Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22

Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22: taken partly from another of my post:

A quantum of light (a photon), may possess an infinitesimal energy and always travel at C in vacuum.

Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory.

Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything. For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy?

I know it sounds too easy to be true and it turns everything upside down but it is logical and beautiful...

If a photon wave enter a highly curved spacetime region, it could catch its tail: the wave could close on itself. It would stop moving at the speed of light according to outside observers, it would appear to them as a particle and it would even create a gravitational field... You just need curving spacetime and light... Every type of particles and forces could be a question of energy density and relativistic movement (including spinning)with only some quantum states possible (arising from the electromagnetic field)... The same way the magnetic field is a relativistic effect of the electric field, the weak and nuclear force could be a relativistic effects of the electromagnetic field.

Only very high energetic photons (very short wavelength) could create matter and antimatter particles having a nuclear field. Less energetic photons created electrons and other particles, including dark matter, without a nuclear field.

I have been thinking about this for many days now and i don't see any contradiction with existing proved theory that could deny this theory. Only if light travels at a slower speed than C in vacuum and light have a non zero mass (which is possible) i did not find anything wrong, there is always an easy explanation... It even explains gravity...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:57:29: It explains the dichotomy of Quantum theory and Relativity theory. Quantum theory is a theory about light (ultimately) and Relativity is a theory about Gravity (curved spacetime). They are both linked with the constant C but otherwise, they are independent because the Universe is made of 2 things: light and curved spacetime (or more specifically spacetime that curves in the vicinity of light). In my opinion, a general theory should integrated curvature of spacetime to the Quantum theory in its general equations and it should use the photon as the elementary wave-particle.

C is the link between light and SpaceTime... E=MC^2...

I am not a religious freak but it is still interesting (Captain ArkAngel is only my gamertag) (-:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Extract from the Bible... [;D]
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 04:03:06: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle arises from the fact that a closed photon (creating a matter wave-particle) would still possess a basic spinning or rotating wave propagation speed of C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Light possess an electromagnetic field but no mass and it curves spacetime, it means electromagnetic field = gravity... A lightwave travelling through a prism for example, is slowed down by the curvature of spacetime in its path caused by the nearby particles "gravitational" field. Light always takes the shortest path...

Please see this and look in the table, you will find the same long distance behavior and range for both electromagnetic and gravitation forces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_forces

It is basically the same force. Quantum Electrodynamic Theory (quantum theory of light interactions with matter) sees it as an electromagnetic field and General Relativity sees it as Gravitation...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Kelvinjohnson on 09/10/2010 09:54:13: Interesting ArkAngel. Trying to get the sequence right. So a photon can loop on itself forming all the particles, including quarks we see (and don't see). It can loop on itself because of space time curvature, curvature it can self-generate depending on it's frequency. Right?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 17:01:49: You need high energy photons (high frequency) and maybe a very high energy density medium for nuclear particles, like at the time of the Bigbang. Maybe it is made from only one photon... Maybe gravity appears from the cancellation of 2 or more photons electromagnetic waves... It would agree with actual Physics of Particles. Charged particles are made by partial cancellations...

All or almost all particles having a strong nuclear field have been made at the Bigbang. Even a star doesn't produce them, it fuses them...

Electromagnetic force is about opened waves (light) and about "free" waves (or remnant waves, = electric charge) of a particle. Gravity is about closed waves of light (if you prefer, cancelled waves)...

After having found the final solution, the free remnant wave is not a moving wave, but it is the static charge (you can see it as a standing wave when at rest)... Charged elementary particles are not made by partial cancellation. All elementary matter particles are made of total cancellation, though some photons may be emitted for energy conservation. The charge may be cancelled or not. If the charge is cancelled, it becomes a Dark Matter particle.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/10/2010 23:04:39: I did some calculations about the minimum energy needed for a photon to become a particle having a strong nuclear field.

The wavelength has to be smaller than the strong nuclear force range

For only 1 photon in a circular wave:
λ < 2pi * 10(exp-15) (circular wave of circumference = 2piR, this is an approximation)

For λ = 2pi * 10(exp-15)
E = 1,24/2pi GeV This is the absolute lower limit of photon's energy to get a particle having a strong nuclear field.

For 2 photons cancellation they both need
λ < 2*10(exp-15)
E < 1,24/2 GeV

Look at QCD scale here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant

the bottom quark mass has about 5 GeV (at least, the order of energy quantity is good), 8 could be the wave integer number of the bottom Quark 8 * 1,24/2 GeV = 4,96 GeV... but 10(exp-15) is an approximation of the strong force range, it still give a good idea of the process... The bottom quark is a charged particle, meaning it is made from a partial cancellation, most energy is stored in the nuclear field as mass and some as the electromagnetic field (the charge). The electromagnetic field may have a part of its energy as mass because electrons have a mass, a particle with mass is a closed wave... The mass of the electron is stored in the electromagnetic closed wave without the effect of a nuclear field, the charge has the energy of the remnant "free" or uncancelled wave, that is why it is a light particle. Electrons are elementary particles because only photons can produce them. This is a stable quantum state of partial waves cancellation...

see this about quark mass measurements... http://indico.bnl.gov/getFile.py/access?contribId=155&sessionId=33&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=189
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 11/10/2010 04:57:31: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:57:29
Light possess an electromagnetic field but no mass and it curves spacetime, it means electromagnetic field = gravity... A lightwave travelling through a prism for example, is slowed down by the curvature of spacetime in its path caused by the nearby particles gravitational field. Light always takes the shortest path...

There's 2 mistakes here. First, what curves space-time in general relativity is a quantity called the stress-energy tensor, which basically is a measure of energy and momentum as well as their flows in space and time. Although it doesn't have mass, light has energy and momentum, so it can curve space-time. In fact, mass can be related to energy and momentum, which is why mass can be thought of as curving space-time.

Second, light bends in a prism because it slows down when it enters the glass. The fundamental reason for this is electromagnetic interactions between light and the glass, not gravity. Gravity would be far too weak to have such a large effect.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 11/10/2010 05:04:37: I've seen a lot of posts on theories that electromagnetism is the only force and that everything can be derived from it. The problem is that the other forces and particles have properties that the electromagnetism and the photon don't. Maybe photons can combine in some undiscovered way that gives rise to all the other properties that have been observed. I don't know if someone's proved that they can't, but certainly no one has proved that they can.

However, various theories of everything are trying to do things similar to this--postulating that everything arises from some simpler mechanism. Maybe in that case everything, including photons, are made up from some simpler elements.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/10/2010 05:10:35: You are right but i did not say that light has a mass but only it curves spacetime because it is not a closed wave. For the prism, i should not use the term gravity because the light is affected mostly by the interaction of "free" waves (the charges) and not significantly by the closed waves (gravitational lightwaves)... But still, light takes the shortest path. I used the term gravity just to emphasized my theory that gravity and electromagnetism are the same type of field, closed wave vs opened wave.

Correctio: Light travel through space along the basic curvature of space produced by matter (rotating photons).
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/10/2010 05:15:26: it is not possible right now to produce photons with enough energy to make a particle having a strong nuclear field. But theoretically, it could answer many problems of modern physics...

The only explanation for E=MC2 is that matter is entirely related to light. Is there another wave-particle having the speed of C? Even neutrinos are not supposed to travel at C and have a mass...

Do you have links to recommend?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 11/10/2010 06:24:41: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 11/10/2010 05:15:26
The only explanation for E=MC2 is that matter is entirely related to light.

Why? I don't see how that follows. I think that saying everything is entirely related to energy would work better. Also, the full equation is
E² = (mc²)² + (cp)² (see Lightarrow's good explanation here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=33720.msg326183#msg326183),)
so it might be more proper to say that all mass can be written as contributions from energy and momentum. Light is a special case with zero mass, while most matter has non-zero mass.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/10/2010 06:59:07: Yes, total energy is mass energy + kinetic energy, but kinetic energy is totally relativistic not mass... Not the rest mass. C is the relation of light to Spacetime in an absolute manner, C is constant... Even then, there is still C in the relativistic part of the energy...

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 11/10/2010 08:12:34: Sure, you can define relativistic mass, m_r, in order to make E=m_rc² hold, but then you've just rewritten the above equation so that the particle velocity is absorbed into the mass term. I'm still confused as to how this justifies your claim:
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 11/10/2010 05:15:26
The only explanation for E=MC2 is that matter is entirely related to light.

I really don't understand how it's the only explanation for this. Looking at the equation, I just see that mass is proportional to energy.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/10/2010 21:40:37: Quote from: JP on 11/10/2010 08:12:34
I really don't understand how it's the only explanation for this. Looking at the equation, I just see that mass is proportional to energy.

Thank you JP, it is a very insightful comment. At first glance, what you says look right but "C" is not a dimensionless constant, it is truly the speed of light...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/10/2010 21:55:06: see this: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/accel/burke_prl_79_1626_97.pdf

A positron-electron pair can be produced by photons alone... How the gravitational field of the electron and the positron appeared from photons alone? [:)]

How can they have predicted it? Because the problem is already solved but people are not looking at the right angle. E=MC2, light has no mass and a constant relative speed of C.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 11/10/2010 22:42:36: If I were to look at a particle ant-particle annihilation and it produced x number of particles then I would say those are the basic constituent's of matter but that is not what we see. We just see radiation.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 12/10/2010 00:20:55: Yes Ron, and check this:

p (the momentum of the photon) is related to its electromagnetic field frequency (or wavelength).

For a photon:
p = h/λ
E = p*c = h/λ*c , for a photon, its energy is entirely in its electromagnetic field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

My theory says that the electromagnetic energy is transfer into gravitational energy when there is cancellation of the electromagnetic waves (the waves are trapped or closed).

For a 2 photons total cancellation (all electromagnetic energy is transfer into “rest” mass), if the “rest” mass is made entirely of light, as I am assuming, the closed photons are still moving at C, rotating and spinning, but they appear to have a gravitational field (mass) but no electromagnetic field for an outside observer. What is very interesting is that both fixed referential frames, the outside observer and the center of the created particle, will have the same measurement of the speed of light C. Since the experience is about light and spacetime, there is no relativity because the speed V of light is the same for all fixed referential frames.

If we are in a world made of Spacetime and Light alone, there is no such thing as “rest” mass. Light has an energy momentum (p*c) and no rest mass. The rest mass (or if you prefer gravity) would appear from purely momentum energy.

For a 2 photons total cancellation having both an equivalent energy of M/2, where M is the final equivalent "rest" mass
The energy momentum in a nonrelativistic spacetime before and after cancellation should be equal (though the direction of the momentum are opposite, they should add together in a rotating wave (spherical in 3D) because photons are elementary particles, they cannot be annihilated!):

E= h/ʎ*c + h/ʎ*c = p*c + p*c (Before as photons) = p*c + p*c (after, as massive particles with no rest mass) = ½ m*v*c + ½ m*v*c = MC2

N.B.: Don't forget that the rest mass is nonexistent in a world made of light and spacetime, m appears from the transfer of electromagnetic energy fields cancellation into a gravitational energy field that is producing a kinetic mass. That's not the way we see it but that's the way we should see it because it comes from pure momentum of energy.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 12/10/2010 04:38:09: it seems like time appears from the creation of a gravitational field, thus relativity.

If you are in one of the photons referential frame before cancellation, you have no time rate but you are still going through space, so space exist but there is no time rate. Space for you is linear because you travel at C wherever you go (you always take the shortest path). After cancellation, if the photon is a kind of standing wave (but still rotating and spinning at the speed of light, duality of wave-particle emerging), time appears instantly for the particle from infinitely small Δt0 to Δt of the relativistic spacetime we know (where Δt is the rate of passing time).

Time rate, as gravitation, comes from the acceleration of the energy momentum of photons (as vectors) rotating and spinning as a particle. If you accelerate in space, you accelerate all photons energy momentum you are made of, you will have a slower local time rate and you will feel gravity (or acceleration if you prefer). Relativity and m = infinity at V=C, is a proof that everything is made of light.

You cannot accelerate faster than light because you are made of light!!!

Gravity is simply the vectors of the accelerated momentum of photons (and it is still truly and electromagnetic field, with no effective charge (cancelled)) (static charges)
It means an elementary particle has a mass inversely proportional to its size...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Geezer on 12/10/2010 07:16:22: This is an interesting discussion, but to avoid any confusion, I think it's best if we move this topic to the New Theories section.

Please send me a PM if you think this is inappropriate.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 12/10/2010 07:29:53: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 11/10/2010 21:40:37
Quote from: JP on 11/10/2010 08:12:34
I really don't understand how it's the only explanation for this. Looking at the equation, I just see that mass is proportional to energy.

Thank you JP, it is a very insightful comment. At first glance, what you says look right but "C" is not a dimensionless constant, it is truly the speed of light...

I never said it had to be dimensionless! It certainly can be, if you measure mass in units of energy (high energy physics does this all the time)! But regardless of units, its a constant, so the left hand side is proportional to the right.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: kenhikage on 12/10/2010 07:29:53: CPT, thank you for well articulating what I've been trying to get at in a couple of posts. My thinking, though, is that non-electromagnetic energy is the result of light losing momentum and matter is the result of light losing energy and momentum.

It seems to me the only thing that could slow down a photon would be running into other photons. Whenever would this be more likely then right after the big bang?

Obviously you understand the math better than I do, so thank you for this post.

Lastly, I have to say, I wonder if a singularity isn't a photon that has completely lost all of it's momentum and energy (as a result of the early collisions). Things tend to become infinite or zero when they reach C, as with singularities. So, if light stops...?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 12/10/2010 23:40:53: light never really stops...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 13/10/2010 02:02:08: What do you think the frequency of the CMBR was at 10^6 years? Inflation was another mainstream invention to cover up their lack of knowledge. It's bull poop.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 13/10/2010 02:46:57: The reference timeline they use is wrong because they don't use the photon as the elementary particle.

I would add that not only gravity but also quantization of energy has arise from the particles creation (with time and gravity) since the BigBang.

Here is another "big" proof of the well founded of this theory, i should have seen it much earlier...:

Matter-Antimatter annihilation!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

If you accelerate enough a pair of positron-electron and collide them together, you can produce heavier particles. It seems to contradict my theory. Not at all, at collision, the positron-electron pair is still annihilated and produces photons. If the collision has a good enough symmetry, the photons accelerated energy momentum will produce heavier particles, because the photons total energy momentum in space is in the quantization range of a stable heavier particles creation, otherwise, they remain gamma photons: the true elementary particles (supposing we can call them "particles")...

The quantization information is stored in light itself, it is thus a property of light vs space (time information is stored in light, in its frequency i guess, thus the relativity of time vs Doppler effect)...

In fact, photons may have any frequencies if there is no preferential frame of reference (according to relativity and Doppler effect). For massive particles, it is not the case. Locally, they all have only finite energy states possible (quantum states). All massive particles are in fact relatively stable quantum states of the continuum of light. They appear from interaction between photons energy momentum. If two photons collide and a spherical wave, still traveling at the speed of light, appear in a stable state, a particle is created. Its gravity will arise from the acceleration in its linear momentum. Gravity has exactly the same momentum as the acceleration vector. It reconciles Quantum Theory with General Relativity.

