As if one ATM idea wasn't enough, I thought I throw out another idea to get some feedback.

While photons are THOUGHT to be "massless", they somehow carry momentum and we euphamistically refer to this ability to carry momentum as "effective mass". We also talk about SPIN as it relates to presumably "massless" particles. It seems to me that a very simple way to explain something as exotic as "dark matter" is to simply view photons as carriers of mass that interact with other forms of mass. It also gives us a meaningful way to explain "light" in terms of moving particles of mass. Any thoughts about this idea?

http://www.jhu.edu/news/home05/dec05/darkmatt.html

This was the article that caught my eye today. I find it odd that we can map suomething that exists but doesn't emit photons yet somehow affects them.

Hi Michael
I thought about photons as Dark Energy too. In my idea of Rotating Universe the energy is supplied from outside and if our visible Universe has flat geometry (near critical density) the most energy move around our Universe. We see only redshifted photons (CMBR) because this energetic layer flies from us with speed close to light. For an outside observer it moves very slowly (almost stays) like a distant Black Hole but for us inside this is like flying Event Horizon. This energy (photons ) cover the rest mass of galaxies.

The photons are collision-less but they are attracted gravitationally. I suppose the photons are denser near galaxy cluster (it is a huge mass) and might be a part of a Dark Matter.

The whole Dark Matter is a complex problem. There is to little photons for the whole Dark Matter – we observe ratio mass/light =~760 in our vicinity. May be there are locally more photons, any way every particle interacting gravitationally has its energy. Dark Matter clumps will cause a gravitational wave in our Solar System if it moves in Milky Way and we would surely observe it.

IMHO the Dark Matter are MACHOs interacting gravitationally with galaxy bulge and specific structure of layers and strings of the stars and clouds interacting via gravity and EM with each other.

We do? I've never heard a physicist refer to the momentum of a photon in those terms.

E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4

for a photon, having zero mass, this means that p = E/c. This works quite well for calculating conservation of momentum for radiation pressure in e.g. laser cooling applications.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

I seem to remember that some studies (from Nova, and i think I read something like this on a few Nasa sites) about light had revealed that light did have a finitley small amount of mass in the particle pair. And that the suposition for it's appearent 0 mass qualities is that the particle pairings of a photon are a positive mass particle and a negative mass particle, giving it a net mass of 0.

Is this still current?

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

I too believe that a photon is a pair of oppositely charge particles rotating around one another. They do in fact carry momentum from one place to another, and the particles involved have mass, it's just never "resting" mass since the pair remains in motion at all times. Still, the particles themselves would necessarily have "weight" and exert pressure on the things they run into.

Yes - please take the time to learn some quantum physics (you'll find that many of your ideas, as expressed here, are inconsistent with that branch of physics, which is among the most accurately tested of all in science), and please present something quantitative, at least at the OOM level, to show that this idea has at least a level of merit worthy of consideration (i.e. above the word-salad level).

You might like to read up on what some of the best physicists of the 20th century had to say about quantum physics (it's quite humbling), and then consider just how astonishingly remarkable a theory it is (in terms of the match between predictions and good observational and experimental results).

Oh, and can you provide us with something more than a personal feeling of 'oddness' - specifically, some match between your idea (post #1) and good observational results?

Excellent!

Please show that your idea about photons is consistent with good observational and experimental results. You may start with the 'two slit' experiment, if you choose.

Please be specific here Nereid since I disagree and I have no idea which QM ideas you feel this does not jive with. There are also a number of complexities here as to how surfaces give off WAVES of energy, not single photons. Think in terms of Bose Einstein Condensates at a subatomic level.

I think there will be a method to express this in mathematical terms, but first we will need to agree on the the THEORY, so you understand where I am coming from.

The first thing to understand that that I believe that individual photons are nothing more than oppositely spinning and oppositely charged particles that orbit around one another as they propogate through space time. They circle one another as they propogate through space time, creating a double helix like shape as they travel and orbit each other.

More commonly however, photons travel in PACKS or WAVES as in subatomic Bose Einstein Condensates. Only now are we beginning to have the ability to emit and recieve individual photons, but in doing so, we disturb the pair even by measuring it.

