Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Photons or wave train? The error of Alain Aspect.

  1. #1 Photons or wave train? The error of Alain Aspect. 
    Forum Freshman regel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    8
    In 1986 the French physicists Grangier, Roger and Aspect have made the decisive experiment to give the direct answer to a key question of quantum physics does the light consist of photons or of wave trains?

    In this experiment the radiation passed through "beam-splitter": semitransparent mirror BS which divided it on two equal parts, each registered by it's own detector (PM). If light consists of particles photons, such particle can or pass through mirror, or be reflected from it: consequently the photon cannot get on both PM at once. If light consists from wave trains, each train will be divided by the mirror on two equal parts which will get on both detectors simultaneously.

    Coincidence counting rate observed in experiment was almost 10 times less the value calculated from wave hypothesis and could be entirely attributed to casual impositions of starting impulses. Thereby authors make unequivocal conclusion: the light is a stream of the localised particles photons which cannot be shared on parts.

    However this experiment contains essential defect to which sufficient attention has not been paid till now.

    The fundamental silent assumption has place at the heart of an experiment idea, which in itself requires experimental proof. The question of existence of corpuscular photon demands to pay the attention to the question of existence of corpuscular electron.

    Two hypotheses: about localised electron and about a continuous electron field lead to different conclusions about structure of radiation. If indivisible electron really exists it wholly participates in each act of emission. By this electron transition the train of electromagnetic field will be emitted with integral intensity always equal to one. Alan Aspect with co-authors have accepted this assumption without any discussion of other possibility which however has decisive influence on interpretation of their experiment.

    If the electron-corpuscle does not exist, but only an electron field exists, the small part of electron "cloud" can transit on upper level. By transition of this part to the lower level an electromagnetic train of small intensity will be emitted. That will lead to reduction of a theoretical estimation of coincidence probability for one such train.

    The method of source exiting in this experiment had had consequence very small population of upper level. Taking into account this factor, expecting coincidence rate was many orders less than noise level.

    Principal conclusion from our reasoning: the question about photon existence remains open. More detailed see
    http://www.regels.org/Alain-Aspect-mistake.htm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    I never subscribed to the particle model of light. Photons do not exist. I am proud of myself for coming to this conclusion. Light is a wave, and its medium is the Ether. Physics has gone down a rugged path since rejecting the Ether, and it is certainly time to restore it. You seem to show no regard for the Ether whatsoever, but at least you have doubt towards the concept of the photon. That is a good start.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman regel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    8
    I'm very glad!
    See also my hypothesis about vacuum structure:
    http://www.regels.org/vacuum-structure.htm
    And about electron wave field:
    http://www.regels.org/what-is-electron.htm

    Here is also my post about division of electron train - 21 Jan. and other topic on "Physics' - 10 Feb.

    What's your opinion?
    I'm believed only hadrons are true localized particles (in realm of it's seize).
    We can divide photon and electron train, but we can never divide the neutron or proton.
    These problem are not speculative.
    "His Majesty Experiment" only may decise such questions!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman regel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    8
    Is there some mistake?
    I had removed this post to "Physics", but it appeard also here again.
    I don't want to violate the forum rules and to place the same post twice.
    It is technical (not quantum :-D) "entanglement".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by regel
    Is there some mistake?
    I had removed this post to "Physics", but it appeard also here again.
    I don't want to violate the forum rules and to place the same post twice.
    It is technical (not quantum :-D) "entanglement".
    New ideas, if they have some power as hypotheses, should be posted in this forum. The main forums are primarily for discussing and understanding established science. If your thread has been moved and you feel that is incorrect, you can appeal to the moderator of the forum or open a thread on Site Feedback. You should not make repeat posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •