Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: ghh on 01/08/2006 21:20:45
-
Why ask for more?
http://www.hot-smoke.com/ghhughes/optffdv1_0.pdf
Heisenberg is history
Occam Rules OK!
Graham
-
Thanks for this and the email. I've glanced through it but feel I need to print it off read it properly and have a think before I reply. This topic may best be placed in the new theories area.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer
This topic may best be placed in the new theories area.
Have done so.
George
-
Ok Ian
I thought of putting it here.
There's a lot there, and as I said requires some lateral thinking.
took me quite a while to suss this out.
All I can say is that the numbers seem to work!
Graham
-
My head hurts.
-
I will now be away for a week, and won’t be able to answer any questions.
Sections 1 and 2 are there to record my deductions which lead to my assertion, at the end of section 2 that the photon, as well has being an “electro-magnetic wave”, also has the properties of “displacement” and “gravity”.
Of course this cannot be supported by current theories, and that is whole point of the paper.
Having made that assertion, sections 3 and 4 explore the numerical consequences of it. You have to make your own judgement as to whether this constitutes a “proof” of the assertion.
Graham
-
I have now had time to read through the document and although it appears to have an impressive array of equations in it I find it to be so full of logical inconsistencies that I do not think that it is worth spending the great amount of time and effort that would be necessary to take it apart completely.
Dimensional analysis, That is, trying to understand how things work by analysing the basic features of the processes that are likely to affect them in terms of the basic elements of mass length and time is a powerful tool that can lead to physical insight (in fact I have used it myself to solve problems and make predictions) but it has to be used with care.
A photon is an electromagnetic disturbance and it is essential to model its behaviour in terms of both electrical and magnetic fields simultaneously this analysis appears to forget this by using the term "dispalcement" to describe electrical charge and forgetting to include the corresponding magnetic efects that are related to rate of change of displacement(or current flow). This in my experience is the much more difficult one and I raise my hat to Maxwell who worked it through and solved it long before quantum mechanics was even considered.
There is also a fundamental physical error on page 7. where it states that two photons cannot occupy the same space at the same time. ANY number of photons can occupy the same space at the same it has been adequately proved by experiment that photons are entirely linear and do not interact with each other at all unless other material in the form of massive particles is present. If this was not true we would just not be able to see the universe because all the photons would have interacted and where a photon came from would not relate to where it originated.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
Hey thanks. My head no longer hurts :-D.
-
Sorry about the delay, had been on holiday.
It’s one thing coming up with a theory which bucks conventional wisdom, but explaining it is a real challenge. You need to see my calculations workbook, and I also decided to flesh out my model of the hydrogen Atom, which has added a bit so I have re-posted it as “version 2”
http://www.hot-smoke.com/ghhughes/optffdv2.pdf
http://www.hot-smoke.com/ghhughes/opcalcsv2.xls
You may need the aspirin Steven – the large numbers are because I have been calculating to the maximum amount of accuracy allowed by the info from codata.
The key elements in the turgid dimensional analysis are firstly that 1/permittivity and Permeability are pressure and density in SI units, and secondly that the relativity equation needs two forces. Thus my elemental building block (the Planck Photon) has two potential energies, The electrical potential energy is measured by the “charge” of 6.626 x10^-34 Coulombs, and the gravity potential energy, is measured by the mass of 7.372 x 10^-51 Kg. REMEMBER these are the same quantity, using different “measures”, you must use one or the other. Thus the “displacement” of the Charge, and the “number” of the mass produce the Magnetic “Density” component. The Charge and mass are fixed values.
All the effects of describing the phenomena of “space” and “particles” arise from the variation in the density or magnetic component. These are the static values, to this we have to add the momentum (kg.m^3.sec^-1) which multiplied by the charge, m^3 =Kg.m^6.sec^-1 which is the dimensional value of the constant h. So energy as in E=hf is the momentum unit measured as charge x the Number of Photons flowing in one second. Similarly as mc^2 the momentum unit, measured as mass (kg.m^3.sec^-1) x the velocity c(m^3sec^-1). The gravity of matter arises from the sum of the Photon masses in “the closed vortices” making particles (section 4). Thus the Pauli principle applies, the charge, mass and displacement have to be quantum values, and there can only be one instance in any place and time.