Ultimimately I firmly believe that all of this movement on the quantum level can be explained in good old 19th century physics combined with an understanding of QM. If you believe I have violated some aspect of QM or simple physics, by all means be specific and I will try to address your questions. First however we need to make sure we're both on the same "wavelength" about the basic ideas I am trying to convey. Keep in mind also that photons do exert pressure on things they run into. They carry momentum and therefore they carry mass. It's just we can really only see as small as a single photon, and we cannot yet "see" how it behaves as both particle and wave. I think you'll find this explanation fits very well into QM and good ol' 19th century physics.

Ok.

The first way this idea is consistent with observed behavior is that it explains how an individual photon can behave as both a particle and a wave. It is actually made of two particles and the pair orbit one another as they propagate through space time, creating a double helix like structure if you looked at the pair in 3D as it moved through space/time.

The two slit experiment typically involves "burst" or packages of waves. These bursts are themselves "waves" of individually charged particles that all orbit in a quantum packet. The fact there is interference shows that these are waves, much like subatomic Bose Einstein Condensates. As thy propogate through space time, they collide with things and pass their momentum into various atoms.

1) The concepts of 'mass', 'momentum', and 'spin' as applied to photons: it may be a good investment of your time to learn something about quantum mechanics, and enough of the math to understand how these concepts apply to 'the photon'. Along the way, you might also like to review the experimental work that has confirmed the massless nature of the photon, both by direct tests and by the vastly broader tests of the underlying theories (QM, SR).

2) If it may be meaningful 'to explain "light" in terms of moving particles of mass', as a way of addressing 'something as exotic as "dark matter"', then a simple check on the idea might be something like 'where is the biggest concentration of DM?' Per your idea, it should be in a place where there is an extremely high density of photons, and, conversely, you would expect a place with a very low density of photons to have very little 'DM'.

3) 'a number of complexities here as to how surfaces give off WAVES of energy, not single photons' - what does this mean? Specifically, please explain how this jives with QM.Yes, indeed.

Without the math, you have no theory (it's merely an idea).OK. Now, as I've already asked you, please show that this idea is consistent with the double slit experiment.

New question: please explain why photons are not deflected in a magnetic field (if, as you say, they comprise "oppositely spinning and oppositely charged particles"). You may use classical electromagnetism, or quantum theory (you choose).Good.

Please explain the observed results from double slit experiments performed so that the pattern on the screen is built up one photon at a time (and so there is never more than one photon in the whole apparatus at a time).Yes, you and Einstein.

Please provide a 'good old 19th century physics' solution to the EPR paradox.I believe that you have.

However, my attack on your idea isn't so much about your misunderstanding of basic physics, it's a set of questions about the consistency between your idea and the results of a very great number of very good experiments.Please provide an experimental test which is consistent with your claim 'therefore they carry mass'.Actually, it's a word salad, or, worse, nonsense.

The photon behaves just as it's described in QM; 'wave' and 'particle' are concepts which don't apply in QM. You may not like it that a theory which incorporates so much counter-intuitive stuff is so successful (= is consistent with good experimental results), but unless and until you can provide an alternative that is equally successful, ....

Indeed.

However, the experiment can be done in such a way that there is only one photon in the apparatus at a time. This, I'm sure you'll agree, provides a pretty good test of your 'burst' idea.

The result of these 'low intensity' experiments is unambiguous - you get the same results as when the apparatus is flooded with photons.So, why don't photons interfere with themselves? Why, when two laser beams cross in a vacuum, don't we see lots of 'burst collision products'? Why don't laser beams bend as they go through magnetic fields?

Since you have introduced the concept of photons as '"waves" of individually charged particles that all orbit in a quantum packet', please write down the wave equation for these things, showing how they 'orbit'.

We have more and more observations that photons are wavy rotating deformations of the space. Last experiments in CERN with highest energies indicate that the most concentrate particles and energy create a perfect fluid almost without a viscosity. In such a state everything is maximal packed in a minimal Planck length .