In 2D space, you can see a massive particle as a rotating wave of a fixed number of wavelength, i would call it the primary quantum state number. The mass appears from the cancelled wave so the primary number can only be an integer of a wavelength (1, 2, 3, ...).

Black holes are only in primary states, only a gravitational field is maintained.. We now know that there is supermassive black holes at the center of most galaxies. They are probably the most stable particles in the Universe we know. There is a high probability that there is a type of low energy density particles in primal states. I highly suspect that this type of particles account for a very important part of Dark Matter because they should occur naturally in our Universe.

In a 2 photons cancellation, if these 2 photons did not cancelled their charges, the charge (static field) is inside the rotating wave. The simplest form of it is the electron and positron pair which possess opposite charges (one positive and the other negative). The electrostatic charge of a particle is it secondary quantum state and its gravitational energy momentum is its primary quantum state. The secondary quantum state can only be 0,+/-1, +/-2, +/-3...

If the primary number is 1 for the electron, using the energy of a photon having the energy of the electron mass (mc2=one wavelength), i calculated that its size should be about 3.86 x 10-13 m.

E = hc/λ = mc^2, λ = h/mc = 2*pi*R (for a circumference of one wavelength, primary number=1)

electron diameter = 2R = h/(pi*m*c)

if the primary number is 2, its size would double to 7.72 x 10-13 m.

http://ag-physics.org/electron/ It totally agrees!!

Please read section 1 and 3 The "Zitterbewegung" and the Experimental Situation. I solved their problem... photons have no mass and they have a speed of c...

The electric charge associated energy momentum comes only from interactions with other particles and photons (ultimately, photons alone...).
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 13/10/2010 16:19:02: Is there no answer for the CMBR question? A guess would be fine.

In an annihilation, no matter how fast the particle pair are moving, the total energy released will be radiation. There may be some short lived wave forms that the mainstream wants to call a particle but then these too turn. into radiation.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 14/10/2010 02:06:33: First, we need to know the entire energy of the Universe to answer the question... Secondly, we need to know how large it was at a specific time... Both has to be measured. How you can measure it if you cannot see it? You can only measure it indirectly. We need to know all possible quantum states of light, including Dark matter. So the answer is simply: i don't know...

http://www.universetoday.com/8053/early-universes-rapid-expansion-confirmed/

But, i think at the starting time (T=0+), the Universe had the size of an equivalent energy black hole's event horizon. At time 0+, all the energy momentum of the Universe is an unstable quantum state and exploded releasing the light. It means we are born from a black hole reaching the breaking point (or maybe a collision or a near collision). Black holes are in a stable quantum state. From our point of view, the energy range of the black holes quantum state may seems very large but not in a multiverse point of view.

If time stop at the event horizon, light has to rotate at the event horizon, because if time has stopped, there is no gravitational field possible... There is no quantum states possible for matter particles going through the event horizon. Matter would be accelerated until it breaks into photons and would join the light rotating at the event horizon. There is a gravitational field outside of it (and inside in the opposite direction). It means that a black hole is a very large rotating (spinning?) wave with only gravity as force field (total cancellation). You can see it only by interactions of energy with it (breaking its symmetry).

Theoretically, our Universe could be in the middle of a black hole with the event horizon being at the edge of it. Gravity from the rotating wave at the edge of the Universe would appear as Dark energy for everything in the Universe. This would mean The BigBang occurred from the collision of two Black holes of Universe scale sizes. If two Universe scale sizes black holes collide, big chunks of energy could aggregate in the middle of it and eventually could become a black hole or many black holes. Collisions of these Universe mass sizes black holes could produce BigBangs and it would explain Dark Energy...

No singularity (singularity solved). Dark energy solved? Holographic Universe or not?

N.B.: In any case, i use 2D space when i say rotating but it has a spin in 3D to produce a sphere...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 14/10/2010 02:33:55: Space is linear for light and light has no timerate. The zero (rate) timeline of a particle would be its size but it would change in space at the speed of light due to interactions with its surrounding fields. Eiseinberg principle may arise from an absolute minimum energy interaction needed to measure its position in time (related to 0 Kelvin degree)... But still, it is independent of the way you measure it... The way you measure it will add a second mathematical term...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 15/10/2010 06:06:26: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 15/10/2010 23:57:01: Explanations of the meaning of the 0 rate timeline.

Photons always travel at a constant speed of C because there is no timerate in the spaceline they travel. It means there is no timerate in a pure vacuum because if you send only one photon in any direction in it, it will go straight through it... If you go there, you experience time by the interactions of your own photons electromagnetic fields... It may means space is an illusion because your perception comes from photons interactions alone...holographic world???? Would it mean we have a soul if there is no space???? If two people enter the vacuum, their common experience (maybe existence) would come from photons interactions between each other. So to have a common experience we all need a minimum radiating energy. It agrees with thermodynamics laws. Does it mean a black hole will emit radiation?

See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

http://www.absolutezerocampaign.org/absolute-zero-temperature.html

Time appears only from photons interactions... that is why i say time information is in the light itself...

Photons have no timerate but they are electromagnetic quantum waves with specific frequencies and wavelengths in space...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 17/10/2010 16:34:15: Quasars are produced by ring black holes. Black holes gravitation is produced by light waves forming a ring shape. This light waves produce gravity by cancelling each other electromagnetic field.

The x-ray beams come from the acceleration of charged particles through it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 19/10/2010 00:56:18: I found the gravitational waves... It is time itself...

Electromagnetic field and gravitational field are mutually exclusive. The electromagnetic waves travel in 0 timerate spaceline and they produce frequency. Gravitational light waves still travel in 0 timerate (but relative to the particle) spaceline but produce time...

"A photon has always 2 halves elementary charges one of +e/2 and one of -e/2 where e=1.602×10−19 C, for a total of zero. It is frequency independent.

The creation of electron-positron pairs by the collision of two photons have been experimentally proved. http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/accel/burke_prl_79_1626_97.pdf

The collision of these photons produces 2 rotating photons having each a static elementary charge, electron negative and positron positive. Total charge is conserved. It is a static charge that produces a static electrical field in the particle referential frame. This static charge is in the middle of the rotating photon. Electromagnetic waves will be produced only by relative movement of other static charges and direct interactions with electromagnetic field from other photons. If you put an electron in a pure vacuum, there is absolutely no electromagnetic wave existing (the charge is static and non active), the electromagnetic field is cancelled and has no energy momentum associated to it..."

When 2 rotational waves appear from a collision of two photons, the charges become quasi-static and the light waves are depleted from their free-frequency and become gravitational light waves, they produce gravitational waves (time) and have the same momentum of energy ( E=hν ==> E=MC2 ). They are still lightwaves but with no frequency but a timerate associated to it... 1/s ==> s ...

(pay attention to that, the rotational light waves produce timewaves but are not timewaves. You measure the effect of timewaves by measuring time!!! When you measure relative timerate of two localities, you measure its difference in gravity and acceleration. Acceleration of the energy momentum of a massive particle produces a deceleration of time as gravity does. Gravity is produced by the radial acceleration of photon in a closed form, massive particle form.)

Time should propagates at the speed of light... The timerate you experience is the sum of all timewaves at every specific locality of every massive elementary particles of your body. The sum is the effective gravitational field. So every particle has its own relative timerate.

Time is totally localized thus the existence of Relativity.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96095009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41740
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 19/10/2010 01:42:13: Cp, one should think the creation of the pairs would be very significant in explaining how they were produced (the actual sequence of events in their creation).
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 19/10/2010 01:47:07: Be more specific Ron, my brain has not much remaining momentum... [;)] I will, but only tomorrow...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Vern on 19/10/2010 19:15:06: You seem to have hit upon an idea that I have explored since around 1986. Photon Theory is fascinating. A universe made of light.

I have some particle sizes to scale assuming they are made up as you say --- A photon curls around and locks into the curl. I know the reason for the curl, and the strength of it.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 19/10/2010 20:58:25: I have just read it, you were quite right!!! Keep on your good work!!!

This is just the beginning...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 23/10/2010 04:34:56: The meaning of the Planck constant and the relation to the radius of an elementary particle or a blackhole.

For a particle having a shape of one wavelength like the electron:

E = h*ν = M*C^2

E = h*C/λ = M*C^2

=> h/λ = M*C

=> h/C = M*λ = constant = M*2πR ( see Compton wavelength: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength )

For a circular gravitational light wave, λ = 2πR = the circumference of the particle
M*2πR = h/C
R = h/(2π*M*C) ;this is the maximum radius of a particle a "rest" mass M

For a spherical gravitational light wave, λ = 4πR^2 = the surface of the particle
M*4πR^2 = h/C
R = √[h/(4π*M*C)] ;this is the minimum radius of a particle having a "rest" mass M

Thus √[h/(4π*M*C)] < R < h/(2π*M*C) ; you have to normalized units to use this equation because of the square root.

R(circular) = √2*R(spherical) if M is constant

For Blackholes and particles having a shape made of multiple wavelengths:

h/C = M*λ/N

where N is the basic Quantum number of basic Quantum wavelength λ (or Planck length * 2π : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length).

=> C = (h*N)/(M*λ) where λ = 2π * [(h*G)/(2π*C^3)]^1/2

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Geezer on 23/10/2010 09:36:58: Why is this so different from String Theory, or M Theory?

Photons seem to be forms of energy that have the ability to propagate through space. Whether photons are particles, or energy in space seems to be open to debate. Either way, does it not seem that space endows photons with some remarkable capabilities? So, are we not really debating the true character of space?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 23/10/2010 19:26:38: geezer, we are indeed discussing the character of space. I and many like me think that matter is made from this character of space. As I mentioned earlier I think that character is an expanding electric field which like Vern's idea was curled into matter.

I would also like to say that I did not intend to denigrate the marvelous work of mainstream scientists. The majority of the scientific community consider QM and it's standard model the main tool in the search for the truth and as such is taught in the institutions of higher learning. No matter how much you may disagree you know that students will consider it to be the only truth because of the enormous predicting powers of QM. QM is a statistical data analysis system that predicts the probability of an event occurring. I can predict that someone in the world will die in an automobile accident in the next sixty seconds with almost a hundred percent chance of being correct not because I have any knowledge of what caused the accident but I have data about what has happened in the past. Science made advances because some people went away from what the majority considered to be the truth.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 24/10/2010 18:53:14: It is a debate about the true nature of Space, Time and Energy.

Physics laws of Nature is a big puzzle. The Standard model gives us 2 main incompleted pieces, Relativity Theory about gravity and acceleration and Quantum Theory about the quantization of energy in particles. They both work pretty well in there own domain but they cannot explain each other. For examples, Relativity needs Quantum Theory to explain the physics of Blackholes (impossible singularity) and Quantum Theory needs Relativity to explain the physics of particles (unknown shapes and sizes).

Unification of gravity with electromagnetism and nuclear forces would link these two part of the puzzle...

Nuclear Forces actual model has been construct empirically by experimentation and observations. We have nuclear bomb and fission reactors that account for the success of this model, but it is incomplete. Physicists, who have been making this model, have accomplished a tremendous work because they start from a simple and incompleted model.

After a Unifying Theory, we should be able to build fusion reactors in a few years... And what about Nanotechnology and Superconductivity...?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Geezer on 25/10/2010 00:48:50: Thanks CPT. I think I understand that. What I'm struggling with is why this so different from String Theory? Does this not also require additional dimensions? Are extra dimension not somewhat similar to having things "curled up in space"?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 25/10/2010 11:47:33: Quote from: Geezer on 25/10/2010 00:48:50
Are extra dimension not somewhat similar to having things "curled up in space"?
Or indeed necessary for?????
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 25/10/2010 23:44:48: I don't need 10 or 11 dimensions. I just need 4 or 5 dimensions. String Theories are interesting but they did not predict anything proved yet... Until now, String theories seems to emerge from a common mathematical framework. They are defined by data from experimentation within the Standard model of particles. Maybe someday, this mathematical framework will lead to new discoveries...

I just need the four dimensions of space and time and maybe a fifth for the charges. The rotating photons are in space and their effects in time and space and maybe a fifth dimension for the charges...

See this!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Kaluza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein_theory

This theory has never been disproved. Einstein and his colleagues stop investigating it when they found no mathematical solution. But i think i know why, because gravity and electromagnetism are mutually exclusive (duality wave-particle)... I am working on it...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Geezer on 26/10/2010 18:44:40: That was really my only point. They both rely on additional dimensions.

If there are additional dimensions, why would a smaller number be necessarily any better?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 28/10/2010 17:51:54: Less dimensions is not necessarily better but it is simpler...

There is no string in my theory but there is minimum quantum length and energy. I still have to find how quantization of particles appears in spacetime.

The key point is that Gravity and acceleration are the same as Time rate... If you have no change in acceleration or gravity, you have a fixed timerate. The zero timerate line of the particles explains the Relativity Theory.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 31/10/2010 02:16:02: Follow the links

http://fora.tv/2008/07/23/Leonard_Susskind_-_The_Black_Hole_War#chapter_05

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~nipoplaw/PLB_687_110.pdf
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 17/11/2010 12:05:02: I don't think this should have been moved from physics.

It has been proven in experimental physics that all matter is made from light. Light is also a fundamental particle, which would make it the fundamental consituent of all matter. No physicist argues with this, so why was this moved? Or atleast, no credible scientist argues with this.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 17/11/2010 12:10:54: I moved this thread because the claims being made were highly speculative and not based on mainstream physics. The main purpose of this forum is a science Q&A forum and if speculative posts are left outside of New Theories, it can confuse and mislead those who show up to ask questions.

I think what no credible scientist would argue with is energy is the currency of physics, and light and all other particles can be created from energy (as long as certain conservation laws are kept in mind). As for particles literally being made up of photons, that's certainly outside of the mainstream.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 17/11/2010 15:07:56: Quote from: QuantumClue on 17/11/2010 12:05:02
It has been proven in experimental physics that all matter is made from light.

That is simply nonsense.
Ypu may be getting confused with this: Mass-energy_equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence)
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 17/11/2010 19:56:44: Quote from: peppercorn on 17/11/2010 15:07:56
Quote from: QuantumClue on 17/11/2010 12:05:02
It has been proven in experimental physics that all matter is made from light.

That is simply nonsense.
Ypu may be getting confused with this: Mass-energy_equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence)

Not at all.

Are you familiar with a more successful site called ''sciforums''?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 17/11/2010 21:30:36: Quote from: QuantumClue on 17/11/2010 19:56:44
Not at all.

Are you familiar with a more successful site called ''sciforums''?

a) What's your definition of successful, exactly? Are talking quality or quantity? Should 'sciforums' now be recognised as a peer review body?
b) If you've got some amazing 'new' evidence that the whole of the respected scientific community doesn;t know about why not reference it here for us ignoramuses.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Geezer on 18/11/2010 06:05:48: Quote from: QuantumClue on 17/11/2010 19:56:44
Are you familiar with a more successful site called ''sciforums''?