The “algorithm” (sheet 2 of the workbook), is a read –off formula, or nomogram. Each line in the table is a presentation of the equivalences for the selected “wavelength” (not a dynamic transition). As in Para 3.4(table 1) the “displacement” of a photon is fixed on emission by the balance of electrical “pressure” and the magnetic “density”. Any alteration to this must arise from an exchange of momentum, which must be conserved. This is one of the fundamental calculations in the Algorithm.
And thus to your question of why can’t we see things if photons interact. The answer was already there at the end of Para 3.8 on Page 10. In the Algorithm, the “conservation of momentum” yields in column Z a “refractive index” for the Photon gas. The limitation on this is the precision of the constant “c” which is only defined to 8 significant figures. – I have stretched the definition by using c squared, but the consequence is that an index less than 1x10^-16 the variation in light speed cannot be calculated! The equivalent density for this comes at a wavelength of 7.9 x 10^-16 metres = 3.8 x 10^23Hz, which is way into the Gamma ray band. This is an average density, equivalent to a Black Body temperature of 1.8 x 10^13, which is not found in space, or laboratories! So as far as optical wavelengths are concerned ~10^-6, the refractive index of the photon gas is about 1 x 10^-47!. However with a large enough focal length the refraction in the photon gas can be observed in vacuum space- as I suggested by the variation in photon density around distant galaxies. The gravity component, although small, is always there. It is the “glue” which makes “space” a continuum of photons. (According to me!).
We already know that the refractive index works in “atomic” space, and the mechanism for this is described in Para 4.2.4 of the Version 2 document.
The new numerical, and scale drawings are interesting, look forward to your comments.
Graham
-
Sorry about the delay, had been on holiday.
It’s one thing coming up with a theory which bucks conventional wisdom, but explaining it is a real challenge. You need to see my calculations workbook, and I also decided to flesh out my model of the hydrogen Atom, which has added a bit so I have re-posted it as “version 2”
http://www.hot-smoke.com/ghhughes/optffdv2.pdf
http://www.hot-smoke.com/ghhughes/opcalcsv2.xls
You may need the aspirin Steven – the large numbers are because I have been calculating to the maximum amount of accuracy allowed by the info from codata.
The key elements in the turgid dimensional analysis are firstly that 1/permittivity and Permeability are pressure and density in SI units, and secondly that the relativity equation needs two forces. Thus my elemental building block (the Planck Photon) has two potential energies, The electrical potential energy is measured by the “charge” of 6.626 x10^-34 Coulombs, and the gravity potential energy, is measured by the mass of 7.372 x 10^-51 Kg. REMEMBER these are the same quantity, using different “measures”, you must use one or the other. Thus the “displacement” of the Charge, and the “number” of the mass produce the Magnetic “Density” component. The Charge and mass are fixed values.
All the effects of describing the phenomena of “space” and “particles” arise from the variation in the density or magnetic component. These are the static values, to this we have to add the momentum (kg.m^3.sec^-1) which multiplied by the charge, m^3 =Kg.m^6.sec^-1 which is the dimensional value of the constant h. So energy as in E=hf is the momentum unit measured as charge x the Number of Photons flowing in one second. Similarly as mc^2 the momentum unit, measured as mass (kg.m^3.sec^-1) x the velocity c(m^3sec^-1). The gravity of matter arises from the sum of the Photon masses in “the closed vortices” making particles (section 4). Thus the Pauli principle applies, the charge, mass and displacement have to be quantum values, and there can only be one instance in any place and time.
The “algorithm” (sheet 2 of the workbook), is a read –off formula, or nomogram. Each line in the table is a presentation of the equivalences for the selected “wavelength” (not a dynamic transition). As in Para 3.4(table 1) the “displacement” of a photon is fixed on emission by the balance of electrical “pressure” and the magnetic “density”. Any alteration to this must arise from an exchange of momentum, which must be conserved. This is one of the fundamental calculations in the Algorithm.
