N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear Rob:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> A discrete behavior obviates any "subcontinuum" upon which the
> discrete behavior needs to look like a photon.
What if the "substratum" is also discontinuous, rather than continuous,
as in the case of water which is has substratum of discrete particles
that supports wave behavior. In general, a discrete stratum above may
rule out a perfectly continuous substratum below, but it does not rule
out other types of substratum. This is a very important concept, and
failure to fully understand it can lead to all sorts of erroneous
assumptions about what is possible and what is not.
>> 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.
But I have seen recent articles in physics journals, including very
careful ones like The American Journal of Physics which makes a great
effort to avoid dubious physics, that point out that the photoelectric
effect can be explained without the photon concept, although the photon
model is still the most favored explanation. I am quite happy to live
with concepts like photons and solitons.
More importantly, the photoelectric effect results do not rule out the
type of subquantum substratum I favor.
> > 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.
> 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.
WHAT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE!
Oh, sorry for the outburst,