Are you familiar with Dale Carnegie's book - "How to Win Friends and Influence People"

http://www.dalecarnegie.com/golden_book.jsp?keycode=google06_Brand&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=G_Brand&gclid=CPGXiNfYqaUCFQULbAodYh--Zw

Quote:

"You will learn how to:

Communicate with diplomacy and tact
Become a more persuasive communicator
Be an effective leader
Reduce stress
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 18/11/2010 20:43:14: Quote from: peppercorn on 17/11/2010 21:30:36
Quote from: QuantumClue on 17/11/2010 19:56:44
Not at all.

Are you familiar with a more successful site called ''sciforums''?

a) What's your definition of successful, exactly? Are talking quality or quantity? Should 'sciforums' now be recognised as a peer review body?
b) If you've got some amazing 'new' evidence that the whole of the respected scientific community doesn;t know about why not reference it here for us ignoramuses.

Well by successful, I mean with the amount of people who attend. Maybe not so much quality of posts.

There was a competition where a member BenTheMan who is a string theorist asked how matter could not be made of light. Something must of happened because he soon changed his mind and apologized saying matter can be made of light. There seems to be no mathematical reason why they can't.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 19/11/2010 11:58:57: Quote from: QuantumClue on 18/11/2010 20:43:14
Well by successful, I mean with the amount of people who attend. Maybe not so much quality of posts.

There was a competition where a member BenTheMan who is a string theorist asked how matter could not be made of light. Something must of happened because he soon changed his mind and apologized saying matter can be made of light. There seems to be no mathematical reason why they can't.

Regardless of what a user on another forum decided, mainstream science does not accept that all matter is made of light. Also, this thread in particular was making a lot of very non-standard speculations on the nature of matter. We have let threads linger on in the mainstream sections of the forum because they were good debate on the nature of matter and whether it could be made of light. This wasn't a debate so much as a new theory being developed, so it was moved here.

If you want mathematical reasons why such theories are a problem:

Light doesn't interact with itself; matter interacts with light.

The apparent sizes of particles and the wavelengths of light pose some problems (i.e. point-like particles).

The all-light theory would have to explain non-E&M forces, such as the weak and strong nuclear forces.

These are all experimental observations that are described by the standard model, but as far as I know cannot be explained by an all-matter-is-photons theory. I'm sure there are others, but those are just off the top of my head.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 19/11/2010 12:50:17: Quote from: QuantumClue on 18/11/2010 20:43:14
There was a competition where a member BenTheMan who is a string theorist asked how matter could not be made of light. Something must of happened because he soon changed his mind and apologized saying matter can be made of light. There seems to be no mathematical reason why they can't.

As JP has stated referencing (well just implying actually) another forum is not a respected source.
As for "BenTheMan who is a string theorist" - Are you having a laugh? Is that the renowned BenTheMan, PhD of CalTech???! [;D]
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 19/11/2010 12:59:23: Yes it is. Does it sound like I am joking?

As for speculative comments on other matters, I was not referring to those. I am referring to the well-applied concept that matter is made from light, and that scientists do recognize this. How exactly matter is made from light is not exactly known. But that is a matter of experiment.

You can make matter from light, and the light used to make that matter can be extracted. No matter what way you percieve it, matter is made from light.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 19/11/2010 13:00:46: And I don't see how the Photon Theory would need to answer the strong force. That is a strange statement. Electro-strong theory has already been unified into a theory, so there is no correlation required further.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 19/11/2010 13:11:46: Quote from: QuantumClue on 19/11/2010 12:59:23
You can make matter from light, and the light used to make that matter can be extracted.

That's the argument that's constantly, and erroneously, made in these threads. The more accurate statement is that matter is made from energy, and that in certain circumstances the energy in light can be changed into other particles. In some cases, I can break light into an electron and a positron, but this hardly means that all light is made of electrons.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 19/11/2010 13:11:47: Here is a seperate link if you don't trust BenTheMan

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 19/11/2010 13:25:19: Some quotes from the article:

"Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter"

"Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists."

"The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced."

I guess you could say energy in the form of photons can be turned into matter in some special cases, but saying matter is made from light is misleading given what "made from" is usually taken to mean that if you zoom in with a microscope you'll see photons zipping around inside of any particle of matter.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 19/11/2010 13:36:15: Quote from: JP on 19/11/2010 13:25:19
I guess you could say energy in the form of photons can be turned into matter in some special cases, but saying matter is made from light is misleading given what "made from" is usually taken to mean that if you zoom in with a microscope you'll see photons zipping around inside of any particle of matter.
Quite!
Especially in the context that we are in a thread called "Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?", don't ya think?!

Q'Clue,
Following the reductionist principle, physics supposes that the mechanism that makes both light and matter observable phenomena in our universe is one where (it is postulated that) at high enough energies all particles (matter, photons, et al) visible to us will be shown to coalesce into a common elemental genesis.

This is a long way from saying matter is, at its heart, light (photons).
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 19/11/2010 15:15:19: W
Quote from: JP on 19/11/2010 13:25:19
Some quotes from the article:

"Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter"

"Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists."

"The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced."

I guess you could say energy in the form of photons can be turned into matter in some special cases, but saying matter is made from light is misleading given what "made from" is usually taken to mean that if you zoom in with a microscope you'll see photons zipping around inside of any particle of matter.

Well let us address this. This is not a special case. All matter can be made to reduce back to the photon energy which created them, which is part of the conservation of charge. Photons are just an energy, and it is this same energy all matter can be created. Those particles which are borne of photon energy still ''carry'' the information about the photon even in their material states, or photon energy could not be conserved.

Matter transmutating inton light, and light into matter shows a direct correlation. The material required to make matter is simply energy, and as current physics seems to be hinting at, a photon is simply required for such a transformation. Question yourself exactly how all matter can in fact be reduced to gamma energy? It is not a coincidence. It is because the photon(s) required to make the matter is in fact the energy used to create new types of particles, which under the shadow of it all, behave and act differently to photons. This is why it is not always immediate to think of matter being made from photon energy, but the fact of the matter is that this seems to be correct.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 19/11/2010 16:04:39: You know, Dirac once modelled the electron against his own theory. The electron would found to contain a zitter motion due to negative charge interacting with it from the vacuum. He also found that the electron was really a photon, but appeared to move a lot slower because of this zig zag motion through space - I know this is a little different, but its very plausible to find some kind of motion given to a photon to give the appearance of another particle. This is in regards to the comment about it being a fundamental constituent of all matter.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 22/11/2010 12:01:26: So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 22/11/2010 12:09:11: Quote from: QuantumClue on 22/11/2010 12:01:26
So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?
No.
To say 'reduced back' is misleading - and wrong.

Quote from: peppercorn on 17/11/2010 15:07:56
Mass-energy_equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence)

'Equivalence' is an excellent mathematical description of what is really, physically observed. Anything else is just word play on your part.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 22/11/2010 18:07:48: Quote from: peppercorn on 22/11/2010 12:09:11
Quote from: QuantumClue on 22/11/2010 12:01:26
So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?
No.
To say 'reduced back' is misleading - and wrong.

Quote from: peppercorn on 17/11/2010 15:07:56
Mass-energy_equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence)

'Equivalence' is an excellent mathematical description of what is really, physically observed. Anything else is just word play on your part.

Reduced back is not misleading. All material objects in the universe was borne of energy. Matter is but a concentrated energy, while energy is a diffused matter. Equivalence mearly states that they are fundamentally the same, that from matter you can get energy and energy from matter.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 22/11/2010 18:08:53: Not to mention all matter can indeed be reduced back to photon energy in arrival with their antipartners. How else would one word this? I'd like to be taught.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 22/11/2010 18:12:46: I did a little search on google. A result did come up.

This scientist does indeed proclaim all matter is made from light, and he says he explains why in his book. His name is Fred Alan Wolf

http://www.fredalanwolf.com/

''It will take us into the world of fundamental particles and how they are actually made from light. ''

Well, there is one scientist already. I have also linked to the page where scientists made matter from light, not light from matter, but is nothing but a consequence of E=Mc^2.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 22/11/2010 22:42:49: Yet another circular thread, I see. That's why I was pointing out your playing with words.
What, beyond what mainstream fund. physics already describes (including Equivalence), are you trying to claimed is not yet explained? I can't see the ultimate point of all your arguments.... (?)
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 23/11/2010 11:39:02: Quote from: peppercorn on 22/11/2010 22:42:49
Yet another circular thread, I see. That's why I was pointing out your playing with words.
What, beyond what mainstream fund. physics already describes (including Equivalence), are you trying to claimed is not yet explained? I can't see the ultimate point of all your arguments.... (?)

If I am playing with words, then the scientist above is dabbing it with holy water.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 23/11/2010 11:44:48: My point is however, scientists are catching on to the idea that matter is made of light. I am not playing with words here - that was a job of the OP when talking about ''fundamentals'' - my statement is clear, all matter when it comes into contact with antimatter turn into light, or reduce back into light, suggesting at one point all this matter was, was but energy. This is not a trick. A clown or Hawking is not going to jump out from behing the couch. I am deadly serious when I say this is what science is progressing towards. And HAS progressed to.

Radiation from light is a lot more complicated than E=Mc^2. In fact the equation is trivial in the sense you take into account all of matter - and how they can be made to reduce back to photons. These little bits of matter never started their lifetimes as matter. At one point somewhere there was enough concentration of energy which gave life to particles. Just so happens like a symmetry in nature antiparticles are created alongside normal particles, and every particle no matter what kind, subjected to their antipartner will reduce to photons.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 23/11/2010 12:12:05: Quote from: QuantumClue on 23/11/2010 11:44:48
My point is however, scientists are catching on to the idea that matter is made of light. I am not playing with words here - that was a job of the OP when talking about ''fundamentals'' - my statement is clear, all matter when it comes into contact with antimatter turn into light, or reduce back into light, suggesting at one point all this matter was, was but energy. This is not a trick. A clown or Hawking is not going to jump out from behing the couch. I am deadly serious when I say this is what science is progressing towards. And HAS progressed to.

Radiation from light is a lot more complicated than E=Mc^2. In fact the equation is trivial in the sense you take into account all of matter - and how they can be made to reduce back to photons. These little bits of matter never started their lifetimes as matter. At one point somewhere there was enough concentration of energy which gave life to particles. Just so happens like a symmetry in nature antiparticles are created alongside normal particles, and every particle no matter what kind, subjected to their antipartner will reduce to photons.

I apologise for inadvertently 'throwing-you-into-the-same-boat' as the OP (which I kind'a did) - I see that you are looking at this with a rational eye. I would say, however, that you have (in places) given the impression that mainstream science has still to accept that the most likely form of the very early universe was one of a sea of energy, but by my understanding, this is by far the preferred view in the astrophysics community.

I am uncertain what extra development of these theories you are proposing we should consider - This is, afterall, the 'New Theories' board.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 23/11/2010 12:17:47: Quote from: peppercorn on 23/11/2010 12:12:05
Quote from: QuantumClue on 23/11/2010 11:44:48
My point is however, scientists are catching on to the idea that matter is made of light. I am not playing with words here - that was a job of the OP when talking about ''fundamentals'' - my statement is clear, all matter when it comes into contact with antimatter turn into light, or reduce back into light, suggesting at one point all this matter was, was but energy. This is not a trick. A clown or Hawking is not going to jump out from behing the couch. I am deadly serious when I say this is what science is progressing towards. And HAS progressed to.

Radiation from light is a lot more complicated than E=Mc^2. In fact the equation is trivial in the sense you take into account all of matter - and how they can be made to reduce back to photons. These little bits of matter never started their lifetimes as matter. At one point somewhere there was enough concentration of energy which gave life to particles. Just so happens like a symmetry in nature antiparticles are created alongside normal particles, and every particle no matter what kind, subjected to their antipartner will reduce to photons.

I apologise for inadvertently 'throwing-you-into-the-same-boat' as the OP (which I kind'a did) - I see that you are looking at this with a rational eye. I would say, however, that you have (in places) given the impression that mainstream science has still to accept that the most likely form of the very early universe was one of a sea of energy, but by my understanding, this is by far the preferred view in the astrophysics community.

I am uncertain what extra development of these theories you are proposing we should consider - This is, afterall, the 'New Theories' board.

There remains a problem. There is no model to date in the standard model which suggests the universe appeared in a flood of photons. To say photon is fundamental is like saying a quark-gluon sea did not occur. It's tit for tat between the two ideas. Personally, I think there was certainly a phase transition from photons into matter post big bang. When is open to speculation.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 23/11/2010 18:20:05: Doesn't that assume the standard model is the only answer? It seems to me there must be a possibility that it is entirely wrong if it must depend on the existence of the graviton, Higgs and virtual particles.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 23/11/2010 18:25:09: Quote from: Ron Hughes on 23/11/2010 18:20:05
Doesn't that assume the standard model is the only answer? It seems to me there must be a possibility that it is entirely wrong if it must depend on the existence of the graviton, Higgs and virtual particles.

That's exactly why millions is being spent on looking for the Higgs.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 23/11/2010 20:07:31: Quote from: Ron Hughes on 23/11/2010 18:20:05
Doesn't that assume the standard model is the only answer? It seems to me there must be a possibility that it is entirely wrong if it must depend on the existence of the graviton, Higgs and virtual particles.
Yes.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 24/11/2010 03:06:34: Ron, about your now old question about how the collision of 2 photons would create a particle, it is just a matter of just the right amount of relative energy of the 2 photons colliding and about the symmetry of the collision of the charges. The best way is a frontal collision, if the 2 + or the 2 - charges collide and merge together, the other 2 opposite charges will merge automatically. For dark matter particles, the charges annihilate each other. For matter created shortly after the BigBang it is much more complicated. That is why the LHC is so important. But i guess they won't find the Higgs boson...

About black holes, dark matter and dark energy, i urge you to watch "Through the wormhole" with Morgan Freeman, specially "The Riddle of black holes" and "Beyond the darkness" episodes. You will see how my model answers so many questions... It is so well made and actual...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 24/11/2010 10:33:12: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 24/11/2010 03:06:34
But I guess they won't find the Higgs boson..

Is your 'guess' based on anything?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Geezer on 24/11/2010 18:37:11: Quote from: peppercorn on 24/11/2010 10:33:12
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 24/11/2010 03:06:34
But I guess they won't find the Higgs boson..

Is your 'guess' based on anything?

Perhaps it's based on a desire to be able to say something like "See! I told you so."?

The question is, will we ever hear anything to the contrary if they do find it.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 25/11/2010 00:53:23: I am not this kind of person. [:D]

I just think the photon is the sole elementary particle. According to this thinking, there is no Higgs field. The LHC still might produce heavy dark matter particles looking like Higgs bosons, but that would be a mislead. I found too many answers from this theory to think it is just a matter of chances... I don't say i am totally right... I need time to work on it.