The time-space is not perfect – it transfers an energy with limited speed of light. If it would be perfect the speed of light would be unlimited fast and the information would be everywhere immediately. The limited speed of light (Information) makes a possibility to create different particles with rest of mass, inertia and gravity. There would be no time if the information could move with unlimited speed.

Please provide a reference. My impression on reading what you wrote is that you may have misunderstood the CERN work, but without knowing what it is, I can't even begin to understand what you wrote here.Is this an ATM idea you are in the process of presenting, for us to attack with glee and fervour? Or your summary of some mainstream physics? If the latter, please provide a reference. If the former, please say so.Ditto.

Michael Mozina, you make all up as you go along???

The laboratory work shows the conditions close after a Big Bang – very dense and energetic plasma like superfluid almost without viscosity. I can’t now find quickly a link. I suppose that if the very dense and energetic plasma become a nearly perfect fluid it will shows a property of the time-space it self. Why a matter in such a density have to change its property?

I have just a question what it would be if light (information) may move infinitely fast.

What's so mysterious about dark matter? We don't really know a lot about it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. From my understanding of my cosmology professor, dark matter is non-baryonic matter that does not exhibit any electromagnetic radiation; it doesn't interact in that way, but instead interacts through gravity alone. It has mass and properties, but we can't see it using EM as a baseline.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

Well, for one thing this "dark matter" seems to "push" against other forms of matter. Photons do this too. Photons have momentum, yet we don't really explain how or why they carry momentum in the absense of mass. It seems to me that both of these ideas come together quite nicely. The solution to one question ends up being the solution to both questions. As long as we accept the fact that photons do carry mass from one place to another, we can certainly explain dark energy this way. We do know that photons carry momentum and "hit" other things. What exactly is a photon, and how does it carry momentum in the the first place if it has no mass? How does dark energy "push" against other forms of mass? What is "dark energy", and how can it push against other things and not emit photons in the process?

I've done these things Nereid, or I would certainly not try to discuss these ideas here.

Let's talk about some basics here for a moment. What exactly is a photon? What makes it "real"? Describe it somehow. How does a photon carry momentum from one place to another in the absense of mass? How does a photon behave as both a particle and wave?

That sounds logical to me. The sun must give off a lot of "light energy" and "light matter" if that is true.

Photons tend to emit in groups, just like subatomic waves resembling Bose-Einstein condensates. They emit as streams as well. In other word, the wave has width and depth as well. This movement of particles from one place to another in waves of photons *IS* what makes QM work to begin with. The interaction between the subatomic and atomic takes place via photons.

I promise I will get to the math as soon as we agree on a few basic principles here so we aren't talking past one another.

The pair is tightly bound, and the particles are in orbit around one another, as they move through space time. The pair is therefore evenly balanced over time.

Most of these experiments involve laser STREAMS of photons, not individual photons that are measured down to a single quantum emission at both the transmitter and receiver end. What is actually being emitted in these experiments are streams of aligned photons that can interact.

I'll take a look after work.

I don't really find it helpful when folks use terms like "nonsense" and loaded language. I really don't see why you feel the need to "attack" any idea. I was looking for more of a discussion that might tie two topics together in a logical and scientific way. You can "attack" these ideas if you must, but I'm going to try "discussing" them without the loaded language. I hope you will reconsider your position as my model becomes clearer to you. I think you find it is very logical and supported by observation. The fact a photon can "bump" into things and change the momentum of things inside an atom is our first clue that it contains "mass". What makes a photon "real"? We need to answer some very basic questions here in 19th century terms to continue.

I am trying to provide you with a practical and physical model to explain HOW a photon behaves just as it is described in QM. Wave and particle concepts certainly DO apply to QM. I am not however attempting to deny the validity of QM, quite the opposite. I'm trying to explain HOW it works at a subatomic level. Do you understand this distiction? It won't help the discussion if you believe that I am somehow trying to discount the value of QM.

Here is the basic movement of the particles from a mathematical perspetive.

http://www.answers.com/topic/helix

IMO, each pair of particles inside the photon travels in a helix shape as it moves through space/time.

