by.

Seems you are going to re-write Physics. Can it be considered as Theory of Everything?

This chapter of the Yaldon Theory will focus on the phenomena which are related to visible light, as well as the propagated rays beyond and below that narrow band of visible light.

Provided will be the entire work for the propagation of visible light as well as other rays beyond and below that narrow band. Included will be formulas, diagrams, and discussions using the Second Law of Newton to show how yaldons are responsible for these rays.

The types of phenomena addressed in this work are:
-light's property as both a particle and a wave
-the white-light effect produced from heating metals
-light's red-shift from the far stars
-the change in the speed of light through dense transparent materials
-the effect of light passing through low dense and high dense gasses
-light maintaining its speed when given an initial velocity

If you like to learn more about the yaldon, visit www.yaldontheory.com

In your theory, you say Yaldons surround an atom and these atoms vibrate. I have some questions:

Why the atoms vibrate?
Atoms are made of what?
What is the principle following an atom interacts with an yaldon?
What is the name of the entity of "an atom surrounded by yaldons"?

 

[exchemist]

All of this pertains to the other 85% of our theory, and we are unable to discuss that here and now. Especially since this will require a lot of dialogue and illustration. Thank you.

Ah I see. So you have a long way to go before you can really offer a replacement for current theory.

My strong suspicion is that you will fairly rapidly find your theory does not work, when you try to apply it to such things.

 

[yaldonTheory]

Seems you are going to re-write Physics. Can it be considered as Theory of Everything?

Only time will tell.

In your theory, you say Yaldons surround an atom and these atoms vibrate. I have some questions:

Why the atoms vibrate?
Atoms are made of what?
What is the principle following an atom interacts with an yaldon?
What is the name of the entity of "an atom surrounded by yaldons"?

It is already understood that molecules and atoms vibrate. It is written in several Physics books, and also one can find this fact in wikipedia.

"When light of a certain frequency hits a molecule that has a vibration whose motion corresponds to the same frequency then the light gets absorbed into the molecule and the energy from the light causes the bonds to move in that specific vibrational motion."
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibrations​

If you are asking us to explain the phenomenon of, "Why atoms and molecules vibrate?" This will be explained in later works, since this question, as well as the other several questions you asked, does not pertain to The Propagation of Rays. Thank you.

 

[yaldonTheory]

Ah I see. So you have a long way to go before you can really offer a replacement for current theory.

My strong suspicion is that you will fairly rapidly find your theory does not work, when you try to apply it to such things.

We take this as a compliment, when you state that, "...you will fairly rapidly find your theory does not work, when you try to apply it to such things."

This means that you admit our current model for The Yaldon Particle Theory: The Propagation of Rays works for what we have addressed within these 30 pages. In the same time, you also admit that the rest of The Yaldon Particle Theory, that has not yet been addressed, is hard for you to realize. Thank you.

 

[origin]

This means that you admit our current model for The Yaldon Particle Theory: The Propagation of Rays works for what we have addressed within these 30 pages. In the same time, you also admit that the rest of The Yaldon Particle Theory, that has not yet been addressed, is hard for you to realize. Thank you.

So it is just not physics - you do not understand english either.

 

[exchemist]

We take this as a compliment, when you state that, "...you will fairly rapidly find your theory does not work, when you try to apply it to such things."

This means that you admit our current model for The Yaldon Particle Theory: The Propagation of Rays works for what we have addressed within these 30 pages. In the same time, you also admit that the rest of The Yaldon Particle Theory, that has not yet been addressed, is hard for you to realize. Thank you.

Look, my training is in chemistry rather than physics. So my interest is in seeing what happens when one tries to account for the properties and behaviour of molecules and atoms using your theory. I do not pretend I have done more than skim-read your material, but I do see a lot of apparent difficulties when I try to apply it to what I know of physical chemistry. You should not take my focus on this aspect as either endorsement or condemnation of the other physics you have tried to deal with. That is not my speciality.

As I am sure you realise, when you come forward on a science forum with something that tries to overturn or replace the massively successful structure of chemistry and physics that is built on the current quantum theory, you have to be able to account for all the phenomena that the current theory explains. So far, you seem to be saying that you either cannot or do not intend to deal those I have raised. I find that significant. If it is work in progress, i.e you have not got round to thinking about such things, then fair enough, Rome was not built in a day, but you can take my queries as examples of issues that sooner or later you must address if you are going to get anywhere. Your undertaking is massive: QM pervades the whole of physical science, so your alternative ideas will have implications all over the place, from spectroscopy to the photo-electric effect and the specific heat of gases.

 

[yaldonTheory]

Look, my training is in chemistry rather than physics. So my interest is in seeing what happens when one tries to account for the properties and behaviour of molecules and atoms using your theory. I do not pretend I have done more than skim-read your material, but I do see a lot of apparent difficulties when I try to apply it to what I know of physical chemistry.

We haven't asked anyone to apply our theory to the properties and behavior of molecules and atoms, at this current stage of development. We only want people to become familiar with this new model for the propagation of rays.

You should not take my focus on this aspect as either endorsement or condemnation of the other physics you have tried to deal with. That is not my speciality.

Apparently, we care currently dealing with a subject matter that is not your specialty.

