"Rob" <rloldershaw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> I would like to suggest 2 ground rules that will
> make for a better discussion.
> 1. We should avoid incorrect attributions like "since
> you are obviating the photon". I have as yet not
> mentioned the photon, but that hardly justifies the
> assertion that I want to get rid of the whole photon
You wish to supply tiny charged particles to supply the effect we
call light. You *are* obviating the photon, since "photon" is
simply a label for a specific set of properties.
> To be honest, I see no inherent problem with
> retaining wave behavior, discrete photon-like
> phenomena and a substratum of subquantum
A discrete behavior obviates any "subcontinuum" upon which the
discrete behavior needs to look like a photon.
> 2. What I am proposing is very speculative since
> the action takes place at or below the limits of our
> current ability to observe in detail the putative
> particles and phenomena (although the recent and
> surprising behavior of electrons in graphene has
> certainly not escaped my attention!). The question
> is not: "Is this the way nature is?" The question is:
> "Could nature be this way?" If we are going to say
> "No!", then we must offer some concrete
> observational evidence for this total rejection of the
> idea. Mere opinion is not scientifically adequate for
> such a conclusion. Neither are arguments which
> are based on equally speculative theoretical
> So let's try again. Are there definite, repeatable
> experiments or observations that falsify the concept
> of a subquantum scale in nature?
Photoelectric effect does not permit any sort of continuum wave.
> If so what are the best one or two empirically
> verifiable falsifications? Or is the rejection of this
> concept based on one of the following? (1) I just
> don't like the idea; it's kind of creepy.
> (2) That's not what my teachers taught me.
> (3) That's not what is printed in Nature or Physics
> Review Letters.
> (4) It violates common sense.
No. It does not agree with experimental evidence. Now what you
are proposing is very close to "virtual photons"; except they are
of exactly zero size, have no net charge (even though they are
responsible for carrying charge effects between charged
particles), and also have no mass.
> In the spirit of free scientific questioning, where
> egos are left behind,
Let's see if you can do as you require of others.
David A. Smith