Keep in mind that it may even be that the perception of these two "particles" may in fact be a misconconception. Each of these items may be made of even smaller particle pairs or configurations of smaller particles. I wouldn't necessarily assume in other words that either of these two "particles" inside the photon is the smallest possible unit of matter.

Well, these are your ideas, so let's have your definitions, followed by those from standard (QM) textbooks, please.I have no idea how this happens in your idea; in textbook physics it follows the photon's energy (oh, and it also matches what we observe in experiments).It doesn't (in QM); it behaves like a photon.

How does the 'photon behave as both a particle and wave', in your idea? Please be sure to demonstrate the particle and wave behaviour mathematically.So how does your idea account for the observed distribution of DM? You may choose an example from spiral galaxy rotation curves, halos, or rich clusters (they're all well observed, so we won't have any difficulty agreeing on what the data are that your idea needs to match).Really? How do you characterise the 'tendency'? In what sense is this tendency 'just like' the characteristic of BECs? In what circumstance do they tend not to 'emit in groups'?What is the difference between a 'group' and a 'stream'?Please give us some typical values, for typical emitters.This certainly doesn't resemble anything that I'm familiar with in QM!

Please provide a reference, preferably a standard QM text, which explains this (QM) concept in more detail.What do you mean? Specifically, what are 'subatomic' and 'atomic'? If there is no 'atomic', does that mean there can be no 'photons'?That seems like a good idea.

However, if the earlier parts of your post are meant to represent standard QM, then I think we will need to get to some basic math rather soon.How tightly? What is the nature of the orbit (radius, period, ellipticity, inclination, ...)?How does the balance vary over time? with wavelength of the photon? For example, to what extent is there a 'lack of balance' over a millisecond? µs? nanosecond? picosecond? femtosecond?Except that there have been experiments done with the emitter stopped right down so only one photon was emitted at a time (and never were there two photons in the apparatus at any time) - the results are the same (as when there are lots of photons).Please read the rules (my emphasis): "If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned."Well, you may need to rethink your participation in this ATM section of BAUT - it is not set up to provide a forum for a discussion of the kind you describe (except, of course, that the attacks should be logical and scientific). If you would like to comment on the rules, please contribute to the thread set up for just that purpose.I particularly like the 'supported by observation' part; I particularly distrust the 'very logical' part - a very great many very good experiments seem to show that universe doesn't obey the intuitive logic we humans seem to have brains wired to follow (and I'd say the confused summary of QM that you've presented so far in this thread is a good illustration of why it's very important to go with the experiments, and leave intuitive concepts like 'has momemtum -> has mass' behind at the door when you enter).If this is what you're trying to do, then I suggest that you have come to the wrong place; a far more suitable venue would be a senior high school (or first year undergraduate university) physics class.Then let's make sure we both have a good QM textbook to hand, so we can be sure of being on the same page!We may need a more advanced QM text to dig into this in sufficient detail to see what it's misleading (at best).Without the math, no, I don't 'get' the distinction (except, possibly, if what you're setting out to do is something that Feymann, Fermi, Einstein, Dirac, .... said clearly that they couldn't 'explain HOW it works' in terms of things 'beneath' the level to which we've probed so far in experiments).Fair enough. How about I challenge you to show, by reference to a standard text, that what you write is consistent with QM?

My idea is pretty easily summed up here in a few sentences, whereas the standard explanation is a wee vague about what makes a photon "real" in the first place. Somehow it mystically carries momentum and hits things, but there is no mechanical explanation of it, or how it works, or what it looks like, or how it conveys momentum without mass.

IMO a photon is simply composed of two oppositely charged/spinning particles that orbit around one another. They have no "rest" mass because they are never truely at "rest", not inside the atom, nor while the pair it traverses space as a photon.

All the other math concepts related to QM would necessarily need to apply. This is simply a mechanical description of what a photon is, and what makes it "real". Like I said, QM is a little vague about what makes a photon real, and how it travels as both particle and wave. I can do this with a simple machanical model of real mass and real energy. It just so happens that this would fit the bill for "dark energy", which is IMO misnamed. It should be called "light energy" or "light matter" IMO.

