In the first paper an experiment is set out, with the usual results predicted. The explanation of why those results are going to be obtained is different; fitting the hypothesis. Leading to the conclusions: The photon splitting proposition can be used for prediction and explanation. As a viable alternative to use of superposition. Interaction free detection is a misnomer. Re D detector's detection. I haven't clearly stated that destructive interference is lost and that's why a detection can be made.

In the second paper a new experiment is given, Three possible outcomes are stated. 1 and 3 supportive of the hypothesis, 2 is not. No prediction is given. My prediction is outcome 3. This apparatus allows discerning of a photon that is detected as such but is incomplete from n entire photon. The former is shown not to just be an ordinary photon in particle state, by its subsequent behaviour past next 1/2 mirror.

Simply, an entire photon will behave the same each time it encounters a half silvered mirror; having the capability of being subsequently found to express a wave interference pattern when tested. This will be so if an un-reunited photon is entire but just in a definite particle state. The cut photon body, on the other hand, that has not been reunited with the severed sub photon member has permanently lost the ability to be found showing wave interference. So it is made to encounter another half silvered mirror after the first and prevention of reunion. No wave interference pattern when paths are joined.

Even if the hypothesis is wrong , the experiment is demonstrating photon nature; making it valuable demonstration tool.

About outcome 2. interference is obtained after path joining at second interferometer with non re-united photon input. The photons are not behaving as if they have some part missing, responsible for the interference pattern being formed. Does not support photon partition hypothesis. However the partition could be into an indivisible photon and its separable environmental effect. No interference if paths not joined. However the environmental effect can regenerate and participate in future separation and reunion; giving interference pattern. In that case the name 'sub photon guest' (of the photon) seems more fitting than 'sub photon member'. Same argument re interaction free testing, only using the guest model. So too explanation of seeming non local effect when an opaque barrier is put in one of the paths instead, preventing destructive interference. Only using the sub photon guest model, instead of the sub photon member.

Are Photons Fundamental and Indivisible? https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0034

Outcome 2 or is the difference between having sub photon guests or members being separated from the photon body. How to show the presence of guest/members rather than non local photons in superposition: Make a detector by passing photons though half silvered mirror and not reuniting paths. Then join with path from a different half silvered mirror photon input encounter. Different from usual reunion giving interference every time. Now there can be 2 photon bodies brought together or two sub photon guests/members (probably not detectable) or one of each, body and guest/member. This should provide an identifiably different result.

Seems I upset Wolfgang by his reply on viXra. I shouldn't have said the apparatus [https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0034] is simple. I meant not unfeasibly complicated or prohibitively expensive. I think it is achievable but have no personal experience of setting up interferometers to draw on. Which is not saying I think it's not time consuming and not requiring some skill and effort. Do I expect it to be done for me/ No-I hope in time it will be done because its interesting and can be done.. Am I serious? Yes. I'm challenging the indivisibility of photons. Though not part of the paper even outcome 2 can be interpreted in a way that refutes conventional non locality and interaction free testing. A method for checking has been suggested, on this site, Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 9, 2022 @ 00:42 GMT.

Meaning, can amputation and transplantation be shown which is incompatible with the superposition model.

I've said I predict outcome 3 .That allows a definite is or is not as predicted. I'm actually torn between possible outcomes. I'd like experimental evidence.

Can amputation and transplantation be shown which is incompatible with the superposition model? I think the question is good. I'm having doubts about the method being able to tell, and the reasoning for it. However the superposition doesn't rely upon re-union, the photon partition or photon/'guest' partition does. Thinking caps on.

Revised Photon Partition hypothesis A photon is not fundamental and indivisible. It is divided into a photon body, which is localized and measurable as a photon particle; Also divided 'a' wave-like sub photon companion, that is not directly detectable. However the effect of the sub photon companion can be known, indicating its presence. The sub photon companion is divisible at double slits or beam-splitters, so it has non local existence. Accounting for non local effects such as, what has seemed to be interaction free testing and 'spooky' knowing when paths are blocked without passage of a photon body by that route to detect the blockage. Whether it's part of the photon itself or an environmental effect will be addressed. Photon behaviour is not the product solely of properties of the localized photon body. Reunion of the sub photon companion can result in wave interference that influences the trajectory of the photon body.

    The main difference here is that the sub photon companion is divisible. That makes it able to take both paths .So it can be the reason for non local effects (by one sub photon part being absorbed.) Or it can cause wave interference when reunited. This is a combination of localized photon body and non localiz-able sub photon. In this way wave-particle duality can be visualized as a physical reality not just an abstract idea.

    4 days later

    In my latest paper, submitted to viXra but I do not yet have a link, the revised Photon partition hypothesis is set out. Providing a physical embodiment of wave-particle existence. Three experiments are described: Young's double slit experiment on light, the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb thought experiment, a variation without a bomb but a path blocking light detector. A quantum physics description of how each experiments outcome happens is given. For comparison the photon partition hypothesis is used to describe how the results come about.

    I thought maybe I should look at describing how the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment outcomes come about. Sabine Hossenfelder has an informative video on it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U Which is basically showing the reaction to the results is 'a fuss about nothing'. She mentions at the end, the weirdness of the original double slit experiment and says she thinks the bomb experiment is far weirder than the quantum eraser. in the first half of my latest paper, I have given both the quantum physics and photon partition hypothesis explanation of the results both of these experiments; (the latter quashing the weirdness).

    Here, once again, we are dealing with a situation that doesn't have a simple black and white answer.

    The subtle difference between a wave and something influenced by a wave/ waves. Only the something influenced, (a localized existence, or element of noumenal realty) that is able to cause a detectable phenomenon.

    The wave by itself is not detectable. Because of that it is less than a photon (sub photon Companion). Known to be present because of its influence on the localized element of object reality ( or in some scenarios its separate non local presence can be inferred by the lack of detected influence.) Still, evidence of physically real interaction.

    Hello again, both Tom and Georgina,

    At great risk of setting off an 'Oh Hell NO!' reaction, both of your recent postings actually contribute to a matter near and dear to me. Modeling a realistic cyclic Wave/Particle soliton 'wavetrain' of EMR. One big metaphysical problem is an ontology that provides a gravitationally bound soliton that does NOT interact with (a manifold) other solitons, independent of wavelength. So the spacetime displacement model Tom has sketched out is workable. And Georgina, now you are getting serious! Good to see. I also conceive of a partition of a divisible Quanta, though I'll not discount efforts to quantize a partition of a whole Quantum. best wishes. jrc

    Hi John,

    Good to talk to you again. I am working to make this idea compelling, and I appreciate your vote of confidence.

    It is in broad agreement with Samir Mathur's 2021 1st prize winning essay in the Gravity Research Foundation competition, The Elastic Universe. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852e579be659442a01f27b8/t/609d5462d37887169927b065/1620923493922/Mathur_2021.pdf

    So far as Georgina's program goes, I think she is trying to redefine "quantum". I'm not into that, because if it's plausible, it takes too much work to prove mathematically, and I see no practical way to test it. It seems to me that a massless particle divides infinite times, and what's the use of that?

    Best,

    Tom

      Thanks, Zeeya. Much appreciated, though the title should be "radiation WITHOUT annihilation".