The Impossible Photon

See the companion video for this article by David de Hilster on his channel Dissident Science.


Light just may be the most important phenomena in the universe to life. It transmits information about the physical world around us and has fascinated we humans for thousands of years.

But the biggest question about light still remains: what is it really? Mainstream science tells us that it is photon. Yet if you look at conventional descriptions, one quickly learns that the definition seems still very unclear.

Current Definition

The current definition of a photon in wikipedia demonstrates the schizophrenic nature of the photon. Wikipedia defines the photon as:

…a type of elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.


The first thing to note is the term “elementary particle”. Wikipedia gives us the following definition:

In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle with no sub structure, thus not composed of other particles


This means that the photon is not comprised of any parts. For many of the “science woke”, this is not possible – there are no such things as elementary particles. One of the reasons for this is the necessity of elementary particles to be assigned magical properties in order for them to organize. I will come to this later.

In the opinion of this author, reading about Dr. Glenn Borchardt‘s infinity is a must to become science woke.

Safe to say that if you spend the time to read Dr. Glenn Borchardt‘s works on infinity, you will most likely come to the conclusion that particles are always made up of parts or as Borchardt says:

There are no partless parts

Dr. Glenn Borchardt

Quantum / Versus Particle

The second part of the mainstream definition of the photon is ” the quantum of the electromagnetic field”. This second part directly and logically clashes with the first definition of an elementary particle. A “quantum” means a ” a discrete quantity”. This requires more than one thing. So we have in the very first sentence of the definition of a photon that says it is indivisible but is made up of a discrete quantity of something.

A “quantum” requires more than one thing.

It cannot be both. This definition is impossible.

We have been faced with the infamous “wave-particle” duality presented by mainstream science for almost 100 years without any solution suggested by big science.

Yet, there are solutions and they lie outside of Big Physics and Cosmology. They are found in the “science woke” who are proposing real physical models that try to solve the problem of not the photon, but of light.

Aether and Lattice Models

Aether and Lattice models give light a physical model, and both do so without the need of a photon.

Aether models avoids the problem of the existence of a photon by creating a model that describes light as waves through a medium called “aether”. The aether particle is not a photon. It is a particle that is similar to the photon in that it is firstly postulated to explain light, but no aetherist ever calls their aether particles “photons” because they know that the photon as described by mainstream science it not an aether particle.

This is because mainstream science abandoned aether during Einstein’s reign of non-physical terror upon big science. Big science abandoned the concept of aether and moved headlong into the world of light as a photon and a wave – somehow at the same time.

Light can be compared to sound waves in aether.

Lattice models are slightly different from aether models in whereas aether is like a gas, a lattice model is more like a solid. Aether transmits light like sound traveling though the air. Lattice structures on the other hand, transmit light much like sound that travels through a vibrating string between cans.

Light waves in a lattice model

In both these models, light consists of waves in a medium and the medium cannot be a single particle. Thus the phenomena of light cannot be a single particle like the photon.

All three of the most popular models for light outside the mainstream require multiple particles to transmit light.

The Particle Model

But what really brought me to this subject of the impossibility of the photon was my father’s (Bob de Hilster) solution for creating light waves using multiple particles. He told me how he came to that conclusion and through that journey, we can see why he rejected the idea of a photon.

The author was inspired to write this article from the work of his father, Bob de Hilster and his particular solution to the wave particle duality.

Light has wavelength and frequency. Frequency is what we see as color. Frequency by definition is that rate at which things (plural) pass by a point in space. Frequency by definition is more than one particle. No one particle can transmit frequency. This is why science calls light and other electromagnetic phenomena “waves”. To say that light is a photon and that it must carry the information of frequency as a single particle, simply seems like a bad way to make a physical model for light.

If there was such a thing as a photon, one photon would have to carry wavelength and frequency. My father’s logic when arriving at his solution for the wave / particle duality reasoned that a single particle can have spin and a velocity. But given the fact that light always traveled at the same velocity of “c”, spin simply couldn’t transmit the needed information for the particle we call the photon.

At this point, the photon would have to start to resemble the particles in the particle zoo of the Standard model. And as Alexander Unzicker appropriately points out: particles in mainstream physics are arbitrary attributes assigned to arbitrary packages of quanta. Our photon could simply carry the attribute “frequency” without regard to any satisfactory physical manifestation of frequency. This is magic, not physicality.

The idea of a model where the photon would carry the information of frequency simply doesn’t work.

My father was eventually lead to a particle model, but unlike aether and lattice theories, light would be made up of moving particles, all at the same speed, traveling in waves. This model, like the other two models, required light to be waves of a plurality of particles, and not one particle.

In all three models, the particles are not photons or particles that are exclusively dedicated to light. Aether and lattice models try to describe gravity using the same particles making them more general particles than the exclusive photon. In the de Hilster Particle Model, the same particle that is responsible for light is also responsible for gravity, electrons, electricity, and magnetism.

Light requires more than one particle

The idea of a single-purposed particle for light called the photon, is not only paradoxical in its current definition in mainstream science, it has been wholly abandoned by those critical thinkers who are science woke outside the mainstream where new models are more efficient, describe inexplicable phenomena, and provide hope for creating new technologies.

Something Big Physics has been failing at for over 100 years.

And before you go an say that Big Physics has given us countless useful technologies like the computer and the internet, let’s be honest and realize that these technologies are the result of modern engineering, based in the real physical world.

And it is the engineering spirit that drives science forward, not the theoretical musings of imaginations that come up with paradoxical impossibilities like the photon.

About the Author

David de Hilster
Social Media:
Mind Blown: Working on a 100% Newtonian model of the entire universe with his dad
Profession: Supercomputers & Human Language
Interest: Finish Universe Hack 3.0 book with father