On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem

Describe the volumetric shape of a 'photon'.

John your question seems to presume that the photon is like a solid object, We do not know that. it is an amount of energy. I have proposed that it is a disturbance of the base existence. It moves at the speed of light in a vacuum. Slightly slower when passing through an other medium. That makes saying where one is problematic. Like the fastest cake in the world- Scone (said quickly with a northern English dialect.) They have to be intercepted to say where one was. I've read visible light has a wavelength of 380 to 700nm. So very tiny but very nippy.

A photon prior to detection is not a phenomenon. I used to think a phenomenon is just something that happens. It is not. It is something apparent through sense or senses; "observed to exist or happen" Oxford languages. Instead the undetected photon is a noumenon, beable, an actualization using my own terminology; a thing that exists independently of observation or measurement. Spacetime models the experience of phenomena.

Georgina,

I do understand your imperative to classify terminology, and I also have referred to common English language definitions to qualify in discussion what I mean. However, I think that it is counterproductive to impose a personalized scheme of new words on what the conventions of scientific discourse have long established. Various words are often argued in qualification, and there is often disagreement as to what duly constitutes what some word might be. Such it is with "phenomenon", which one might argue as an existential event or physical entity whether it is observed or not, while others will argue that all exists in a coherent state of superposition until an actual measurement is made. You are of course free to make up your own paradigm as you engage your thought and evolve conclusions, just keep in mind that to communicate your thoughts it will require that you must assume the pedagogical role to explain word usage that resolve back to meanings that others already customarily use.

As to my preferred paradigm and my simple challenge, 'Describe the volumetric shape of a photon'... I refer you and Dr. Agnew back to the thread in this topic started by R. McEachern with 3 replies shown and 28 hidden, and my two posts on May 23 @ 13:55 and 14:37. That's not the whole model but it certainly goes beyond Maxwell, though I doubt any of us follows every post of everbody else and I don't expect Dr. Agnew to pay much attention to me.

I'm going to take a break for a while, I have some time sensitive matters which by necessity and legal practicality I must be catching up. best to all for now...jrc

phenomenon Wikipedia" thing appearing to view'; plural phenomena) is an observable fact or event. The term came into its modern philosophical usage through Immanuel Kant, who contrasted it with the noumenon, which cannot be directly observed".

I have not made up my own meaning of the word 'phenomenon'. As I said I used to misunderstand it.

Photon of EM radiation is a noumenon.

Flash of light in a darkened room and click of a photomultiplier are phenomena that might also be refeed to as a photon. Those phenomena are observations that show the photon had existence.

The volumetric shape of the photon depends on the photon spectrum and can vary quite a bit. In the transform limit, a sinc pulse defines both the time volume as well as the frequency volume spectra.

There are both electric and magnetic field oscillations for a photon and a photon can carry information as both amplitude and phase, or intensity and polarization.Attachment #1: photonOscillation.JPGAttachment #2: photonTransformLimit.JPG

Steve Agnew, it is interesting all this about the volumes, I consider them very important in my theory. That can be relevant to consider the general volume that we observe and link with the series that I explained. The proportions can be ranked in function of many parameters. The external parameters like the parameters inside these photons . If the volumetric shape preserves the volume but changes, it becomes interesting about the main causes implying this.