"Unfortunately if you try and write down a theory of particles and their interactions then the simplest version requires all the masses of the particles to be zero. So on one hand we have a whole variety of masses and on the other a theory in which all masses should be zero. Such conundrums provide the excitement and the challenges of science. "

from: http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs2.htm

I understand why sometimes you have a bad perception of me and i will try to behave myself accordingly. We all need devil's advocates. I really don't hope or expect to get fame or anything glorious of it... But it would be nice to meet in person people who participate on this forum.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Geezer on 25/11/2010 06:50:22: I'll go one better than you. Personally, I believe that all matter is simply a manifestation of energy encapsulated in space/time. This might be the same as, or a variation of, String Theory.

However, as I'm in no position back up my opinion with anything other than anecdotal evidence, there is little point in me saying much about it.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 25/11/2010 15:52:22: This looks like another way to see the same thing (maybe a wider perspective). Are photons particles travelling through empty space or are they waves of energy travelling in the fabric of spacetime? I think both points of view are valuable.

If anyone think my evidences are anecdotal it is because they did not read it carefully and or they did not take my point of view in analysing actual problems of Physics. I posted a small fraction of all the evidences i have found...

The String theories seem to be very promising in the long term.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: QuantumClue on 26/11/2010 05:24:33: Well, Hawking does not beleive we will find it... He outranks us all.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 26/11/2010 06:29:47: Regardless of whether we find it or not, the useful thing about the theories that predict it is that they predict it. In other words, they make concrete, testable predictions that can be checked. If we don't find it, we know they're wrong.

The problem with a lot of all-matter-is-photon theories is that they don't do this, so they're not of much use to physicists.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Geezer on 26/11/2010 08:16:46: Quote from: JP on 26/11/2010 06:29:47

The problem with a lot of all-matter-is-photon theories is that they don't do this, so they're not of much use to physicists.

Doesn't that rather depend on what type of physicist one is? Personally, I find them quite useful.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 26/11/2010 11:11:46: Quote from: Geezer on 26/11/2010 08:16:46
Quote from: JP on 26/11/2010 06:29:47
The problem with a lot of all-matter-is-photon theories is that they don't do this, so they're not of much use to physicists.
Doesn't that rather depend on what type of physicist one is? Personally, I find them quite useful.

They could potentially be quite useful (along with pretty much any 'flavour' of theory) if they made testable predictions - but where are these predictions (predictions that can be described as a set of equations)?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 26/11/2010 16:47:22: we predicted the sizes of any particle if we have its mass... It totally agrees with recent measurements, size is inversely proportional to the mass (for elementary particle).

I predict many things about the Bigbang, blackholes, dark matter and dark energy, but we have to wait...

For more maths, i need much time which i don't have. But instead of being lazy critics you could help... [;)]
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: peppercorn on 26/11/2010 20:07:12: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 26/11/2010 16:47:22
I predicted many things about the Bigbang, blackholes, dark matter and dark energy, but we have to wait...

When you say "I predicted", I can only take that to mean that when, forty plus years ago, when you wrote up your completed (mathematically descriptive) physics paper (that you, for some reason, chose not to publish), you had a full theoretical model predicting all these phenomena that pre-dated the works of Harking, Penrose et al.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 03/12/2010 04:12:26: Concerning the Doppler effect, it is interesting to look at how the conservation of information may occur. The original frequency of the photon at its creation, convey the information about the particle it comes from. The original frequencies of photons have to exist in finite and specific quantum possibilities in order to have the possibility of retrieving the information... Quantization is thus necessary for the conservation of information. This is an important link between Quantum Theory and Relativity. This is a clue toward the understanding of the quantization phenomenon. It has a profound implication: nothing can have an infinite acceleration (thus impossible infinite gravitational force)... In the contrary, information would be lost forever... This is why we need the relativity of mass and a finite maximum velocity of C.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/12/2010 08:04:56: Model for Black Holes using the Planck Length

Three observations i made attracted my attention recently.

The first one is that many galaxies possess two black holes at their center. These black holes seems to have a relative motion to each other, similar to those observe in particle physics.

http://www.jannalevin.com/science.html

See "Through the wormhole", "The Riddle of black holes" episode.

The second observation is that according to the most recent computed models for a star going supernova (hypernova), the explosion is still unexplained. All models finish in the total mass going into the generated black hole.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/180/1/012022/pdf/1742-6596_180_1_012022.pdf

The third observation is a theoretical one. According to the Holographic Principle, some kind of holographic image of everything going inside a black hole should be stored in 2D at the event horizon (for the conservation of information).

With these three observations in mind and that the elementary particle is the photon, it seems that a black hole should be a multiple wavelengths (or photons) particle. For a symmetry reason, all wavelengths should be of the same length, the Planck wavelength. In a supernova, the first black holes should appear from single particles collapsing around the center of the star. They should collapse to a particle of a size 2πR=2πLp=ʎp (for a circle approximation). If all photons collapse into a single particle of this size, there will be no explosion, only an implosion and nothing will be left. The photons (or any way you want to call it) collapsing will connect into a ring that , when enlarging, will cause the explosion of the supernova.

The Planck Length = 1.616 x 10-35 m

ʎp = 2πLp = 1.0154 x 10^-34

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html

Supposing the quantization is based on a minimal wavelength λp = 2πLp.

A circular black hole having a circumference of N*ʎp and a mass m, will have an energy of

E = mC2 = N * h * C / ʎp

For N = 1,
m = Mp = 2.1916 x 10^-8 kg (Planck mass)

R = N * ʎp / 2π
Where N = m / Mp
R =(m/Mp) * (ʎp / 2π)
R = m * 7.374 x 10^-28

For a one solar mass black hole,
R = 1466.6 m, in comparison, the Schwarszchild radius is twice as large at about 2951 m.

For the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, evaluated to approximately 4 million solar masses,
R = 5.867 * 10^9 m or a diameter of 1.173 x 10^7 km.

Again in comparison, the Schwarszchild radius is about 1.18 x 10^7 km, twice as large.

For a sphere made with this kind of rotating wave at a speed of C, the simplest solution is
R(sphere) = R (circle) / √2
For a diameter of about 0.929 x 10^7 km

Validation:

At the event horizon, all particles are transferred into light and travel at the speed of light. At the speed of light, there is no relativity. Once a photon has reach the event horizon, there is no relative movement... Before and after, equations must have a continuity... Relativistic energy due to gravity is perpendicular to the ring and it is reciprocal for both the particles and blackhole, so it just vanishes... (in gamma ray burst)

F = GM1M2/R^2 = M2 * a

Where
G is the Gravitational constant
M1 is the black hole mass
M2 is the mass of the particle
R is the radius of the event horizon or the size of the black hole
a is the radial acceleration of the particle as a photon rotating at the event horizon and is equal to v^2/R = C^2/R.

=> GM1/R^2 = C^2/R

=> G/C^2 = R/M1

R = GM1/C^2 (or half the traditional Schwarszchild radius)

Thus a prediction of maximum event horizons sizes of half the sizes of the Schwarszchild radius.

The black ring is made of two concentric rings separated by the Planck length. The rings are made of multiple photons, each having two wavelengths of 2pi*L_p, one wavelength inside and one outside. There is no gravity in the middle.

If the Big Bang was the breaking of a black hole, the space in the middle of the ring(s) would look like a faster than light expansion from the point of view of the actual Big Bang Theory...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 13/12/2010 06:23:11: What happen if two black holes become concentric? The more massive black hole is the outer one. If the black hole inside is large enough you will have a BigBang and two concentric halos in the background radiation (WMAP)!!!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-evidence-of-time-before-big
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JP on 13/12/2010 08:13:35: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 13/12/2010 06:23:11
What happen if two black holes become concentric? The more massive black hole is the outer one. If the black hole inside is large enough you will have a BigBang and two concentric halos in the background radiation (WMAPS)!!!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-evidence-of-time-before-big

Um... that article has nothing to do with two concentric black holes causing big bangs...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 13/12/2010 17:49:25: No, but they confirm concentric halos in the WMAPS.

Where do you see a true explanation?

The standard model of the Bigbang is a fairy tale...

The more people will study the WMAP, the more people will find the flaws of this fairy tale...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1486

http://www.physorg.com/news154627589.html

To be correct, i must say that the fairy tale end, somehow, with the end of the faster than light inflation...

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/060915_CMB_Timeline150.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity
!!!
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 30/12/2010 01:36:22: According to Relativity, any observer in an inertial frame of reference will measure the speed C for all vector components of a beam of light. According to my theory, gravity and time are the same. Time is propagating at the speed of light, so light always has a zero timerate. Photons have different time but they always have a zero timerate.

For a black hole, light at the event horizon is rotating at a maximum curvature of spacetime for a maximum energy density. For an outside observer, the energy is the same as the energy of a particle, E=MC^2. For a photon at the EH (event horizon), there is no mass and the energy of the black hole is E=NhC/λ. Light at the EH has to be the source of gravity and time. It is the source of the spacetime curvature...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/01/2011 06:05:23: Supposing an electric charge has always a size of the Planck Length and supposing the mass (and gravity) of any particles including black holes is produced by the charges, I have just found the solution to a unification theory... A black hole must have many charges to produce a stronger gravitation field than a minimal black hole of r=Lp and m=mp. So a black hole is not a singularity but grows with its mass... The total charge may be zero but the charges are still there...

α*G*Mp^2 = e^2/(4πξ0) = α*h*C/2π

where α is the coupling constant = 1/137
and e is the elementary charge.

Later this week i will post more explanations about how i got there and how it agrees with my theory.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 15/01/2011 03:23:11: Quantum entanglement explanation:

When two photons, having parallel polarization and a relative energy in a quantization range of a pair of elementary particle-antiparticle, exist in the same space (to be determined) but 180 degrees out of phase to each other, they create a pair of particle-antiparticle. These particles are made of half of each photons and have half the charge from both of them. For the particles, gravity and timerate appear from their own creation... Both particles are created simultaneously. This is just a model because curvature of spacetime maybe necessary. (According to the conservation of momentum, the photons have to travel in opposite directions for particles to be created.)

From its creation to its rebirth as being half of both particle and antiparticle, a photon travels in no timerate. For the photon, it existed from its origin A to its destination B in no time and thus had a length dimension from A to B in space.

The lightwave rotating around a particle never stopped moving at the speed of light and it is thus still linked to its origin A in no time... It is its spin...

The spatial polarization of photons is directly related to their spins and is unlimited in velocity, but it is limited in reach only by their mass energy quanta in specific spacetime coordinates. Again, a strong relation between time and gravity...

It means there is non local hidden variables. For two entangled photons, at their creation, they both have a dissociative common and dependent variable about their spin.

My theory says that the BigBang was produced by one or two unstable blackholes. A blackhole is a particle of multiple wavelengths Nλp. Thus, all energy of our Universe was once entangled!!! It does not violate causality in anyway. It just means we need to know all spins and their relations in the Universe to have a 100% certitude prediction. This is entropy growing... This data seems to be unreachable but the system itself may still be causal... There is still the possibility that Biological entities may input undeterministic data to a causal and mechanical system... More dimensions...?

Pilot wave theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

experimental evidence:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 07/02/2011 03:01:12: According to the Kaluza-Klein Theory, the charge is a fifth dimension. If the photons are made of charges (but having a total of zero), time and gravity can be an effect of the charges going at a slower speed than the speed of light. All particles have charges, even the neutron. So all particles have their own referential clock associated to their charge. The charge has a radial dimension of the Planck Length. This is my assumptions. Dark Matter particles must have a total charge of zero, but the charges do not vanish; they still interact by creating a gravitational field.

General Relativity equations are not valid for sizes smaller than the Planck Length and it doesn't explain what happen to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces beyond that in a black hole... Here is the link between Relativity and Quantum Theory...

α*G*Mp^2 = e^2/(4πξ0) = α*h*C/2π = α*Mp*C^2*Lp

Where the first term contains the gravitational angular momentum, the second term contains the electrical potential angular momentum and the third term is the space time geometry (subscript p is for Planck).

The gravitational lightwave angular momentum of a rotating photon at a radius of the Planck Length is

G*Mp^2/C = h/2π = Mp*C*Lp

This equation is valid for all elementary particles:

G*Mp^2/C = h/2π = M*C*R

from E = M*C^2 = h*ν = h*C/λ

Where
M is the particle's mass,
R is the particle's radius.

Erratum: A charge always propagates at the speed of light. 6/03/2011
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/02/2011 09:09:33: An electric charge travelling at the speed of light (as a photon) is in the fifth dimension, but not interacting with the dimension of time. Is the charge really going at the speed of light? Is it really in the dimension of space? For now, we can only say that it appears to travel at the speed of light and thus in space, according to what we see from its interactions with matter.

The Doppler effect on the frequency of a photon, ascending or descending a gravitational field, is caused by the specific rate of the referential clock of the particle it will interact with... So, if it interacts with a particle in a strong gravitational field, its frequency will be higher than if it interacts with a particle in a low gravitational field, due to the slower rate of the particle's referential clock...

http://vixra.org/pdf/1012.0006v2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909014v1.pdf
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 17/02/2011 05:40:54: Special Relativity and Equivalence Principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

According to Special Relativity, and it has been proved,

The Lorentz contraction formula is

L' = L/γ = L*√(1-v^2/C^2)

where γ = 1/√(1-v^2/C^2)

According to my theory, a length contraction will decrease the radius of the particle by the same amount. If its radius decrease, its mass will increase:

the gravitational lightwave angular momentum of an elementary particle at rest is given by

M*C*R = h/2π = G*Mp^2/C

For a moving particle along the x axis,

Mx'*C*Rx' = γ*Mx*C*Rx/γ = h/2π

Its gravitational lightwave angular momentum is unaffected by relativity. It shows that, it is, in someway, more fundamental than Relativity.

The photon rotating at a radius R', for a relativistic observer, generates a true mass of M'. Thus, the inertial mass should be considered to be equivalent to its gravitational mass. It is a generalisation, because they both have a different cause, as understood until now. According to my theory, they are both created by the rotation of a photon at a radius having a corresponding mass. The true gravitational mass depends entirely on the relativity of movement and the rest mass, it is thus the same as inertial mass. Einstein was right after all...

Last, I just want you to pay attention to the fact that timerate has the same "dilatation" or increase as mass and gravity...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: williampcochran on 22/02/2011 14:17:42: Ark Angel, i have been following your post with much interest. you truly are a genius...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Phractality on 22/02/2011 21:41:21: I agree that what we can see of the universe is entirely made up of photons. Well, not exactly photons, but ethereal shear waves; a photon is a special kind of ethereal shear wave, and all ethereal shear waves propagate at the speed of light.

It is difficult for me to answer this question fully without explaining my whole Fractal Foam Model of Universes (http://home.comcast.net/~fractal_cosmology/Articles/Fractal_Foam_Model_of_Universes.html). One element of the model is like a solitary piece of a jigsaw puzzle. It makes no sense out of context. Nevertheless, I shall try to stay on point.

In my model:

Particles are made of orbiting pairs (or groups) of ethereal shear waves, which orbit one another at the speed of light. A photon is an ethereal shear wave which obeys the formula E = hc/λ. A photon having the energy equivalent of an electron's mass has a wavelength, λ, about 1000 times longer than the classical radius of an electron. So the shear waves that orbit one another to form an electron must have wavelengths at least 1000 times shorter than photons of the same energy. In fact, some claim to have established upper limits on the size of the electron as small as 10^-22 m, which is about 10,000,000 times smaller than the classical radius. So the shear waves that orbit one another to form particles are not, strictly speaking, photons.