And thus to your question of why can’t we see things if photons interact. The answer was already there at the end of Para 3.8 on Page 10. In the Algorithm, the “conservation of momentum” yields in column Z a “refractive index” for the Photon gas. The limitation on this is the precision of the constant “c” which is only defined to 8 significant figures. – I have stretched the definition by using c squared, but the consequence is that an index less than 1x10^-16 the variation in light speed cannot be calculated! The equivalent density for this comes at a wavelength of 7.9 x 10^-16 metres = 3.8 x 10^23Hz, which is way into the Gamma ray band. This is an average density, equivalent to a Black Body temperature of 1.8 x 10^13, which is not found in space, or laboratories! So as far as optical wavelengths are concerned ~10^-6, the refractive index of the photon gas is about 1 x 10^-47!. However with a large enough focal length the refraction in the photon gas can be observed in vacuum space- as I suggested by the variation in photon density around distant galaxies. The gravity component, although small, is always there. It is the “glue” which makes “space” a continuum of photons. (According to me!).
We already know that the refractive index works in “atomic” space, and the mechanism for this is described in Para 4.2.4 of the Version 2 document.
The new numerical, and scale drawings are interesting, look forward to your comments.
Graham
-
I like the general idea and suspect that a greatly simplified model may have been overlooked, simply due to lack of ingenuity on our part, but I have trouble with the concept of 'dimensions'. Instead, I suscribe that objects are each able to interact only with certain other objects, and hence, due to rules of interaction, may appear to be invisible to each other.
In my own neonate idea, I view it that there is one major force but 2 substrates. Each substrate is the material from which basic particals can emerge and changes in the substrates, effectively stress, is equivalent to energy.
The two subsrates are in reaction each other. Particles may be composed of both substrates.
Particals of the same substrate naturally push apart, but are also able to bunch via another effect that burrows from quantum entanglement.
Essentially, particals that interact can become networks that exchange energy that they are able to receive environmentally and this reduces the potential push between them - in effect, the force comes from a reaction of the surrounding opposite substrate.
Each substrate exists because of a paradox of probability if there is no universe and no established social influences of other particals. The basic idea here is that if there is no universe, there is nothing present that can prevent nothing having an alternative state of nothing. The difference between them is a sort emmergent result.
In a way you could site a sort of universal anthropic principle that anything different ought to generate a reaction, thus the fundamental origin of the mechanism in the ultrasimple conceptual model above.
Granted, that model is far simpler than reality, it is a conceptual framework for how nothing can become something, and it relies heavily on concepts of entanglement between interacting objects of the same substrate.
-
I dont thik there is a need for an exotic explanation.
When I started thinking about Physics again (after working for a living) I was struck by the rather obvious gap which was being studiously ignored. Niels Bohr’s correspondence principle, formulated in 1923, states that “Quantum theory results must tend asymptotically to those obtained from classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers”. However any classical Physics text is dominated by discoveries based on Gravity, but the definitive tome on Quantum Mechanics manages 800 pages without one mention of Gravity. Where did it go? The only conclusion I could come to was that somewhere, about a hundred years ago, somebody missed something, and gravity must somehow be connected to the fundamentals of Quantum theory.
The trouble is that because quantum theory has been so successful the basics are taught early in the Physics curriculum, and the foundations have become "truisms" which have to be parrotted out to pass exams. Even more true of Newtonian mechanics, where the basic units are entirely linear.
The difficulty of coming up with a theory which does bridge classical and Quantum mechanics is having to challenge the truisms in both fields.
Recall your history - "everyone knows the sun goes round the earth, you can see it with your own eyes".
Sometimes you have to go back back and re-examine those things taken for granted, to find the ones which are not as they seem.
Graham
-
There have now been nearly 200 "hits" on this topic.
Has anyone got past the "credulity hurdle" and studied the calculations?
Graham
-
I have now revised my paper to include how refraction and diffraction effects are accounted for under my theory.
