0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
After reading this thread, I would say it should not be ignored. I am really drawn to this idea Vern, quite a reasonable and beautiful scheme. I think you're really on to something my friend............Ethos
Butn for an example, an eigenvalue of +2 means that the eigenvector is doubled in length and points in the same direction. An eigenvalue of +1 means that the eigenvector is unchanged, while an eigenvalue of −1 means that the eigenvector is reversed in sense. If two photons come together and ''bind'' to create new particles, it seems that the combined energy of two photons allows their contruct to create both a particle and an antiparticle. Could such eigenvectors help decribe these differential factors (+, -) when the resolution has been made in the collision?
A neutrino particle, if it exists, would be fatal to the concept. This whole concept is based upon the premise that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. I have never seen a way to reduce a neutrino particle to an electromagnetic field.
themasses of the electron and proton and their kinetic energy---it neverequals that of the rest energy of a neutron. Thus, one has twochoices, either energy is not conserved or there is a third decayproduct.
It could just as easily be a gamma ray photon, which is my suspicion.
Interesting posibility.............How would we go about justifing this position?
We may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.
Quote from: Mr. ScientistWe may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.I'm not sure that we expect that many photons need to come together to create an electron and positron. Using many photons in the reaction increases the probability that two photons of sufficient energy may interact. I suspect that only two photons of the correct energy and phase relationship would be required. []The neutrino is a problem because we can't build one out of a photon curled into a circle. It would have to be a composite of an even number of shells in order to be neutral. I can find no combination of shells for a neutrino that would follow the same rules that produce the electron, proton, and neutron.
Since you propose to dwell upon it, let me state the problem a little more completely.I know that there is some equation, not yet derived, that can equate the Fine Structure Constant to a bend radius in the path of a photon. This equation will show that the force on the outside of a circle equal to the electron's wave length is equal to the electric charge of an electron. The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron. The amount of force for the strong nuclear interaction will be found in these greater forces.Now, this same equation would need to apply to a neutrino. I can see no way that it could apply to a neutrino.
But what if the electron is really not the smallest unit of mass, because of dimensional factors that of nature of contraction? Such as the Lorentz-Spin contraction, and then given the speed it moves linearly through spacetime may give the electron a structure larger than the next known largest particle... i think it's the muon... my memory serves me bad here. However, if your contentions are correct, then your hypothesis should make absolutely logical sense, because the standard model states the electron as the smallest unit of matter known.
Yes; the neutrino can be massless and not pose a problem for the photonic theory. But then, it would simply be a gamma-ray photon. It can masquerade as a particle by being spin polarized. If the spin completed in an even number of wave lengths, it might propagate as a neutral particle and not react easily with matter.
I like the idea that the neutrino might be a spin polarized gamma ray photon. The angular momentum would derive from the spin of the outer photon shell of a neutron. The spin would decrease the probability that its phase relationship would coincide with that of matter. This would make it less likely to react.Yes; this is all purely speculative. It's fun to speculate; sometimes it leads to some good solid ideas.
If this registers at all......even in vestige ...i would like to continue to expound on my postulate(s). Refer to picture illustration attached