Everything in our universe consists of ethereal shear waves (regular energy) and ethereal pressure waves (dark energy). All the forces of nature result from exchange of momentum between the two types of waves. The mix of shear waves and pressure waves is chaotic, and each species of particle is a strange attractor. The rest mass of the particle is energy-mass of the orbiting shear waves.

Yes, a photon has mass IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE. I must digress to explain why photons have no mass in Minkowski space-time. This truth is sadly missing from you classical education, and it may seem to contradict what you think you know. Try to see this as clarification, rather than contradiction.

In Euclidean space, there is mutual attraction between photons and other masses by the force of gravity. The formula, f = ma, doesn't work at relativistic speeds for particles with rest mass, let alone for photons. The correct formula for both is f = dp/dt; force is the rate of change of momentum. (For a rest mass, dp = mdv + vdm.) If the force of gravity is not parallel to the path of the photon, then the photon will change direction and follow a curved path.

In Minkowski space-time, the path of a photon is the definition of a straight line. Straightening the path of light by definition is the cause of the warp of space-time. The warp is caused by gravity, not the other way around. Minkowski's redefinition of a straight line tacitly alters the meanings of all the familiar parameters, including mass. This is why it is said that a photon has no mass; they’re not telling you that this is only true in Minkowski space-time. If you ask about Euclidean space, they tell you that Euclidean space does not exist in a gravity field. If you believe in Euclidean space, as I do, they treat you like a Flat-Earther.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 23/02/2011 00:01:46: Thanks William for your encouragement...

Phractality : F=ma should work at the event horizon if the black hole keeps only the equivalent of the rest mass of a particle. Relativistic energy is mainly created by the gravitational field and is reciprocal for both the black hole and the particle and it vanishes in an almost perfect inelastic collision at the event horizon. You should start your own discussion so we can have more details about your theory. It is very interesting...

I use "m" for energy to mass equivalence, not for rest mass of the photon... Sorry for being misleading.

m in mc^2 is the generated mass by the charge rotating at the speed of light...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Phractality on 23/02/2011 01:18:23: ArkAngel,

The way "relativistic mass" was taught when I was in university (1967), was like this: If the particle has relativistic velocity in a particular reference frame, it would have its unchanged rest mass plus relativistic mass in that frame. The relativistic mass was the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy. I believe that the modern explanation is that the particle has only one mass in a given reference frame, and that is the result of applying the Lorentz transformation to the rest mass and velocity. So the modern term for mass is the sum of rest mass and relativistic mass. The term "relativistic mass" is no longer used. I am trying to use the modern terminology. Obviously, I could be wrong, since I haven't sat in a university classroom for several decades.

I don't know much about black holes, and I don't know why f = ma should work there. The point I was making is this: For a constant force acting on a given particle, the acceleration decreases because of the increased mass, and also because the force is generating additional mass. According to f = ma, the change of momentum should be dp = mdv. In fact, the change of momentum is dp = mdv + vdm. This presents no problem if you use the formula, f = dp/dt, which works for both rest mass and for photons. A photon has no rest mass because it cannot rest, but it does have both inertial and gravitational mass in Euclidean space. I am not competent at using general relativity, but those who are tend to swear that a photon has no mass...period, exclamation! To say otherwise is heresy.

I have posted a summary of my Fractal Foam Model of Universes (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=37454.0) for discussion on this forum.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 23/02/2011 02:11:38: I totally agree with you except that Einstein said that any energy momentum will produce a spacetime curvature.

Photons travel in the basic curvature of space. My event horizon is the basic curvature of space. The kinetic (relativistic) energy momentum due to the gravitational field is perpendicular to the curvature of space and it is reciprocal...

Rest mass is a scalar and relativistic mass is vectorial, that is why we should differentiate them. They both produce a gravitational field, one absolute, the other relative... But they both can be unified in a vectorial field (and their gravitational effects as a tensor).

Einstein was a real genius, he thought about it a 100 years ago, at a time where communications were mostly talking and exchange of letters!!!
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Phractality on 23/02/2011 03:41:00: ArkAngel,

The confusion is over the different kinds of space. Euclidean space is not warped by gravity, and light bends around a black hole. Inside the event horizon, the light is trapped and goes around in loops. In Minkowski space-time, the path of light is the definition of a straight line. So those loops are actually straight lines in Minkowski space-time. The politically correct party line is that the warp of space-time causes gravity. I believe in the heresy that gravity plus the redefinition of a straight line is the cause of the warp.

I have to chuckle when I hear people talking about light bending because of the warp. That is a mixture of terminologies from the two types of space. In general relativity, light does not bend around a black hole. Instead, light may intersect on one side of the black hole, follow two straight lines on opposite side of the black hole and intersect again on the other side without bending. Also, the internal angles of a triangle around the black hole add up to more than 180°.

I think Einstein said mass, not momentum, is responsible for the warp of space-time. I believe energy in the form of light also contributes. As I said before, light has both inertial and gravitational mass in Euclidean space. The gravity of a star bends the path of the photon with a force equal to the rate of change of the photon's momentum. For momentum to be conserved, there must be an equal and opposite force attracting the star to the photon. I also believe that the gravitational mass of a moving particle is the mass that you derive from the Lorentz transformation of the rest mass.

You should get the same result by applying the Lorentz transformation to each of the orbiting shear waves that constitute the particle. The momentum of the particle is the sum of momenta of the orbiting shear waves. From m = f/a, f = dp/dt and a = dv/dt, we get m = (dp/dt)/(dv/dt) = dp/dv. So you have to apply the Lorentz transformation to the momentum, p, for the increment, dv. And that should demonstrate that the momentum of the particle is the sum of momenta of the orbiting shear waves. The math is complicated by the fact that the orbits precess. I am somewhat daunted by the math; we can't all be experts at everything, you know.

I don't quite get your meaning about relativistic mass being a vector. As for inertial mass, I suppose you mean that a force applied to a particle in a given reference frame will produce different amounts of acceleration depending on the angle between the force vector and the velocity vector. However, I was under the impression that "force" is not in the lexicon of general relativity. I don't know what force is in Minkowski space-time.

As for gravitational mass, I suppose you mean that a moving particle's gravity field is not spherically symmetrical. That is plausible to me when I think of the gravity field as having substance; it should be affected by length contraction and time dilation. However, I am not convinced that relativity can be applied that way to a gravity field. I believe all the forces propagate at a finite speed, namely the speed of dark energy pressure waves, which are at least 20 billion times faster than light. That being so, there must be a preferred reference frame in which gravity fields are spherically symmetrical, and in other reference frames, the Lorentz transformations apply. (But I am overstepping the bounds of my understanding, here. In other words, I am speculating wildly.)

I have fixed some of my links. I was putting the url in quotes, as required on a different forum.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 23/02/2011 04:13:28: Now i understand your claims. If you read entirely my theory you will see that i considered that light for itself travels in a straight line. The way you see it is of a relative importance, what is the most important is the consistency regarding experience. If photons are the true elementary energy quantum, it means Minkowski spacetime is more fundamental. But i try to separate time from space just to get a better view of it. Space and time are certainly "entangled" but do they have the same origin? I don't know... probably...

In my theory, everything is made of photons and photon's rotation forms particles and generates gravity. The only model it can logically produce for a black hole is a ring, if light always goes at the speed of light... Light always traveling at the speed of light is the main consistent experience for my theory...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Phractality on 23/02/2011 05:07:44: How can we work together on a Tower to Heaven with me speaking Babylonian and you speaking Egyptian? I am modeling a particle as an pair of shear waves orbiting in tight circles, and for you, those same shear waves are following straight lines inside a sort of black hole. When space-time is warped to that extreme, how can there be a transformation formula to reconcile it with Euclidean space?

I shall try to look thru your eyes. It is difficult for me to envision an infinitely long straight line being confined inside the radius of an electron. Besides, the warp of Minkowski space-time is supposed to explain gravity, not the strong force. (Actually, I think it is another force stronger than the strong force; maybe it is the Higgs force. But for now, let's just say "strong force".) If the strong force causes shear waves to orbit in such a small space, then the warp must have more causes than just gravity. Perhaps a particle could be described as a tiny black hole. With the strong force warping space-time, it shouldn't take that much mass to form a black hole. Are we still talking about Minkowski space-time? I don't think Minkowski envisioned any force other than gravity associated with the warp of space-time.

I don't want to give the impression that Minkowski space-time is any less valid than Euclidean space. I think both are legitimate, and each has its uses. Einstein's GR formulas are written for Minkowski space-time, so they are not valid for Euclidean space. I believe it is possible to solve GR problems in Euclidean space by means of numerical analysis, applying the transformations of SR to small enough increments of space and time. The two approaches will not yield the same numbers, but they should agree on such things as whether two objects will collide or not. I'm no expert, but I suspect the numerical approach would require several orders of magnitude more computer time than Einstein's approach. The advantage of Euclidean space is that it paints a more intuitive picture of the underlying causes of forces and particles. My model would be incomprehensible in Minkowski space-time.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 23/02/2011 06:00:20: I don't say that gravity is the same as the strong force. I just say that gravity and electromagnetism are generated by the electric charges, though they are not the same. As for the strong force, i just say there is a possibility that it is purely magnetic. After all, all elementary particles having a nuclear field are supposed to have been created shortly after the BingBang. The energy density was so high that gravity was at that time an important factor.

I will read your theory more carefully and comment it later.

look for "magnetar" it might interest you.

And about Einstein saying that any energy momentum will produce a spacetime curvature, i heard it from Einstein himself on an audio file somewhere on this forum. He does not say that all energy momentum is in the curvature (for example, a simple photon or an exchange of nuclear energy for nucleons).

I must add that if you look at time as the bearer of gravity information and time is localized for a particle, Euclidean space might be the best solution but i need to think about it seriously... But it does not change my equations.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Magnus W on 25/02/2011 14:42:39: What I really like about this theory is that it seems to explain many things, although I´m not smart enought to follow it all it looks really interesting. Do you think there is any way to test this theory in the future by some experiment?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 25/02/2011 16:10:47: see this:

1- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/nature07245.html

More explanations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.1105v1.pdf

look page 6, right column: "Upper limits upon Ra/D are found directly via the radio
VLBI observations collected in Table 1. These are
shown in Fig. 5, with their 3–σ upper bounds (again
denoted by the hatched regions) together with the combined
infrared limit. The recent 1.3mm detection is the
strongest, and excludes Ra/D > 27 μas at the 3–σ level."

My prediction is half Schwarzchild radius ~26 μas

page 7, right column: "As a consequence, we
cannot yet say that Sgr A* is described by a GR black
hole despite being able to conclude that a horizon must
exist."

2- Would a ring shape be more fitted???!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40097454/ns/technology_and_science-space/

http://www.astronomy.com/News-Observing/News/2010/01/Peering%20into%20the%20heart%20of%20darkness.aspx
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Phractality on 25/02/2011 22:13:10: ArkAngel,

Your arxiv link illustrates a problem with Minkowski space-time, namely the impossibility of illustrating it in terms that the human mind can comprehend. The light-ray diagram, Fig 1, shows curved paths for photons. Evidently, this figure is drawn in Euclidean space, or something like it, because light does not bend in Minkowski space-time. I suspect that discussions of the shape of a black hole are describing its shape in Euclidean space, or something like it. If you are talking about mapping the warp of space-time in space-time, that is a different matter, and one which does not compute in ordinary human minds, at least not in mine.

To me, this is another Tower of Babel. Even the Babylonians don't speak Babylonian all the time. They're speaking Babylyptian without knowing where one language gives way to the other.

To change the subject slightly, my understanding is that Minkowski assumed only gravity can bend the path of light in Euclidean space. What if other forces can do so? What if the effect is many orders of magnitude stronger than that of gravity? We know that light is not bent by a strong electric field in a vacuum, at least not so we can detect it, but the effect on electric charges is about 44 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

If the path of light is the definition of a straight line in Minkowski space-time, and if the strong force can bend the path of light in Euclidean space, then space-time should be warped to a far greater extent in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus. A proton could be a kind of black hole, with photons trapped inside, not by gravity but by the strong force. Those photons could be moving at the speed of light in an infinitely long straight line inside the proton. Seen in Euclidean space, that same photon is orbiting in tight precessing circles.

As I explained in my first response to this topic, below, we should make a distinction between photons, which obey the formula, E = hc/λ, and the orbiting ethereal shear waves that constitute fundamental particles. What is the difference? If you modify general relativity to account for the stronger warp of space-time inside a particle, then perhaps length contraction makes the photon fit is a tighter space. But then, why wouldn't relativity also increase the mass-energy of the photon by the same proportion? I'm just thinking out loud; I don't pretend to know the answers.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 25/02/2011 23:20:58: Regarding your last question, it does increase the mass. This explain Einstein 's Equivalence Principle... The mass increase is useful and real in a particles collider like the LHC. And it generates gravity, a relativistic one... Meaning it depends on the observer's referential frame.

A proton is smaller and has more mass than an electron.

A photon, as an electromagnetic quantum and unlike particles, has no mass and has a constant speed. It has no timerate but a frequency. Only its frequency is affected by the referential clock of the observer.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Phractality on 26/02/2011 02:53:52: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 25/02/2011 23:20:58
Regarding your last question, it does increase the mass. This explain Einstein 's Equivalence Principle... The mass increase is useful and real in a particles collider like the LHC. And it generates gravity, a relativistic one... Meaning it depends on the observer's referential frame.

Combining the formulas E = hc/λ and E = mc², you get mc² = hc/λ, so m = h/cλ, and λ = mc/h. Applying that last formula to the mass of an electron yields a wavelength about 1000th of the classical radius of the electron.

I'm trying to imagine a pair of photons having a total energy equivalent to 1/1000th of the rest mass of an electron. Somehow, as they near one another, traveling in opposite directions, a mysterious force (perhaps the strong force) pulls them into a potential well so deep that they end up orbiting with a mass-energy at least 1000 times greater than what they started out with. At the same time, length contraction shortens their wavelength to fit inside an electron. (That figure of 1000 comes from the classical radius of the electron. Other estimates of the electrons size are 10,000,000 times smaller; some even think the electron is a dimensionless point.)

So the photons would still be photons, still matching the formula E = hc/λ to a hypothetical nano-observer inside the potential well, but 1000 times more energetic (massive) to an observer outside of the the potential well. I'm talking about a potential well produced, not by gravity or electrostatic potential, but by the potential of whatever force causes the photons to orbit one another. It might be the strong force or the Higgs force.

Quote
A proton is smaller and has more mass than an electron.

Correct. The proton's charge radius is 0.877 fm. There is much more uncertainty over the size of an electron; some claim it is a dimensionless point; some claim to have established an upper limit of 10^-22 m; the electron's classical radius is 2.818 fm. Accepting the largest electron size, the proton is still about 3 times larger in radius. With nearly 2000 times as much mass, the proton's size is much closer to a match for the equivalent wavelength of a photon with the same mass-energy.