So how does a "thing" have a wavelength and what makes it real? The math I agree with, but the concept seems a bit light on mechanical detail.

Exactly what is a photon? How can something behave a particlar way and not have a mechanical source and still be "real"? Define a photon for me in some meaniful way BESIDES mathmatically. What is "real" that these math formulas relate to?

That page I referenced earlier shows the math. The particle pair orbits one another giving us the wave as it propogates through space. The pair move in the z-axis as they traverse space, making the pair act as a singularized particle in many respects. You can't interrupt one side of the pair without affecting both particles in the pair in other words.

I don't really know yet, since the observed distribution was just released a few weeks ago, and I've not seen it overlayed with the atomic galaxy yet. I would expect that we might see electromagnetic webs of energy, and so far that looks to be about right from what I've seen. I'll let you know if I see any obvious things I see in future images.

I think we need to limit the scope of this discussion to micro level concepts related to QM, or macro level discussions that will include my belief in Birkeland currents and concepts that aren't related to the basic idea I'm trying to convey here. I'd rather we start with the subatomic discussion since I believe that is where the most progress is likely to occur first.

The energy flowing through a particular instrument is going to release bursts or packets, or more accurately "waves" of these particle pairs. These pairs will travel out and collide with other pairs over time. The fact they leave the surface in unison, in an "organized" or "aligned" way, allows them to interact quite readily.

Only in the unlikely event that one and only one pair is released from one and only one atomic shell.

It will begin to resemble QM as we look into the math. If it does not, it won't be of much use anyway. All the math is essentially described by that helix formula I listed earlier. In every other sense, all QM ideas apply to conepts that relate to that helix formula.

If I believed that "standard QM texts" included this idea, I would have started the thread in the other forum.

The atomic realm is composed of energy arranged into atoms. The subatomic realm is composed of energy waves and particles that are smaller than atoms. A neutrino would be an example of a subatomic item, while a hydrogen atom would be an example of an atomic "structure" of energy.

No, photons and neutrinos could essentially travel forever, even if there were no atoms left in the universe. How they might exist in the first place in the absense of atoms is another story. There is the potential however that photons could exist in the absense of atoms assuming all atoms ultimately revert to photons.

I agree. I presented the helix formula so we can work that into some QM math formulas. I'd still like to talk about that Lockheed image a bit further before we delve heavily into the math. I do think however that you are starting to understand the concepts in a general sense and math is the next logical step.

I would say that that all of these things depend on the wavelength and the distance between the pair.

It really doesn't in the sense that they are aligned with one another. What is the carrier particle of magnetic fields?

When you say "lack of balance", I'm somewhat confused. They travel syncronously through space and time together as a pair.

I'd like you to site me a specific experiment. In the past when I've had such discussions they typically involed lasers and things that are wholy incapable of releasing a "single" photon.

I guess I simply disagree. The reason some ideas SEEM counterintuitive at the moment is only because we don't fully understand it yet. There is nothing "illogical" going on in QM, and the movements are all dictated by 19th century physics. We simply don't have many mechanical models to begin to 'grasp' how it works "logically". Once we figure it out, it will seem very intuititive IMO.

Is this sort of statement really helpful? What is a photon? What makes it "real"? These things aren't really explained even at the graduate level. There isn't really a physical model to explain what a photon is, and what makes it "real" at any level of the discussion.

I wouldn't have started this thread in the ATM forum if I believed there was such a reference. By the same token, I would not have started this thread at all if I didn't believe it was demonstrateable mathematically. We do however need to agree on terms, concepts and movement patterns to continue. I think we're reaching that stage, but I want to make sure we're both conceptually on the same page before we start into the math side of this discussion.

For those interested, there's another thread in the General Science section which discusses QM, Two-slit and Wave Collapse.

In it, Grey has given us a link to a particularly interesting version of the two-slit experiment, which highlights some of the weirder aspects of QM. Any ATM ideas about photons etc need to show consistency with these experimental results.

Enjoy!