The holograms of photons can be of course considered with the phases , amplitudes and wavefunctions. The informations so can be studied .It is like the interferometric analysis if my memory is correct. But there is a difference with the columes of holograms and the real shape volumic of these photons but they converge probably if we knew what is really a photon. We have the same problem with the electrons, we don t know what they are really like foundamental mathematical and physical objects, but we see properties and if we find the good partitions and if we knew what they are really, it d be very relevant to improve the technologies of these photons . They are for me series of 3D spheres and not strings or points oscillating. If the volumes of these spheres are essential and that their number is very important, so the properties are incredible also considering their motions rotations oscillations. We must maybe differenciate the informations considering the 3 main systems that I considered, the real informations to reach a real quantum computer universal must consider probably qutrits and the informations in this space vacuum of the DE. It is there that the holograms become relevant to converge with the volumes of space for the computation but in going farer than just with photons.The spherical volumes of these 3 primordial series must be the key at my humble opinion. It is there that the strings and spheres conjecture appear and we don t really need lower dimensions or extradimensions, just the 3D spherical volumes can be sufficient and we can consider the gravitational bridges because this force is the main chief orchestra. Like I said in my model I have reached this quantum gravitation and the holographic principle and the strings were not necessary but the 3 series yes in a pure 3D , that is why we must return at this old school for the propertions and properties of these Spheres simply. Yang Mills , the ADS CFT correspondence, the strings, the Mtheory, the E8.....are not necessary to quantify this QG. Furthermore a fith force appears considering this space vacuum possessing the main codes encoding the two fuels....

"... a photon can carry information as both amplitude and phase, or intensity and polarization" Steve Agnew

A single photon is either detected or isn't. Intensity portrayed by amplitude relate to how many photons. If many photons strike the retina of an observer it will appear to be brighter than when only a few photons are being received, Photons can have different energies portrayed as different frequencies. Different individual photoreceptor cells each respond to a particular frequency or range of frequencies.

Georgina,

How about this as a semantic bridge between philosophy and science terminology:

Your link to experimental efforts towards observation of an actual realistic shape of a photon is quite relevant and there are a few efforts I've come across over time that seek to isolate a single photon, the most recent was a credentialed protected source at U. of Maryland several years ago which claimed empirical success down to 4 photons.

In experimental physics, there is such a thing as "confounding variables" as opposed to "hidden variables" in theoretical parlance. Such can be illustrated by the clear implication of the photoelectric equation (e=hf) that any single wavelet will carry the Planck value quantity of energy, so it suggests a model of a wavetrain of same frequency solotons is the physical phenomenon of EMR and that intensity is confused with rapidity of of energetic transfer in an experimental regimen that only counts time span on the detector and assimilates multiple wavetrains as one. Conventionally there is the std model that the photon is a single entity, These are conflicting views but as of yet no experiment satisfies the dispute; hence we lack a definitive result.

So, okay, Kant's definition of noumenon rather than phenomenon could apply. Yes EMR is existential as a phenomenon but as yet is not predictably explained in an experiment based model. Does that distinction satisfy your criteria? jrc

p.s. Steve D's recognition that if the volume remains constant to any frequency of EM but the shape changes is, I think, quite important. And I myself found years ago that just following the math as I modeled an e=hf wavetrain, produced a constant volume across all frequencies. (My pet, but I'm not satisfied that its paper trained yet)

This reference is really quite good, but unfortunately, does not include spectral as well as temporal photon plots. The photon is an oscillation in space and time and so photon volume is likewise an oscillation in space and time.

Is that okay? Classically, there is no classical photon, only semiclassical. But photon volume only makes quantum sense as electric field amplitude and polarization or as the orthogonal magnetic field amplitude and polarization.

For an unpolarized single photon, the electric field has both polarizations with uncorrelated phase and so photon electric field volume is an nice average of those oscillations.

For a linearly polarized photon, there is much less width to the photon volume, but of course, never a zero width. Therefore all photons have an electric field volume as well as a magnetic field volume that oscillates in time.

Hello Georgina and John,

Thanks John, I beleive indeed strongly that the volumes are important and the poincare conjecture more a conjecture of a pure volumic 3D preserved could be a key at my humble opinion. The strings could converge even and an other point that I utilise in my theory is instead of a ricci flow for the deformations the symplectomorphsims preserving these volumes. That could be relevant to correlate the external and internal causes in differenciating the GR and the space vacuum coded.It is there that my humble theory could converge between the geometrical algebras of lie, clifford or hopf considering the vectors, tensors, scalars with points or strings and the GR and my model with the space vacuum , the 3D spheres, the two fuels encoded and the spherical topologicval geometrical algebras. In resume, what we observe and measure and extrapolate with the strings, geom alg, the GR can permit by a kind of holography to reach my 3D spheres and the space vacuum , the dark matter and the quantum gravitation. There is like a conjecture and a bridge if I can say in logic. Friendly

Doc,

Ahh! I get what you mean by 'there is no classical photon'. True enough in that by the book, classicism treats light (EMR) as a transverse wave which conflicts with the observed LOS photoelectric effect. So 'semi-classical' I guess will have to do.