However, it is doubtful if a proton is a fundamental particle. For all we know, the quarks may be thousands of times smaller than electrons, and orbiting each other to fill the size of the proton.

I am still thinking in terms of Euclidean space. If gravity is not the only force that can bend the path of a photon in Euclidean space, and if the path of a photon remains as the definition of a straight line in Minkowski space-time, then gravity is not the only cause of the warp of space-time. A force that makes photons orbit one another inside an electron has to be many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity; so it must warp space-time enough to create black holes with the size and mass of electrons. Perhaps this can be the unifying principle to marry GR with quantum physics.
________________________________________________

Getting back to your insistence that photons are fundamental and their straight-line paths are the best description of space:

In a way, you are right. Shapes of small physical objects, seen by local observers, don't change in Minkowski space-time (so long as the size is small enough to avoid tidal stress). In Euclidean space, the curved path of light may alter the shape of the object. The effect is extremely small, except in extreme environments, like the event horizon of a black hole or inside the nucleus of an atom. Perhaps Minkowski space-time is best for describing particle systems larger than atoms. I still think Euclidean space is best for describing a fundamental particle. There is a gray area in between those scales.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 26/02/2011 06:52:56: Phractality, please start other discussions because you're diluting the comprehension of my theory.

The size of particles from my equations are right as far as the last experiments on the subject. The size of an electron is quite large and well known for quite a while... It is not an accurate value, though.

You haven't read my theory from the beginning. A photon is an electromagnetic wave with an electromagnetic energy momentum associated. Its total charge is zero but it is truly made of a half charge + and a half charge -. Due to the speed of light and Heisenberg Principle, the charges appear to be zero. When two photons occupy the same space, they may change into gravitational lightwaves in certain circumstances, explained earlier. The charges become static and their momentum are changed into gravitational lightwaves. So gravity is generated by the charges. Black holes will not appear so easily, in fact, according to my theory, the LHC will never produce them because it cannot produce enough relativistic energy. The only possibility comes from Dark Matter, simply because i don't have enough info to make a well defined model of it...

If you want to understand my theory you have to read it all, including most of the hyperlinks. Everything works fine, though i have a better description of what can be verified in a matter of a few years. I don't want to go too far. I can even explain Heisenberg Principle (later)... In fact, my model is underlying quantum physics. For practical reasons, physicists have developed probabilistic models around experiments and the uncertainty principle. But, they went too far in this direction, in my opinion. Physics needs desperately a new perspective...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Phractality on 27/02/2011 20:16:58: My model ain't that different from yours. We should help each other out, instead of arguing over whose model is right. Discussing your model has helped me to refine my own.

The momentum of a photon is p = E/c = h/λ. The energy of a photon is E = hc/λ = mc², where m is the mass of the photon in Euclidean space. A photon has no mass in general relativity, but it does have both inertial and gravitational mass in Euclidean space. So the mass of a photon in Euclidean space is m = E/c² = h/λc.

Newton's law of universal gravitation applies to all masses, including that of photons. f = G(m₂m₂/r²). You can't use the formula f = ma at relativistic speeds, or at the speed of light; instead, you must use f = dp/dt; i.e. force is the time rate of change of momentum. As a photon passes near a star, its direction changes in Euclidean space, and a change of direction is a change of momentum. To conserve momentum, the star's momenum much change by an equal and opposite amount. This proves that a photon has gravitational mass in Euclidean space. In Minkowski space-time, however, the direction of the photon's momentum does not change because it follows a straight line (by Minkowski's definition of a straight line). This is why it is said that a photon has no mass. If you ask them about Euclidean space, they'll tell you that Euclidean space does not exist in a gravity field. That's a lie!

Now, I've laid the foundation of my argument to refute one of your claims. Stop talking about "energy momentum of photons". A photon has energy, and it has momentum; an increase in one is an increase in the other.

Gravity is proportional to mass, not momentum. You don't see momentum in the universal law of gravitation, do you? Momentum is a vector, so momenta in opposite directions cancel. The gravity of masses moving in opposite directions does not cancel; it increases in proportion to the kinetic energy. Angular momentum isn't in the gravitation formula, ether. Spinning increases mass in proportion to the spin energy, not the angular momentum.

If a photon could spin fast enough to "catch its tail", it would keep its energy and lose its momentum. Something very similar happens in my model. A particle is a pair of photons orbiting one another; their momenta are equal and opposite, so the momentum of a particle at rest is zero, even though the individual photons still have their momenta.

Do you have an explanation for what causes a photon to spin and catch its tail. Can you relate the cause to the Higgs field?

Also, it should be obvious that a photon cannot spin or orbit in Minkowski space-time, since it must follow a straight line, by definition. So a particle in your model or mine would translate to a tiny black hole in Minkowski space-time. Such a black hole would be a warp of space-time not related to gravity. Anything that bends the path of light in Euclidean space contributes to the warp of space-time. Einstein's GR assumes that only gravity can bend the path of light in Euclidean space. I believe the Higgs field can do so, and the effect is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 05/03/2011 22:21:00: I don't want to conclude anything about spacetime. Would it be Euclidean or Minkowski's or something else, it should be, at best, the conclusion of a unified theory. It is better to let your mind opened. Definitely, space, time and photons are all we have...

I don't want to argue about definitions, it is futile.

The problem with the Higgs field is that there is a specific particle (Higgs boson) associated to it. You can't dissociate rest mass and particles, this would lead to photons. Though, some might argue that a boson is a photon in transition, it still cannot be dissociated.

For the rest, you did not understand me. I am not clear enough, obviously. Don't forget that gravity is caused by elementary charges from a fifth dimension. The charges generate a constant gravitational lightwave angular momentum of h/2π. Their relative oscillating frequency is their relative energy and determines their spacetime dimensions: Space by the radius of particles and time by their mass...

Please... Please, start a new discussion if you want to discuss with me. Most of your questions are already answered or are just misleading. I don't say you are wrong, i just say, i am going north and you are describing south. Everything should be explained at a specific time and space to be well understood.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 07/03/2011 23:13:27: G*Mp^2/C = Mp*C*Lp = h/2π

This is certainly not a coincidence, in fact, it is just a more basic information about the origin of the elementary angular momentum quantum h/2π.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/Bohr_Atom/Bohr_Atom.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

This is a proof that matter is made of photons!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Phractality on 08/03/2011 00:28:28: You don't have to convince me that matter is made of photons. You're preaching to the choir on that matter.

Mp & Lp are defined in terms of h. The surprise is that they bear a peculiar relation to G. I'm curious about the precision of this relationship. If it is better than 5 decimal places, then it is probably not coincidence. If it is 12 decimal places, then it is definitely not coincidence.

I'm struggling to understand the physical meaning of your equations. Could you write a descriptive paragraph or two describing what they mean in knuckle-head terms.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 08/03/2011 03:56:09: It is precise enough to be considered as not being a coincidence. Experimental values of accuracy are always smaller than in reality.

GMp^2 is like e^2/(4πξ0) and it is produced by the charge, the same way the electric field is. But, unlike the electric field, it does not create directly a gravitational field but it generates a gravitational lightwave (or as you see it, a shearwave) having a constant angular momentum of h/2π. The frequency of the two oscillating half charges in a photon determine the mass and radius differentials when interacting with particles or when involved in a creation of particles (2 particles, matter and antimatter particles, which mean that 2 photons, minimally, are needed).

Kaluza and Klein viewed the charge as being in a fifth dimension, having an interaction with other four dimensions of a fixed and very small dimension. They found that Maxwell equations are General Relativity's equations but with one more dimension. The problem is that the charges produce a quantized value for the angular momentum, so that the classical mathematics used could not solve it (adding terms to Maxwell equations). On the other hand, Einstein has concluded that his Gravity equation of General Relativity does not describe anything smaller than the Planck Length...

To produce a blackhole, you need an energy greater than Mp*C^2. Even if there is enough energy to produce a gravitational field stronger than the electric field, a particle will need energy from surrounding particles to collapse into a minimal blackhole of Mp. Which is not a problem inside a collapsing star. Two charges cannot occupy the same space, so it means radiation will be emitted.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Phractality on 08/03/2011 07:37:18: On second thought, there is nothing surprising at all about this; it comes directly from the definition of the Planck mass. Mp ≡ √(ħc/G).
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 08/03/2011 09:14:11: or Mp = h/(C*2πLp) , but i have never seen anywhere an expression like G*Mp^2 = h*C/2π = Mp*C^2*Lp = e^2/(α*4πξ0).
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 29/03/2011 20:09:51: Errata, spin, gravitational wave and nuclear force

ERRATA:

The electron classical magnetic moment (or Bohr magneton μB) is given by

μB = I * S

Where I is the current and S the surface inside the circular current

μB = [(e * C)/2πR] * πR^2 = e * C * R/2 = e * h /(4π*me)

Where e is the electric charge
R is the rotating charge radius and is given by

R = h/(2π * me * C)

Dirac's equations involve a small relativistic correction

μe = -1.0016 * μB

Thus, we have to conclude that the charge is not in the middle of the electron but rotating at a radius R.

It implies that the charges always move at the speed of light and never stop. But the charge has an acceleration toward the center of the particle and it does not emit Bremsstrahlung radiation. The electric charge does not change at relative speed. I still think, the charge is an interaction from a fifth dimension and its acceleration produces a gravitational wave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_magneton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

Proton and neutron sizes

Protons and neutrons are made of 3 quarks which are necessarily lighter than protons and neutrons. The protons and neutrons sizes cannot be determine solely by their masses. The size of each quarks (if quarks are elementary particles) should be about 3 times larger than the equivalent proton or neutron sizes (calculated as an elementary particle). The true masses of quarks has never been measured and appear smaller because of their Strong binding energy. The experimentally measured sizes of particles are their electric charges rotation sizes...

Spin and gravitational wave

G*Mp^2/C = Mp*C*Lp = e^2/(α*C*4πξ0) = h/2π

Earlier, i said that the spin of an elementary particle is given by

m*C*R = h/2π

We know that the spin is a multiple integer of h/4π (or 1/2). What is wrong? I was implying that the gravitational wave has the same radius as the rotating charge and all the particle's energy mc^2 is kinetic energy. I was wrong, the gravitational wave has either,

1- half the rotational radius of the charge (the spin would be equal to 1 when the charge is in the middle of the gravitational wave and they both have the same radius only).

or

2- half the total energy mc^2 is in the kinetic spin and the other half is potential binding gravitational energy (the energy needed to generate its intrinsic spacetime).

I will go further by saying that the gravitational wave is generating spacetime and even further, the Strong Interaction is, at least, mainly, if not completely, gravitational in nature. It is not magnetic as i thought (though magnetism has certainly a relation to gravity: it is a relativistic effect).

Nuclear Force

The term G*Mp^2 seems to be the Strong Interaction

G*Mp^2 = 137 * e^2/(4πξ0)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

Here is a simple model for the purpose of understanding, only:

Two particles with a very small difference in sizes are concentric, the smaller one is in the middle of the larger particle.
Virtual particles (pi mesons?) are constantly exchanged between both particles so that their difference in radius becomes effectively 2*Lp

The gravitational attraction becomes

Fg = G*M1*M2/(2Lp)^2 = G*Mp^2/(R1+R2)^2 = 137 * e^2/(4πξ0*(R1+R2)^2)

You can verify it, it is correct.

The binding energy is given by

GMp^2/(R1+R2)

For the Nuclear Force between protons and neutrons, you can see their binding energy in the following graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg

For a concentric model of one neutron concentric to a proton (just for the purpose of understanding) the binding energy calculated is about 470 MeV... Proton and neutron energy MC^2 is about 940 MeV, which is twice the calculated binding...

N.B.: virtual particles are necessary for the standard model of the Strong and Nuclear forces too. Their cause is probably in part electromagnetic and they certainly need very specific reasons to appear. I don't really believe in spontaneous virtual particles, but i can't be sure of that. It looks like a quantum pervertion...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 05/04/2011 13:31:51: Here is a quote from Einstein:

"This objection would be justified if the equations of gravitation were to be considered as equations of the total field. But since this is not the case, one will have to say that the field of a material particle will differ the more from a pure gravitational field the closer one comes to the location of the particle. If one had the field equations of the total field, one would be compelled to demand that the particles themselves could be represented as solutions of the complete field equations that are free of irregularities everywhere. Only then would the general theory of relativity be a complete theory."

From http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-08/6-08.htm
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: kornbredrsqar on 22/04/2011 20:54:18: WOW, there is a lot of info in this forum, and most of which is above my pay grade, but what I do comprehend of it seems to fit in with an idea I have on this subject that was posted earlier,
and after watching a short explanation of string theory it to had properties that fit in as well. If photons are dark matter then the energy they possess is dark energy, and light is waves that travel through them and each photon might be connected electromagnetically in a multidimensional gridlike structure that somehow permeates all other matter and at the same time makes up that matter. I also wounder if the fact that light waves of different wavelengths are more easily refracted then others could be why the farther away an object is the redder it appears to be. has there been any calculations or studies to disprove this idea?. To me this makes more sense than the phase shift theory, but then that would cause an uproar in the big bang comunity wouldn't it. From what I learned the whole expanding universe theory hinges on this one single peace of evidence, to me it is like hanging a 500 pound panting on a thumb tack and expecting it to hold up. Has anyone ever observed a faze shift of light on earth as an object passes by, like for instance a light on an SR-71, as this plane is capable of very high speeds, it seems like a likely candidate for recording an actual change in light frequency as it passes the point of observation.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 24/04/2011 08:43:43: Dark Matter:

The studies of gravitational lensing produced by Dark Matter showed that it is localized and it does not propagate at the speed of light. It does not seem to interact with the electromagnetic field but only with gravity and maybe the weak force. It sounds pretty much like particles to me... But what is bothering me about this is that we should see the effect of it in our solar system, unless there is not much around here.

It could be heavy virtual particles forming by the interactions of very high energy photons. Their decay could feed the creation of other virtual particles and this process could continue for a while without being fed by an external agent. According to my theory, Dark Matter particles of a fixed mass energy should be easier to produce than ordinary particles because they would be made of opposite charges. The problem with the virtual particles is the quantity needed and maybe no mass produced at all... Maybe they are not so virtual... Is it possible that they have been created at the BigBang and their generating process has been sustained for so long? Instability would explain why there is not much around the solar system, due to the sun's radiation. But they could be more stable between stars, in deep space, and produced by the interactions of stars photonic radiation.

For the redshift, the classical redshift by moving light sources or particles has been proved a long time ago and the distance has no consequence.

About Dark Energy, I see 3 general possibilities:

1- It is the negative pressure of true vacuum. Spacetime has been released from confinement in this vacuum at the BigBang.

2- Dark energy is simply gravity from matter outside what we can see of the Universe. A possibility we should consider if Dark flows are real. Maybe Dark Matter?

3- It is a new Force. All attempts at a measurement of it has been unsuccessful until now. The solution does not seem to be here. But who knows?