I have also revised section 3 to more clearly discriminate the effect of a photon passing close to a massive body, which produces an angular acceleration and a Red shift with no change of velocity, with that of a photon passing through an area of increased photon density which produces a Blue shift which does require a change of velocity.
With regard to the “wave” nature of light, a distinction needs to be made between an “oscillator” and the photon. An oscillation has the mathematical properties of a sine wave, but “attenuates” by losing energy. The photon does not lose energy. The locus on the circumference of a circle (or sphere) in motion passing a fixed point is also mathematically a sine wave, but in my theory the displacement of the photon is determined by its diameter, which is equal to its “wavelength” and has the properties of a moving sphere. It is neither an “oscillator” nor a “wave”, but has the same mathematical properties of a wave. Statistically however, if the sample is large enough the distribution of “elemental” discrete photons can be represented as “wave fronts”.
And there lies the nub of the problem of reconciling classical and quantum theory. The discussion in section 4 identifies how the increments in quantum mechanics arise from the behaviour of photons at very high densities, and that the atomic, and sub-atomic forces are manifestations of gravity.
You will need to access the revised paper on the link
http://217.148.34.28/grahamstoe/optffdv3.pdf
And the supporting calculation spreadsheet link
http://217.148.34.28/grahamstoe/opcalcsv3.xls
Graham
-
Not sure if you read any of this but...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5855.0
It goes against the classical idea of gravity and redefines the speed of light (= the speed of gravity)
"B"
-
I did read that
I think I will stick with this numeric solution
Graham
-
I say, very nice theory Sir! [;D]
Just two questions:
What do you call it, your theory that is?
Where did your inspiration for this theory come from?
Again, very good.
-
I dont call it anything - labels can be misleading.you have to judge from the content.
Inspiration - to pass exams you have to be the best trained parrot, and quote the book, but dont believe everything you read. I have no doubt you have been taught that atoms are made of Protons and Neutrons, but have a look at this:
http://217.148.34.28/grahamstoe/atomicmassanalysis.doc
Also ask yourself where the positrons come from for β+ decay of isotopes.
I am working on the next stage of the theory.
Graham
-
That's pretty interesting. I think you've got a real good theory. The best part is that you don't need any experimental proof because everything it proposes is reached through dimensional analysis and manipulation of existing concepts. Those concepts have already been proven experimentally so your theory is thus also proven. That is, unless you use your theory to predict things that no one else has before...kind of like Einstein's relativity and time dilation. They had to prove that with atomic clocks.
-
and therein lies the problem.
If my theory is correct it has to deliver the same results as obtained experimentally. All I've changed is the reason why.
it does explain "Einstein's relativity and time dilation". It is there in section 3, but does not conform to the textbook explanation.
Try the "neutron" graph on your Chemistry/Physics teachers - if they tell you off for looking at crank solutions on the internet, just go po-faced and say "yes sir".
You need to be a good little parrot and say what you've been taught. keep what I've said in mind but wait until you've got your PhD.Then you can indulge in independent thought.
Graham
-
Oh, I know full well the value of repeating what you're told but as Mark Twain once said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." I have always and will always indulge in independent thought. What's life if you don't? Are we but parts of a greater machine? Ok, enough metaphysics! I am actually fortunate enough that I have a Chemistry teacher who was once an industrial chemist, has a masters degree and was THIS close to his PhD in organic, asymetrical synthesis. He is the most educated and one of the smartest people I have ever met. In fact, I have printed a copy of your third revision to your theory out so he could look at it...he hasn't commented back on it as of yet but he seemed genuinely interested. He says often enough, "When I grow up I want to be...." He has never really grown up (he's going on 50) and has that curiosity characteristic of children that is so precious. He has a great imagination and no doubt could be a brilliant researcher and win some sort of award had he the motivation (he even has that wierd attitude that when you meet him you think he must be dumb as a doornail but in fact he is a genius by my standards). He has already decided though that he has retired to teaching for a while and hasn't decided on what to do next.
-
Well said! keep up the independent thought. there are enough gaps in present theories if you look carefully. But without the "clout" of a degree you wont be listened to.
I will be interested in what your teacher has to say when he's got over the headache!
Graham