Could you elaborate on "an unpolarized photon", wouldn't there be an attendant magnetic field which is simply undifferentiated by lack of an axial rotation? Such ideas are of course conjectural, but may be clues to sorting out the confusion of the Transition Zone. jrc

Steve Agnew, Like I am curious and that we are on a relevant transparent platform, what is for you a photon ? a string in this GR, a point , and if yes why ? and also what is the philosophical origin of this universe for you, do you consider only the photons like primoridal essence and this GR oscillating and if yes why ? thanks , regards

Steve D.

Are you asking? ...."an oscillation (of what?) in space and time"? or "an oscillation of spacetime?"

If we accept GR field equations in its terms of a stress energy tensor, then the field is raw energy that can be conceived of as continuously coming into being as a consequence of what mathematically we would describe as the difference between a straight line and a curved line, hence the tighter the curvature the higher the stress energy.

Semi-Classically (3D) the energy field could be deemed primordial and an oscillation of which would satisfy the question "of what" in Steve Agnew's nicely written brief. His distinction of a linearly polarized photon is provocative, and I agree with you that this discussion is opening some contextually good avenues of approach to modeling the characteristics of EM observations to a physical shaping of a theoretical photon. The possible axial rotation of a soloton and the directional vector of electric field on its surface might produce a rationale for that physical rotation, rotating from the orthogonal to linear (as we speak of a conical section rotating) polarization dependent on the emission source. jrc

These are some very interesting questions that do relate to understanding the universe. An unpolarized photon has no meaning in a determinate universe since every photon has a well defined polarization before any measurement.

The quantum reality is that even a single photon can be unpolarized and the measurement of a single photon polarization actually results in either of two polarizations. This cruel quantum logic limits what we can know about quantum precursors for quantum outcomes.

A photon is a quantum superposition of two polarization states and when those two polarizations share quantum phase, the photon is polarized. When the quantum phases of the two polarizations are not coherent, the photon is unpolarized. Of course, there are many degrees of depolarization just as there are elliptical as well as circular and linear polarizations.

There is a magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field and each polarization. Note that certain combinations of amplitude and polarization can result in a dark photon due to destructive interference. The question then becomes where does the photon energy disappear to?

Just like a photon can be transform limited as a sinc pulse in time and frequency, the universe is a 13.4 Byr sinc pulse in time made up of 1e125 sinc pulses of aether in frequency. So the photon Fourier transform limit also reflects the universe Fourier transform limit...

John,

the EMR is existential. We agree on that, there is evidence from its effects. A photon of EMr isn't the "thing appearing to view" For a visible light photon. the effect could be a seen flash of light. Generated from the signal sent by a stimulated photoreceptor cell. That effect is a phenomenon; known by the observer, who might call the experience seeing a photon. It is the knowable effect not the Source noumenon, the particle entity. Re. quantum experiments: Starting with the noumenon entity, a relation is formed with it and a property born from that relationship, that specific perspective, is revealed by generation of a knowable phenomenon. Eg, exposure of a film emulsion or click of a photomultiplier. Relevant to the measurement problem.

Steve A.

Nice! "The question then becomes where does the photon energy disappear to?"

I like to think that the gravitational field is another c proportional difference in potential intensity or physical density, from that same proportional difference between electric and magnetic. So IF a photon is an envelope of gravitationally bound energy in a self reinforcing wave (soloton) the phase drft resulting in destructive interferrence of the electromagnetic influence, might not destroy the gravitational bound. It becomes 'dark' and not detectable but would still follow a gravitational worldline. In common aggregate emission it would be like the zero's mathematical property of a place keeper.