The Photon Particle Exists!, but "Aether" Does the Big Jobs
by Carl R. Littmann, written 4-1-2002

Introductory Note:

 Readers might first go to my Illustrations 1A and 1B or Summary and Conclusions or Part 1; since my article is about 27 pages long. (Allow some time for Illustrations to download.)  Paragraphs in Italics are Optional and may be skipped or postponed by readers. (Some points made in my previous articles are repeated in this article.)

My illustrations are in "pdf" form, readable by modern computers with free software. Or I will attempt to mail interested readers my illustrations on request, although the article could stand independently.

Abstract:

   We attempt to ascertain the fundamental nature of light, by using the spirit of Maxwell, Laplace, and Faraday, and also by using some "modern" experimental facts.  We discuss "5" states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, "radiant", and "ethereal". We define "particle" and "wave".  Among the article's conclusions are that the photon likely exists, that it is a material "particle", that it is very important, delicate (not tough), and often "delightful". But "Aether" still does the Big Jobs!

    We discuss how the very energetic "specks" of aether share their energy with the elementary particle, but not with the photon, and the consequences. We discuss at least "two movement options" in physics, (i.e., two degrees of directional freedom").  We discuss how an elementary particle, that merely spins in place, leaves one of these options "unused".  We compare that with a photon, which "wiggles" as it travels forward at the speed of light "c" thereby "using up" both options equally.  We compare the drastically different behaviors that thus result when energy and mass are added to an elementary particle compared to when they are added to a photon. From the above, we derive one of Einstein's "special relativity" equations, simply, (near the end of the article).

   We discuss how aether also supports the photon's stability and carries some of its energy burden.  And aether does not impose upon the photon a minimum low energy limit of any consequence. We discuss typical vortices in the aether, and how aether does share those significant angular momentums with a photon and with an elementary particle. We discuss how aether's pressure and interactions still prevent the "wiggling photon" from exceeding "c" for long.

   We discuss the widely held beliefs that "the naturalist world" is "dualistic," "paradoxical," "contradictory," "indeterminate" at some level, (as if it had some natural "flaws").  But we conclude that it is, instead, the approach of many scientists that is "flawed", and thus nature just looks flawed to them.  We discuss the history of this human flaw and its sad continued escalation.

PART 1 (Dualism, Paradoxes, Inconsistencies: In "Nature"?, or rather in Humans?)

 During Newton's time, there was extremely great progress made in precisely calculating and predicting major world events, including various motions.  But that progress was made at a very heavy future "cost", as Newton likely realized in his later years!

 Let me give a somewhat oversimplified, but fair, example. Essentially, the "algorithm" of the powerful, useful, and predictive "Law of Gravity" goes like this:

1.      Imagine two bodies of masses in otherwise pure empty space.

2.      Imagine a "pulling line or string between them".

3.      The pulling force of attraction, that thus naturally arises, is proportional to the product of each body's internal mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Thus scientists need NOT ever contemplate what else, besides the bodies, is also in space that is really causing the so-called pull!¹)

Historically, the math and the associated simple "images," and their applications were learned and developed to the hilt, and justifiably.  But in my opinion, an equally important lesson was entirely missed by most people, along with a worsening omen for future generations when it continued to be ignored.²  It was this: Humans had moved into an age in which their powerful, useful and predictive "imagining" and math would be match by another great, but sad, truth: That such imaging was utterly as far away from the actual realities of the real world as bad luck could have it!  And if that ((the underlined (problems) in 1, 2, and 3 above)) continued to be ignored, or only superficially addressed, humans would encounter this: The great frustration of seemingly continued intractable "paradoxes", "dualisms", "inconsistencies" and vexing behaviors of nature. And humans, of course, would blame that on nature, not on themselves, as the problems continued!  Some people would even finally run away from any real concept of  "cause-effect", and just embrace a world of mathematical abstraction and statistics!  Others would devise "glib", evasive terms to obfuscate the problems, and further fill an already bulging scientific dictionary.

These types of problems actually arose in certain other fields, such as politics, but Thomas Paine successfully addressed it there.  He wrote:  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."  "It is by tracing things to their origin that we learn to understand them, and it is by keeping that origin always in view that we never forget them".

And he wrote about "kings" (although it applies also to "pulling lines", and "field images" in "so-called 'empty' space"):  "Although kings are of our creation, they have become the gods of their creator". ³

 In this article, I will do my best, to separate what I decipher to be the "Real", from the extremely effective (but erroneous) imaging, i.e., field lines and associated math, so-called "empty space"-- things which after long habitual use, merely seems "real".  Of course, I, too, can error, regarding details; and what is regarded as nearly unquestionable scientific truth might change.  But I think the reader will be able to understand my arguments and my conclusions.

   What follows is tedious and may be boring. The readers should consider skipping to Summary and Conclusions or to "A Major Question Formulated", or may continue with the below, etc.

Optional  Comments:

   In my article, I use a simplistic, materialistic approach.  Thus, I hope to uncover a few basic realities, and to construct a mechanical analogue for a few of light's actions.  Laplace and Maxwell were far more capable than I am.  But they lacked some modern experimental evidence.  This evidence should now be mixed in with their spirit of inquiry, and conclusions drawn.  (I consider light to be a very complicated, multifaceted, subtle, and difficult subject, and I will only try to address the "bare bones basics".)

Intro/Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Conclusions | References | Illustrations| Home

(Readers’ comments always welcome)
For my Email and address, see my Homepage