As I am sure you realise, when you come forward on a science forum with something that tries to overturn or replace the massively successful structure of chemistry and physics that is built on the current quantum theory, you have to be able to account for all the phenomena that the current theory explains. So far, you seem to be saying that you either cannot or do not intend to deal those I have raised. I find that significant. If it is work in progress, i.e you have not got round to thinking about such things, then fair enough, Rome was not built in a day, but you can take my queries as examples of issues that sooner or later you must address if you are going to get anywhere. Your undertaking is massive: QM pervades the whole of physical science, so your alternative ideas will have implications all over the place, from spectroscopy to the photo-electric effect and the specific heat of gases.

That is why we need to explain several other concepts prior to explaining chemical reactions. Please be patient while we work. Thank you.

 

[yaldonTheory]

There is a type-error on our previous post.

We wrote "care." We meant to write "are." Thank you.

 

[exchemist]

We haven't asked anyone to apply our theory to the properties and behavior of molecules and atoms, at this current stage of development. We only want people to become familiar with this new model for the propagation of rays.


Apparently, we care currently dealing with a subject matter that is not your specialty.


That is why we need to explain several other concepts prior to explaining chemical reactions. Please be patient while we work. Thank you.

Sure. I certainly will not be holding my breath. I wanted to see how well worked out your theory was. The answer seems to be "not very".

Since you have not thought about the issues I raised - or at any rate not enough to offer an answer - I merely draw to your attention that focusing only on the propagation of rays will not get you far, if you cannot also account for all the other phenomena that the current QM theory of light deals with so well.

But I admire your ingenuity. Best of luck.

 

[hansda]

Only time will tell.

Good luck to you.

It is already understood that molecules and atoms vibrate. It is written in several Physics books, and also one can find this fact in wikipedia.

"When light of a certain frequency hits a molecule that has a vibration whose motion corresponds to the same frequency then the light gets absorbed into the molecule and the energy from the light causes the bonds to move in that specific vibrational motion."
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibrations ​

As you are re-writing physics, I thought your answer will be different from the currently existing Physics.

​

If you are asking us to explain the phenomenon of, "Why atoms and molecules vibrate?" This will be explained in later works,

Is this answer different from existing physics.

since this question, as well as the other several questions you asked, does not pertain to The Propagation of Rays. Thank you.

I read the first page of your thesis and wanted to know whether your ideas are any different from the current physics.

 

[arfa brane]

I'm going to rip into this.

First off, comments like this:

A single yaldon is a sub-atomic particle (very tiny speck), and it is defined as a yaldon in order to distinguish it from other sub-atomic particles that are from other theories, since its properties are different (perfectly elastic, no spin, no charge, no force fields of any kind surrounding it).

make me wonder about this putative "particle", how can it interact with anything if it has no charge, or spin? You say it does have mass, but mass is something that can be observed and measured; the mass of your particles should have some measurable effect, so why hasn't it been observed?
Also this:

We expect that it will be difficult for physicists to remove the models of the theories which are already embedded in their brains.

, suggests perhaps a little bit of contempt for current theories, except current theories do explain things, a lot of things.

Then this:

Quantum Mechanics is only used when physicists fail to explain phenomena using Newtonian Mechanics. If we can explain these phenomena by using Newtonian Mechanics, then why do we need QM?

Do you have a Newtonian version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect? Or superconductivity?

And I have to agree with danshawen's objection: you appear to be postulating the existence of something that can never be detected physically. According to physics something you can never detect has no physical existence, that's a big problem for your theory, even dark matter has some physical evidence for its existence, via astronomical observations.

Your theory seems to amount to little more than handwaving, with a dash of "modern physical theories are science fiction" added.

 

[arfa brane]

One other major objection I can think up: if your particle only has mass and is "perfectly elastic", it can't possibly interact with photons. "Theorising" that light is delayed by these particles over large distances has that problem, a major problem.

What you seem to be describing is in fact, dark matter, or some model of it. Dark matter is "dark" because it doesn't interact with light, it has mass so can only have gravitational effects.

Ed: Oh yikes, I actually just read some of your article. It seems to be saying that photons are these yaldon things (with no charge, no spin, but with mass) propagating. That has to be bollocks, photons have no rest mass, and they are spin-1 quanta. Moreover, they are understood to be gauge particles with an associated gauge field, gauge symmetry (Maxwell's equations), and so on.

I'm afraid the ideas in that article contradict at least a century of observations.

 

[hansda]

Only time will tell.


It is already understood that molecules and atoms vibrate. It is written in several Physics books, and also one can find this fact in wikipedia.

"When light of a certain frequency hits a molecule that has a vibration whose motion corresponds to the same frequency then the light gets absorbed into the molecule and the energy from the light causes the bonds to move in that specific vibrational motion."
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibrations​

If you are asking us to explain the phenomenon of, "Why atoms and molecules vibrate?" This will be explained in later works, since this question, as well as the other several questions you asked, does not pertain to The Propagation of Rays. Thank you.

What is the novelty in your theory?

 

[exchemist]

Only time will tell.


It is already understood that molecules and atoms vibrate. It is written in several Physics books, and also one can find this fact in wikipedia.

"When light of a certain frequency hits a molecule that has a vibration whose motion corresponds to the same frequency then the light gets absorbed into the molecule and the energy from the light causes the bonds to move in that specific vibrational motion."
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibrations​

If you are asking us to explain the phenomenon of, "Why atoms and molecules vibrate?" This will be explained in later works, since this question, as well as the other several questions you asked, does not pertain to The Propagation of Rays. Thank you.

This will be interesting, as it will bring into play Statistical Thermodynamics, as well as Quantum Theory. You guys are nothing if not ambitious.