Null-Hypothesis - A series where I present scientific evidence against a mainstream scientific theory.

How strong is the evidence for and against the theory?

## Do photons really exist?

Einstein delivered evidence for photons via the Photoelectric effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

He extended this the photons to force-carriers.

In his model the photons carry the electric and magnetic force, and momentum.

That is was all before the quantum mechanics were discovered.

**Problem: Photons can not be force-carriers**

For photons to carry force, there is a huge problem:

a. There are no photons in a static field.

b. Photons are packages, while a field is and must be continuous even on the smallest level.
Otherwise electrons would simply fall from the atoms.

c. Photons carry magnetic field, but at the same time they don't.

**Solving the problems**

To solve problem c, Einstein used his special relativity, where time and space
stand still for all photons.

To solve problem b, the Quantum Mechanics was used.
Now photons can also be seen as waves.

To solve problem a, the Quantum Electro Dynamics invented virtual photons.

These photons do not really exist, but they are necessary anyway.

**What does quantum mechanics say?**

All experiments show that photons are ALWAYS waves,
until they are detected.

Here is a video about it.

The problem with Quantum Measurement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be3HlA_9968

This leads many scientists to the conclusion:
There are no particles, there are only fields

**The problem with quantum fields**

They use fields to create particles and virtual particles,
and these again carry the forces.
As I understand it, the QFT is an extension of QED, mostly mathematical,
not a replacement.

Due to the QED, the particles need to be at many places at the same time,
so the scientists introduce Multiple worlds that interact with each other.
But also they do not think that these multiple worlds really exist.

And looking at the maths and graphs, it is clear that the multiple worlds
just stand for the different paths that the particles take in theory.

So what if this theory is just wrong?

We can see that QED gives
both the best and worst prediction in science (Veritasium)

That is worse than a clock standing still, something is clearly wrong. What could that be?

**What if there is no photon?**

This would get rid of **ALL problems**, except for Einstein's theory of the photo-electric effect.

So what if there is an alternative for electrons accepting the energy of an electromagnetic wave?

**The No-particle interpretation**

Now something you probably never heard of...

Max Plank had a working simple interpretation that solves the measurement problem.

It is the simplest explanation that still matches with observations!

Sadly it has been forgotten or misinterpreted. It is not even talked about, But I think it is very interesting, because you have to step back and think simple before you start to introduce magical worlds or magical waves.

The theory is called the Loading theory. It places a hidden variable in the detector /detection of the particle: the energy level. It is like atoms are like buckets that fill up with water (or energy). When the bucket reaches a level, we can see a change in the atom. Plank also made one mistake, because he did not assume random beginning conditions. With random starting conditions, it is also called the Threshold-model. We can actually see this loading when super-conductors change state.

It works easiest with light. The loading theory means that the quantum of energy spreads equally, like waves, over all atoms. This is equal to what we observe in most conditions. The energy increases the energy-level of the electrons of the atom, if the light-energy match in frequency with the electron-energy.

When the energy-level at a certain atom /electron reaches a certain threshold level, the electron moves to a new energy state. This is what can be detected as a quantum-jump. And this jump can be interpreted as a particle.

Example:

```
0 9 1 8 2 7 3 6 4 5 - initial hidden state of atoms/electrons
1 X 2 9 3 8 4 7 5 6 - hidden state after receiving photon energy.
0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - atom reaches threshold of 10. = "Photon" detected.
```

The interpretation gives same results in most experiments, where there is one emitter of "photons". But experiments also contain noise, where no "photon" were detected, or that two "photons" were detected. Until you start using high energy light-packets. In that case you the detection of two "photons" is suddenly much larger.

So this means that there might be some good evidence for the Loading interpretation. The experiments with particles emitters also give double detections, which is a bit more confusing, because we still WANT to see these as particles. But maybe they are not.

For those interested the experiments are at: http://www.thresholdmodel.com

I do not think that the experimenter is very good at explaining, but I could not see anything wrong with his experiments and interpretation. My preference for this interpretation, is the pure simplicity.

**Problems with the no-photon theory**

What about the other particles, like electrons? In experiments we can see
that they behave like waves, and we can also detect the threshold effect with particles from nuclear decay.

Solid?

The loading theory tells that everything is just waves.
But it must end somewhere, because the world around us is pretty solid.

The Loading theory does not explain why matter is solid.

What are Thresholds?

What is a threshold? Where is it placed?

Are there different thresholds, or even other factors?

**Possible solution**

In superconductors we see small rings where electrons are in a super-conducting state. In other simulations we see that such rings can also store energy, and grow to a different state when there is enough energy.

So a threshold can just be a storage ring of energy. A ring that is resonating with itself. This is what we see in superconductor tests.

In an atom the ring might be a sphere as well. This needs to be researched.

And solid matter can just be a group of storage containers that resonate together.

**Staring at atoms**

Now let's study real atom scans with the idea of storage-rings and resonating structures in mind.

Here is a movie about atoms, made by IBM.

There is clearly some kind of wave resonance between the atoms.

Can you see atoms?

The atomic structure is very very straight. As if they are in exact resonance.

Crystal grows one atomic layer at a time

Again we see some kind of resonance, where atoms seem to form before they are really there.
It might be a side effect of the scan.

Watch gold atoms merge under microscope

We see a whole structure merging. As if they move from one resonance to the other.

Jumping atoms on the silicon surface

The silicon is not so solid as it seems. The movement may come from exchanges between storages.

**Future research**

There is still a lot of research needed into this direction.

And maybe I presented some information wrong.

But I think it has more science than the popular proposed alternatives:

It needs NO MAGIC. No magic pilot-waves, nor magic strings, nor magic worlds, nor magic consciousness. It is the simplest alternative.

And on scientific grounds everything with magic is just pseudo-science, until this option has been fully researched.

Note: I personally like magic interpretations. But objectively this is the best scientific solution.

**Discussion**

What do you think?

Do photons exist or is the Null-Hypothesis stronger?

What about the other "particles"?

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (18 children)

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (9 children)

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (8 children)

[–]LishLash 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (6 children)

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (7 children)

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (6 children)

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (5 children)

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)