[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Between our models there is a choice of :-

• Null and !Null
• Uncreated and Always been there.

There are arguments for and against both of them.

I don't see how. Uncreated and always been there are identical statements, are they not?

The model that I'm am trying to get across is one in which the Fundemental Substance is just that, a substance. No more, No less.
The fact that I have labelled it photonic is because that is what we have called the individual quanta in our paradigm.
At the most fundemental level it is not Energy, as we know it, it is just substance.

Here, I make no absolute fundamental differentiation between energy and substance, as energy absolutely must be substance in motion, to exist, in the first place. This distinction may be what is throwing our discussion in differing directions. Energy can never exist, without being some form of fundamental substance___This is a scientific physical fact... Of course, I realize at the same time, we do differentiate linguistically, to make language understanding possible...

Current physics has them as having no mass, and who am I to disagree with current physics.

Then, don't you recognize the problem, right here, with current physics, being the true blockade to deeper understandings and interpretations at all these fundamental levels. I recognized this years ago, and have mentioned rectifying it first, so further discussion, at the deeper fundamental levels, is even possible. Absolutely scientifically, all and any, matter in motion, is absolutely required to have, at the least, a minimal mass___The physics books need to be re-done, at this level. Just because it doesn't mathematically matter, to overall quantum theory, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to absolute fundamental theory___Correct?

The uncertainty principle is to do with position and momentum, not size and shape. If you were to shine a red light towards a receptor, there is no uncertainty about the packets of energy that would be detected at the receptor, you can be fairly sure they would be the appropriate size for red light.

But you've already said photons were all of one size, in your theory? And further, this still gives us no size of an individual photon, only its packet energy is known___Correct?

I've lost count of how many times I've said this. A single photon does not have a frequency. To have a frequency you would have to measure two photons and determine how far apart they were.

I don't think I've disputed that fact, have I?

You require multiple photons.
I'm trying to figure out what one photon does.

I think we can only truly absolutely understand them in mass, i.e., packets of, or theoretically only, individually...

You have varying different types of energy; light, heat etc.
I'm trying to figure out why we call this substance Energy in the first place.

That's just a straight linguistics problem existing in physics. Too many definitions are required to describe all physics actions completely. Energy is always absolutely, fundamentally, "Substance In Motion"___Always!!!

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
Since I absolutely know you can't accurately, mechanically, describe a photon, where do we go from Here?

That's a very bold statement to make. PB

Then you supply the absolute mechanics of photon on photon action, size, velocity, temps, etc., whatever___On and on?

What's the absolute fundamental prime mover in your model? I'm waiting...

Lloyd

p.s.
Steven, type this into google and have a gander... Naomi S.Ginsberg, Sean R.Garner, Christopher Slowe, Zachary Dutton - Check all the related articles... Hau Lab and others... Most recent light stopping discoveries...