I'm already a bit suspiscious of the claim that this device is emitting just a "single" photon, particularly when they seem to be using LASERS to generate an organized stream of photons. Before we go any further, I need to see some evidence that this transmitter is capable of emiting ONE and ONLY ONE photon. Why are we using a laser? That's an amplifier. We're trying to emit just a single quantum discharge from a single atom. We don't need a laser at all. In fact it is counter productive since it's producing an organized STREAM of photons, not an individual discharge from one atom.

I see absolutely no purpose in using a laser for this purpose. I think this experiment is mostly likely releasing a short "burst" or a short "stream" of photons. That stream can interact, but the wave behaviors would be caused by the presense of multiple photons in the stream.

Actually, most single photon versions of the experiment don't use a laser as the source, but a simple bulb. You turn the intensity way down, and then put a filter in to reduce the number of photons. Most such experiments still usually have a few hundred or a few thousand photons per second, but each one takes only a couple nanoseconds to traverse the apparatus, so there's a large (relatively) amount of time between photons. You can, if you wish, keep lowering the intensity to increase the time between photons to whatever you'd like.

Here is a version that's done as a classroom demo, complete with a movie (though that takes a really long time to download). And here's an experimental setup designed for students to do themselves. So is your only argument here that all the physicists who have performed this kind of experiment are either incompetent or lying, or do you have an explanation for the interference that is seen when sending only a single photon through at a time?

Let me try to convey the problem as I see it from a conceptual point of view. To understand my concern, think in terms of Bose-Einstein Condensates. They travel in "waves" based on the the emission device. At the subatomic level, I also believe this is the "typical" way that photons travel, in other words, they travel in "packs".

Now it "may" be possible to build a device to emit ONE atom in a Bose-Einstein Condensate, but then it wouldn't be a "condensate" in the first place, even if we did that. I'm just not convinced we have that kind of precision at the moment, especially not at the subatomic level at either the transmitter end, or the receiver technology. In "theory" if we have only "one" (mechanical) photon, it cannot interfere with itself. I am more likely to interpret this interference pattern as evidence of a "burst" of photons from the transmitter as a wave, rather than a singular photon release.

I know they are experimenting with quantum cryptography right now. That is the kind of precision it would take at both ends (transmitter and receiver) to ensure we are talking about a single photon rather than a burst or a "condensate" of photons.

You've said this several times Michael; I think it's time for you to make this case (beyond merely saying it's what you believe).

In what way is it 'typical' for photons to travel as 'BEC waves'?

What is the composition of a 'photon pack'?

In which ('atypical') cases do photons not so travel?

Please show how your 'typically, photons travel in packs, as BEC waves' idea is consistent with photoemission experiments (of the kind which got Einstein his 1921 Nobel prize)May I suggest that you take the time and trouble to research this a bit? I think you'll some good, introductory material even in your local library, and certainly on the internet (be sure to stick with reputable sites, such as those run by the physics departments of universities).

Once you've done this research, please come back and show us that such precision is not possible. For avoidance of doubt, we are discussing photons (not atoms in a BEC).Good.

Now, please explain how the interference pattern is created, when at any one time there is only one photon in the apparatus. Or, since you may be claiming that there is more than one, always, please describe the flaws in the setup, that allowed there to be more than one at a time.

Be sure to address the actual experiments, not your interpretation of them. You may wish to review the experiments on photoemission, as background.Why? I mean, how are the much older two-slit experiments flawed?

I'll echo Nereid's comments. What do Bose-Einstein condensates have to do with photons?

Ah, so you're choosing the "physicists are incompetent" path. It should be clear from a simple web search that there are many experiments (not just two slit interference ones) that involve the emission or reception of a single photon at a time. There are single atom lasers, where you have just one incoming photon that stimulates emission, so you have exactly two coming out. I've worked myself with gamma ray sources where I get a response from the photomultiplier for each photon that hits. There are plenty of devices that can respond to a single incoming photon. So you're saying all this is wrong, and these devices work completely differently than the people who designed them say they do?

Ah, so your "theory" says that single photons cannot interfere, so since we're seeing interference, there must be multiple photons.

Sometimes that's simply the most applicable word.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.