4- The cosmological model on which dark energy is founded is wrong...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: kornbredrsqar on 25/04/2011 16:27:00: I guess gravity is a better explanation of the forces having to due with photons rather than electromagnetic, bad choice of words I suppose,but it still seems to me that an individual photon being emitted from a source and traveling the enormous distances that they do is not logical, the immense number of them that would be required to emit light in all directions from a star for the millions of years that a star lasts does not seem possible to me, and if this is possible then there should be a measurable transfer of mass from the source to the observer or whatever serfice that is absorbing the light. This is the main reason for my theory that individual photons only moving a short distance and transferring there energy from one to the next much like sound waves that travel through air.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 27/05/2011 07:46:05: Some people on the forum, including me, have already thought about the fifth dimension as being a grid of electric charges (having a radius of the Planck Length) in the 3D space. It sounds a little reductionist but it is not impossible. [:-\]

Here is a very good summary of classical attempts at a Unification Theory. The most interesting part for my theory is the one about Klein's theory (unification of gravity and Maxwell's equations, see section 6.3):

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2

Here is an article about the concentric rings in the Cosmic Background Radiation (R. Penrose and V.G. Gurzadyan):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 07/06/2011 03:58:08: Euclidean Space and Relativity

In my opinion, we are in an Euclidean space, but as we are made of light (all matter and energy), we cannot perceive a speed higher than the speed of light. So the Newtonian Doppler shift of the frequency becomes relativistic... Timerate really slows down with acceleration and increase of gravity. The length perception contracts because of the variation of timerate and frequency. There is no black holes but there is black rings. I would bet anything on it... Mass, gravity and time are strongly related.

Spacetime is real for us, but there is a true Euclidean space. The limit of spacetime is the Planck length because gravity is caused by the electric charge having a radius of the Planck length. A charge can produce a maximum mass of Mp (the Planck mass). Beyond the Planck length, space appears Euclidean again... This is it, i nailed it...

A particle having a mass of Mp is a charge spinning on itself, it does not rotate anymore, so there is no relativity anymore...

(the charges of quarks are not 1/3 (+/-) and 2/3 (+/-) but -1 or +1, they just appear to be like this: I have a working model of the proton and the neutron, i found the muon in it, with pions, size, confinement, magnetic moment, beta decay; the Strong force looks like a unification of electromagnetism and gravity).
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 08/06/2011 05:13:02: Here is a graph of the Relativistic (black) vs newtonian (red) doppler shifts.

The y axis is f_observer/f_emitter.

The x axis is relative v/c of the emitter to the observer, a positive v is toward the observer.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/06/2011 07:10:33: Relative timerate is directly related to the rotation period of the charge around an elementary particle. This period is relative to each particle. The apparent timerate is real and it is regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe... This may seems farfetched but it is not...

In their own frame of reference, each type of elementary particles has the same timerate. What can regulate time? Only something with no timerate: Entanglement.

See page 4 for my entanglement explanation.

Recent experimentation: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193

Wave pilot theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/06/2011 09:47:01: Quote from: yor_on on 10/06/2011 08:21:21
I don't find the arrow uncertain, I find it a constant, inside your own frame. The idea of conceptually defining time when comparing frames is, conceptual. The real truth is that your arrow of time never change.

And furthermore, we're all carrying our personal SpaceTime with us. Which makes it incredibly difficult to define where a 'frame of reference' starts and ends. If I expect every 'point' to be slightly different gravitationally, and then include relative motion/acceleration I now have two good reasons for that definition. So where do you think your 'frame of reference' is situated? The one I, and you too actually, expect you to have? and how do we join them?

I don't need to define a 'time dilation' to any specific 'locality', can you see what I mean? It's a relation, nothing more.
==

How about accelerations? They are all defined by one thing as I see it, or two actually.
They all have 'gravity', and they all expend 'energy'.

The arrow of time is a constant in its own frame, i agree. But what makes, for example, all electrons, with no relative movement to each other, having the same unrelativistic properties. And what about the differentiation of acceleration and deceleration like in the twins experiment, which must be true differentiation in terms of information...

You could say that it comes from a reference point, a singularity, the usual bigbang. I just don't believe in that, if you unconditioned yourself to this point of view, you will find that it is highly improbable. You should look at its history and how it came to be and think about other possibilities.

In my understanding of entanglement, it conveys instantly informations about the spins between two entangled particles. The timerate information is in the spin according to my theory, it is the rotation period of the electric charge or frequency, if you prefer (in my model, it is two halves of an electric charge).

Thanks Yor_on, it is a golden question that i needed!
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: yor_on on 10/06/2011 22:59:36: Ahh CPT, now you're discussing two, or, maybe more things :)

We have matter as your chair. Then we have its constituents, which are the 'particles'. The particles seems to be both loosely defined as well as being able to 'pinpoint' depending on your view. For an electron that can express itself under certain circumstances, as the same electron apparently is able to exist in two orbitals, simultaneously. That's not what we expect of our chairs.

Then there is the definition of a charge.

Do you define a charge to a photon? If you do you better know that there have been no experiments I know of defining such a thing. The only idea existing, as far as I know, is the theoretical definitions of its limits, if it would exist.

And yes, you can see a entanglement the way you do, as a form of 'information' but information imply a communication, and all 'useful' communications known takes time. The other variant is to define it as those two particles in a way is the exact same. Just like the idea of a wave plastered out through SpaceTime. Some call them 'clones', but the principle defines as you say something 'instant'.

"The apparent timerate is real and it is regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe"

I've been wondering about that one too, if all photons to some degree could be defined as entangled. Although you lose me when defining the 'timerate' as regulated? We're talking entanglements I presume, and then you can not have any 'useful' information.

How do you think there?
==

Another thing worth thinking of. In a entanglement the particle(s) defined always will have a opposite 'spin'. If they are the 'same', why does this differ?

A symmetry?

Keep it on CPT. All ideas change with reflection, but the longer you think of it the simpler it should be. If you find yourself going the other way, finding it to becoming increasingly complicated, then it's time to draw back to test the assumptions.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 14/06/2011 01:09:46: There can be 2 electrons with opposite spins on the same orbital, they are not on top of each other, they just orbit on opposite sides of the nucleus.

Far from an electron, it is perceived as a point particle, but its gravitational and electromagnetic fields comes from a ring shape. The charge appears smeared around its rotation, because it has a velocity of c in its own frame. I see a particle as being a strong entanglement of halves of photons. With MRC = h/2π and E=hν, it forms the uncertainty principle.

In the same way, a photon is made of two halves of a charge (to account for a possibility of dark matter made of +1/2 -1/2) of +1/2 and -1/2. The charge is smeared and it produces an effective charge of zero.

All energy of the universe is made of one wave of light in an Euclidean 3d space. Particles and photons are the strong entanglement relations and entanglement between particles and photons is the weak one. A part of the weak entanglement regulates time (and gravity) by relativity. You can see it like a coil spring between two entangled particles, but you must replace space dimension x by the velocity v component dx/dt (Δx -> Δv). Vectors of acceleration and gravity corresponding to true inertial force between two particles are stored in the entanglement.

Some information travels at the speed of light, some are instantaneous but are limited between the two entangled particles.

According to what i have read, some researchers are trying to experiment with multiple levels of entanglement, they want to reach a higher than 50% certainty on the switch of the spin. An up spin changes by 90 to 270 degrees, making it a down spin with 50% of uncertainty...

An excellent explanation of some properties of the spin that gives a good idea of how it works:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html

About Relativity and Minkowski spacetime:
According to Einstein Theory of Relativity, our four main dimensions should be indivisible spacetime. Simultaneity is relative to the observer and there is no possible true simultaneous related events, because nothing can have a velocity greater than the speed of light. In this model, relativity is explained by the properties of spacetime itself. The problem is that it does not allow simultaneity and non locality. This is why Einstein disliked so much the idea of entanglement.

http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTheory/OtherRelativity.doc
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 16/06/2011 14:39:57: Evidence of a ring black hole...?

http://journalofcosmology.com/SchildLeiter1.pdf

If you look at figure 7 page 39, the yellow dotted lines look much like the gravity equipotentials of my ring black hole. The black ring is somewhere between the center and the white color ring.

The size of the ring seems to agree with their conclusion, Rg is about half the Schwarzschild radius (see page 4 of my theory for my description of a black ring).

About MECO: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0602/0602453v1.pdf

Here is dipole measurements in the CMB radiation map (courtesy of yor_on :):
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

Anomalies in the spin of galaxies:
http://128.84.158.119/abs/1104.2815
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 28/06/2011 03:15:02: It is now clear for me, that there is no true Spacetime as Einstein conceptualized it. There is only one giant wave of light (or many) in a Euclidean space (Phractality was right about Euclidean space).

The laws of Entanglement and the laws of General and Special Relativity come from properties of the lightwave as a whole, "propagating" through 3D space.

Spacetime is only apparent, there is no true curvature of spacetime, but there is curvature of light in space. The lower limit of apparent Spacetime is the rest mass and the higher limit is the Planck mass. The ultimate proof lays on the present and future observations of black holes.

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html (another gem discovered on the net by Yor_on)
The most interesting paragraph is "Objections", a must read!!!

A little secret:
The strong force is what maintain the two half charges in an elementary particle. The two half charges are the virtual particles needed (they are inside h/2π) and they are bound by GMp^2/(2R)^2, energy = MC^2 = MC^2/2 + GMp^2/2R (kinetic + Strong potential) where MCR = h/2π. Remember, the charge has no mass, no inertia, but it creates it by rotating. All dimensions except space dimensions expand from the charges...

Why photons have no timerate and no apparent charge:
Photons can be viewed as a dipole of one -1/2 and one +1/2 charges, rotating at the speed of light and propagating at the speed of light. In analogy to a wheel, the distance it covers in a one rotation period is equal to its circumference without any shearing (in a particle's rest frame). Thus, you can replace the time dimension by a fourth space dimension for photons. For an elementary particle having a mass, there is a shearing of the wheel and you need something linking mass and space: this is Time... Here ends the analogy of a shearing wheel because it is not shearing in any medium other than its own, it is just rotating at the speed of light in its rest frame, which is not the case for a photon (no rest frame). And you can't measure the charges of something propagating with no timerate...

Viewed in this way, there is only a small difference between photons and neutrinos...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 20/07/2011 21:24:49: In very short, the HUP (uncertainty principle) is caused by:

A- Entanglement between all elementary particles of the universe (1st level=50%, 2nd=25%, 3rd=12.5%, ...); There is a 0 level or ground state of entanglement for the particle itself but it is a special case for later.
+
B- the electric charge is equally the mass charge, it always propagates at the speed of light;
+
C- an elementary particles possess an angular momentum of h/2π and a spin of 1/2.

The whole universe is totally causal excepted, probably, living entities, naturally... This would be the cause of evolution, or rather i should say: this is a process that enables evolution...

Elementary particle
An elementary particle (EP) with mass has a spin of 1/2, it has an annihilating antiparticle with perfect geometrical symmetry (circular and spherical for EP) and opposite electric charge (not mass, same mass). The photon is the ultimate elementary particle, but i don't use the term elementary particle for it anymore.

The charge always propagating at the speed of light solves so many problems that it may be the best solution. No experiment deny it, in the contrary, it is the best bet, it is simply an ultra basic property, even more than relativity. In my model, you have space and charges, that's all! All dimensions but Euclidean space are in the charge... The wave of energy is an expansion of some of the charge's dimensions. (note: fractal and superfluid links)

There is many circumstantial proofs that the charge rotates at the speed of light.

My first assumption is that everything is made of light and particles are made out of photons. The end of all decays is the photon. My second assumption is that there is a deterministic model underlying the probabilistic interpretation of QM, at least for the dimensions of the purely "material" world.

The magnetic moment of the electron using the compton wavelength indicates a rotation size in agreement with many experiments. Meaning the charge has a speed of C.

The Compton wavelength is used in the QM wave models of massive particles.

The spin has fixed values that represent an inertial angular momentum with a probability distribution for its direction. If you look at it in a relativistic point of view, what can possibly produce a fixed (quantized) inertial angular momentum? Something propagating at the speed of light with no mass, no inertia (superfluid?)... The charge...

Gravity is like an only attractive DC component of the electromagnetic field. AC and DC unified form the Strong Force, which is not a field but the binding of subatomic particles. It is a conclusion, not an assumption... (you can still see it as a one dimensional circular field!)

I have made an extensive research on the net.
If you look only at the basic verified properties of particles, discarding the purely theoretical, and you forget the artificial separations of the standard model due to the lack of knowledge about the Strong Force, you find that the elementary massive particles are all a rotating charge with a spin of 1/2. Electron, muon, Tau, quarks and neutrinos. Bosons are a special case because my theory denies the Higgs. Of what i understand, if there is no Higgs, the actual models of W and Z bosons are not correct.

N.B.: for neutrinos, we must differentiate the inertial spin from the electromagnetic spin due to its neutral electric charge...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 26/07/2011 22:42:45: A good news : "Was the universe born spinning?"

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

another one? : No time travel possible?

http://www.inquisitr.com/129162/hong-kong-research-proves-time-travel-impossible/

Even if i did not say it explicitly, mass and time is the circular motion of the charges, so implicitly, there is no negative time and no negative mass, not as far as my theory goes...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 02/08/2011 02:15:51: no negative mass?

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2011/07/28/antiproton-mass-measured-with-unprecedented-precision/
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: imatfaal on 02/08/2011 09:38:41: CPT - dunno if you can read the actual nature article; but the techniques involved in the measurement are stunning. I presume this is just inertial mass and no necessarily gravitational mass that has been measured. Personally I think the chances of a variation between gravitational and inertial mass - even for antimatter - are very slight (ie reulsive gravity between matter and antimatter). I would be fairly happy if I was you and your theory predicts no negtive mass
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 02/08/2011 18:33:24: I understand that they have measured the mass-energy of the antiproton. It is true that it is not an absolute proof of positive gravitational mass but it is nonetheless a good circumstantial proof of it.

I am amazed to find so many great experimenters in Physics...

About Dark Matter, now i tend to think it could be simply stopped neutrinos between stars. Supernovae produce mostly neutrinos!!! What if there is no true expansion of space, spacetime expansion could be included in the kinetic expansion, no faster than light. How old is the Universe then? The major problem is that time is relative... How can there be so much energy in neutrinos form? They are produced by supernovae, stars and probably matter near black holes. Dark Energy could simply be kinetic energy: there is no acceleration (no acceleration has really been measured yet), the bigbang could be a real explosion of a black ring in Euclidean space, so farther the objects are from the central point, the more kinetic energy they possess... Space is not spherical, we will never see the same object from two opposite sides of the Universe. The Universe is at least 26 billion years old at our actual timerate, not 13.5 billion years. We see the edge of the Universe in the past at 13 billion ly, assuming a constant velocity, this means the edge is now at 26 billion ly from us.

