A Really Big Bang?

This physically undefined dual nature of photons is precisely what we're debating. I agree with you when you say "a wave is simply an organized movement of its constituents". When dealing with a beam of light theres no problem. Those constituents are the individual photons But once we reduce the intensity of that beam down to a single photon we run into trouble. Where are those constituents? We can't seem to break the photon down into smaller pieces. It's quantized.
My "Spooky Particles" post is actually addressing this same issue. When a photon is emmitted from whatever source, its "probability" wave function spreads out as described by the Schrodinger equation.The quantum amplitude describes the probability of the photon "being detected" at a particular place. But it doesn't actually tel us where it IS. French and Taylor also prefer to not jump to conclusions and accepts that we can't really say where it is I don't like the term probability. It suggests that the particle either went through slit a or b.The interference pattern to me is absolute proof that it's not a little point particle, its a wave. BUT if it really IS spread out over a volume of space (and this volume could be a billion lr spherical shell) how can all its energy be suddenly be captured on a single spot of a screen. The entire wave function "collpses", not at the speed of light, but instantly!
The only logically consistent solution I can imagine is accepting that it does collapse instantly. But I cherish Einstein's views too much to accept that conclusion so easily. But nonetheless I do believe their MUST be a proper solution.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The bundle needs to be researched<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>I agree Jim. What IS this "bundle" they talk about. In my day they called it a "wave packet" (correct me if we're not taling about the same thing). It's a convenient way of avoiding giving it a proper definition. On the one hand it's a single unit, "a" bundle. But whats IN the bundle. The "constitituents".
Tom, you say light is a pure wave. But you also said a wave is made up of organized constituents. When looking at a single photon, what are its organized constituents? What's inside the bundle!

The Planck bundle is an exact count of photons weather they are a wave or particle. But, the Planck bundle is not a photon and I think this is a very important detail that needs to be researched.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[SpaceMan]: When looking at a single photon, what are its organized constituents? What's inside the bundle!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The mystery disappears if you view light as a pure wave. Then a "single photon" means a singlet wave. It has propagation speed, wavelength, frequency, energy, momentum, amplitude, and intensity. A photon detector anywhere along the wavefront will register a single-photon response.

The "constituents" of this singlet wave are "elysons", the entities comprising the light-carrying medium or elysium. They are analogous to water molecules in an ocean wave. In particular, they are so small compared to the singlet wave that they are of no interest for interpreting existing experiments.

That wave-function collapse is far from instantaneous. Experiments show that light must act on a screen or detector for a time of order 10 nanoseconds before a single photoelectron can be ejected. That remains true no matter how bright or faint the light is (wave amplitude). If the light frequency is wrong, no photoelectron will ever be ejected. If the light frequency is resonant with the electron's "orbital" frequency, the electron will be ejected after about 10 ns. Changing intensity does not alter this delay.

Viable models must address all experimental constraints. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>-Myself- The wave properties you're refering to, such as intensity and amplitude, simply don't EXIST in the quantum world.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Allow me to correct myself for making such an unproven dogmatic statement. "They have never been DETECTED."
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The "constituents" of this singlet wave are "elysons", the entities comprising the light-carrying medium or elysium. They are analogous to water molecules in an ocean wave.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>I'll go for that. But you're opening up a pretty big can of worms. Questions:

1)Where are they? You've said they're too small, how small. With enough 1/2 mirrors or enough slits we can divide the photon up as much as we want into quantum amplitudes. If there IS a finite number of elysons per singlet, that can in theory be experimentally proven.
2)Unlike water, they behave as a wave singlet. What force binds them together?
3)Size: Are they points? Are they waves? Something different?
4)Determinism? How does it decide where to collapse?
5)Can the singlet be divided? If not, why not?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Experiments show that light must act on a screen or detector for a time of order 10 nanoseconds before a single photoelectron can be ejected.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Does the time increase with increased distance between source and detector? If so, the wave of a photon from a distant star would take a very long time to collapse. If this delay corresponds to the time for the message to get around to say "hey, I decided we're going to collapse here", at what speed does this message travel at, and how is it propagated?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Experiments show that light must act on a screen or detector for a time of order 10 nanoseconds before a single photoelectron can be ejected.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"Fact: no detectable time lag has ever been measured. No matter how dim the light is, as long as f ³ f0 there are photoelectrons being ejected immediately."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>This is a direct quote from a Santa Monica College website. Every site I found emphatically says there is NO delay. Where on earth are you getting your "facts" from? Please give me a link to one single reputable source that says "Experiments show" this. The amplitude you claimed was common knowledge now turns out in fact to be your hypothetical Elysons. You cannot present your theories and other controversial ideas as accepted fact.