Spacetime creation and conformal coordinates expansion is not the fruit of Relativity but the fruit of the Theory of the creation of matter and spacetime from nothing...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13792-cosmic-time-warp-revealed-in-slowmotion-supernovae.html
This article talks about the proof of the expansion of space, but in fact, it's just a proof of larger redshifts related to higher relative velocities according to Special Relativity and time dilation ...

http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/ps/unified_force.pdf

Hints from the past: The largest black holes in the Universe

My black ring model is based on Kaluza-Klein Tower Equation:
http://everything.explained.at/Kaluza%e2%80%93Klein_theory/
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 05/08/2011 09:22:28: Not convinced yet? Watch this!

Through the Wormhole: Are There More Than Three Dimensions?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-there-more-than-three-dimensions/
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/08/2011 11:31:48: See this articles and related articles
http://physics.about.com/b/2010/04/22/could-quasars-disprove-time-dilation.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/553/2/L97/fulltext

The redshifts observed of visible matter around Quasars are standard relativistic redshifts. But the regular timing of the variations in intensity observed must be related directly to the black rings. The black ring (black hole) being the upper limit of relativity at Lp and Mp, it explains its absolute property of time dilation.

My theory is the only viable solution... simply because there is no other...!!! And i did not have to change it to solve the problem...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 18/08/2011 17:03:47: Though i am not sure about space expansion due to a lack of information on the big picture of the universe and a good explanation of the CMB, i am convinced that matter is made entirely of light. Everything inside the HUP is smeared and unmeasurable in space, time and energy. A photon is entirely inside HUP, having an electromagnetic origin, it must possess charges or it must travel through a grid of charges.

I am reluctant to reveal my next conclusion because many of you, specially those who haven't taken much time to think about my theory, will see it as a religious conclusion, which is not. It is a logical conclusion... Here it is:

Matter is made of light. Light does not exist in time. We perceive time. Conclusion: consciousness is outside matter (or light). Thus consciousness is from other dimensions than the dimensions of simple matter. There is a possibility that "near death experiences" are true... I just hope i won't regret to have written it down... [:o)] For now, take it as a grain of salt...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 30/08/2011 20:47:03: The fact is that the Strong Force is the electromagnetic and gravitational forces united (including the weak force). There is no proof for a fifth force, though there is a possibility according to the Dark energy theories.

The Strong Force unifies all forces into a black ring. If there is conservation of information, it is the lowest form of entropy.

Half or more of the Strong energy after a bigbang is transformed in part to other forms of energy: electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and kinetic. Kinetic and gravitational energy are relativistic. It is the gravitational link to mass that makes the kinetic energy being relativistic. You must see objects as a whole...

The only way to go faster than light is to be completely disentangled with the rest of the universe. But is it possible?

About Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB), it is probably only thermal radiation absorbed and emitted back and forth between massive particles in the universe, we just see it from the past. Its origin is still the bigbang.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 31/08/2011 22:46:50: Very interesting properties about GR and SR from GPS clocks measurements:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

It means the Earth was mainly liquid at its formation and the resulting shape produces a flat timerate everywhere on it at sea level. Certainly not a coincidence. Now, the Earth has cooled down and surrounding mass like mountains modify the timerate.

Escape velocity produce and equal amount of slow down of timerate (SR) compared to the increase in timerate at infinite distance due to gravity (GR).

For GR
T₀/T = 1/(√(1-2GM/RC²)

For SR
T/T₀ = 1/(√(1-V²/C²)

V_escape= √(2GM/R)

N.B.: Escape velocity means zero velocity at infinite distance...

My theory doesn't need aether, even though there is an origin (the bigbang or our bigbang is a possible absolute reference). Relativity is a property of the Wave of light (our entire "apparent" universe) with itself...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 28/09/2011 14:06:02: Do neutrinos travel faster than light?

We know neutrinos can have velocities below the speed of light.

Why the speed of photons is constant and not for neutrinos?

They both have an average electric charge of zero but the neutrinos have a nonzero mass charge. Neutrinos have a relativistic energy coming from its mass. Thus, neutrinos can be slow down to a alt in any referential frames, depending of proper gravitational force acting on it.

But can neutrinos travel faster than photons?

Even having an average zero electric charge, the photon is still bond by electromagnetic entanglement which convey the property of the speed of light to be constant. Relativity of light's frequency is only within the mass and timerate of a massive observer. Photon's charge is truly constant to +1/2 and -1/2 = 0. The electric charge seems to be more fundamental as an electric charge than a mass charge.

Depending on the unknown proper masses of the neutrinos and possibly the fine structure constant (or coupling constant=1/137), it is possible that the minimal strength of their gravitational entanglement is lower at their creation compare to the strength of photons electromagnetic entanglement. This would allow the neutrinos to have a higher momentum and speed

According to my theory, the only possibility for neutrinos to have a speed limit beyond C implies that their electromagnetic entanglement is changed ,in this case, in an enough quantity to a weaker gravitational entanglement as a proper mass charge. The neutrino's electric charge being equal to the photon's charge, it would mean neutrinos momentum increases by being bond in part by gravity rather than entirely by electromagnetism.

Different mass generation for neutrinos than ordinary matter? I think it is rather unlikely...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/10/2011 08:38:56: About curvature of light by a gravitational field and the shape of the universe.

Curvature of light by a gravitational field is due to the transversal gravitational entanglement of photons.

see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html#c4

Something important to note in this case is that the beam of light emitted by the star and received on earth is not the same as the one we would receive without the gravitational field of the sun. Thus, the light path has shortened. The rate of curvature maintains the speed of light constant locally.

This effect is produced by the pulling of all elementary particles of the sun on the photons by gravitational entanglement. Light has no mass because it does not depend on the energy of the free photon and light has no rest frame. Light has inertia in its direction of "propagation" when absorbed or reflected in a rest frame but it has no mass because of its constant velocity which is directly related to length and timerate. If gravity and light have the same velocity, photons just can't possess gravitational mass in its velocity direction! There is a kind of gravitational mass in the transverse direction though...

We observe from earth a longer path due the curvature, but locally it is straight due to the length contraction of the higher gravitational pulling nearby the sun. This is why all very massive objects in the universe are spherical (or circular in the case of a black ring).

In Euclidean space, a black ring would first expand in a donut shape, then in an ellipsoid (oblate spheroid) tending toward a sphere over time. The differential of the equatorial radius and the polar radius decrease over time. The black ring expands at the speed of light from a ring having a thickness of twice the Planck length and a diameter equal to half the Schwarzschild radius.

Light rays on a large scale are relatively straight but still length contracted in the middle of the universe and they have a higher curvature inward as they travel along the edge of the universe but certainly not enough to form a loop around the universe. It is a quite a simple explosion (expansion) in Euclidean space. In this case, a uniform expansion would produce an expansion of the ring shape only. My first proposition is an expansion with velocities proportional to the square of the distance. The universe we observe having a radius of about 14 billion Ly, the expansion could be quite linear in a first approximation in distances less than a billion Ly.

This way, it is highly possible that the expansion is due to the release of the kinetic energy of the black ring, half its total energy. The proof of that will come from observations of a non uniform and anisotropic universe.

Kinetic energy is relativistic energy without the rest mass energy (i prefer the term rest mass than invariant mass because of its reference to the rest frame).

Kinetic energy is energy which is not in a rest frame. It is energy in the form of momentum or free light (not a particle form having a rest mass). Free Light form does not exist in time. The more relativistic or kinetic energy a particle with mass possess (relative to another), the more it is in a relative free light form and the more its timerate is dilated.

About my black ring description, i said that in order to keep only the rest mass, the relativistic energy of a particle vanishes at the event horizon in an elastic collision due to the fact that it is perpendicular to the motion of the light ring. It should vanish in flashes of light... The universe being unbound, the photons loss by matter in the universe should convert mass into kinetic energy and causes a decrease in the deceleration of the expansion. Thus an expanded black ring cannot reform in its entirety in a big crunch (collapse due to gravity).

Its seems very likely that there is other black rings expanding or not outside our visible universe...

More to come!
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/10/2011 21:36:53: So, our point of view of the universe depends on our relative position to the center. Yes, there is a center. We are not necessarily at this center. Limited capacity of the instrumentation we use to observe the universe is limiting our capacity to observe that we are not at the center. If the universe is quite larger than our capable observations, then the most distant objects we observe in any direction will look the same in most aspects. Our perception of length and time depends on our position in the universe. If we look at an object having a recessive speed in the opposite direction to our speed relative to the central point, we will see this object farther into the past and nearer in distance than an observer at the center of the universe will (distance of the object from us).

See adding speed in special relativity on Hyperphysics website from my last hyperlink.

But now, what is the most interesting part is how entanglement enables relativity in Euclidean space. How spacetime is not needed at all? Kinetic energy is a relative free photon form of energy and it exists everywhere along its path at any time. Thus, one observer can see an object at a different place and time than another observer at an absolute instant. Two observers may have different timeline and timerate but they still share the same instant, only the relative distances between any two absolute instants are different. This is quite amazing...

Does it sound like Quantum Mechanics properties?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 13/10/2011 08:00:29: Dark Energy

A black ring energy:

E = N*M_pC²/2 + N²*GM_p²/2R = N*M_pC²
E = kinetic energy + strong force binding energy

Where
M_p is the Planck mass
N*M_p is the total mass of the black ring
R is half the Schwarzschild radius = N*L_p.

If the expansion is caused by the release of the kinetic energy at the bigbang and the velocity distribution is proportional to the square of the distance in Euclidean space, how much dark energy should be measured in the actual spacetime cosmological model?

In Euclidean space it is 50%.

In spacetime it is √50% = 70.7% (more explanations later)(in spacetime, acceleration is necessary, think of an inflating balloon in 2D).

It is estimated to about 75% for the moment...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 13/10/2011 16:51:53: Casimir effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

The distance between the two parallel plates act as a wavelength cut off for kinetic pressure (in this case: thermal pressure). Theoretically speaking, if the distance between the two plates would be reduced to the Planck length, the only force left between them would be the Strong Force. But in reality, the geometry of matter and the fact that the plates are composed mostly of empty space render it much weaker for any distance.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 31/10/2011 20:54:59: Gamma ray bursts

1- The sum of momenta of a rotating particle over a period is zero in its own frame.

2- A Black Ring (BR) is a particle.

3- Acceleration at a black ring is so strong that a particle will decay in to photons before reaching the event horizon.

4- Only the rest mass is kept turning around the BR. The BR should bite only in quanta of M_p (without it, the black ring wouldn't be stable).

5- The reciprocal kinetic energy must be emitted in the form of light (electromagnetic radiation).

6- The BR acts like a gravitational lens. The particles velocity represents reciprocal kinetic energy to the black ring's kinetic energy, due to gravity. It's total momentum is zero. It should be ejected from the BR in opposite directions for conservation of momentum.

7- Any events synchronized at the event horizon is at a maximum possible time dilation. The local density of energy is constant for any BR at the event horizon. Its temperature is the Planck temperature divided by 2π, which is equal to Hawking-Unruh radiation temperature for a unitary BR of M_p wavelength = 2π*L_p... [:0]

http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/linearchannel.pdf

In Unruh radiation temperature equation, just replace "h/2π" by M_p*C*L_p
and acceleration "a" by C²/L_p

You get Planck Temperature divided by 2π.

In relativity, for the ring itself, curvature = acceleration = energy density = radiation temperature

It is true until the limit mass M_p and wavelength 2πL_p.

For a larger BR, relativity is not a factor anymore
curvature = acceleration ≠ energy density = radiation temperature = constant.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 17/11/2011 11:47:42: Here is an article discussing in non mathematical terms some properties of gamma-ray bursts:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/bursts.html

It is interesting to note that their spectrum is not a black body distribution and there is no frequency produced below x-ray (correct me if i'm wrong), which is a mystery...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 28/11/2011 08:40:03: Anisotropy of the Universe?

See this free article:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0941v4

Uniformity of the Universe was based on very limited data and an already accepted model based on space-time.

If you want to look at my theory from a standing point of view of the String Theory, you must understand that the spatial dimensions would be energy dimensions observed in 3D space in my theory.

Dimensions that do not interact in time would be a kind of dark energy (not to confound with the Dark Energy or negative energy, though there is possible links, i doubt about negative energy)... I think entanglement is how information is conserved. Combined with the speed of light and the fixed angular momentum of massive elementary particles, it generates the 3 dimensions of energy and the uncertainty principle by switching instantly the spin of elementary particles (updated every Planck time?) according to an ordered causality chain containing all the universe.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: terrildactl on 28/11/2011 20:42:42: I agree with all of what you have said, much can be added to everything. Truth in science is teaching and listening to every entity. I believe that when we can develop different instruments, we will find that the universe is full of field lines emanating from every mass, everywhere. every atom has an energy field emanating from it. Larger mass, larger field lines. we will soon be using the plasma energy in outer space, it is packed full of energy. All of the EM fields, are producing an electrical output. Theuniverse is a huge capacitor. We will soon learn to detect this energy surrounding everything. Every planet, every star,everything. Yes gravity, and Electromagnetic are two competing forces. I know there are forces we have not even found yet, the chances are very much in my favor. So my answer is yes I agree with you.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 29/11/2011 03:40:46: If you read carefully, you will see that i don't expect new forces. And what i call dark energy is not really energy, because it does not exist in the time dimension, only quanta of energy, which are relative to each other, are useful energy. Though the invisible parts might possibly be useful in terms of information.

Here you can find the flaws of the QCD model of the strong nuclear force:

http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/

Comay has a model based on magnetic monopoles, interesting, but i don't think it is right. In my opinion, it is a gravitational pole or if you prefer, an inertial pole...
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: terrildactl on 30/11/2011 15:40:01: Do you think photons can be captured into a mobulous loop? Which would fold itself 180 degrees back upon itself. Or what could happen?
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 01/12/2011 03:06:43: All elementary particles are photons rotating in a circular orbit. Curvature of light is necessary to produce a new particle from photons.

The proton, made of 3 elementary quarks, is a mould producing Pi mesons. Pi mesons are not made of the same types of quarks than protons are made, contrary to what the standard model says... It is obvious if you look mass-energy and size. My model is very simple. Muons are included in the geometry of both, the proton and the pi mesons.
Title: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 15/12/2011 15:36:10: Why is there so much heavy elements in these "young" galaxies?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102092929.htm

Just to show the level of confidence, here is an article about earlier measurements of the anisotropy of the universe. Is it "the axis of evil" or "the axis of truth"?

http://www.astronomy.com/~/link.aspx?_id=001cb59f-d985-4fd7-a01e-c31716287259

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=universal-alignment
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 05/01/2012 18:22:24: Euclidean space is totally compatible with the cosmological data.

See this article: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0310/0310808v2.pdf

They forgot something very important to account for the validity of an Euclidean space model: the gravitational redshifts of a stationary spacetime. There is no metric expansion of space, only energy expansion in space!!! They should have added the gravitational redshifts to the special relativity redshifts... This will correct the magnitude discrepancies of figure 5.

About gravitational redshift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 17/01/2012 04:57:42: You still don't buy my explanation of the uncertainty principle?

Read this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120116095529.htm

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1833
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 24/01/2012 02:01:07: Here is "Four Problems for the Standard Model of Cosmology and Their Resolution by Inflation"
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/cosmology/fourproblems.html

The flatness is a proof that space is euclidean. And you can add Dark Energy to the cosmological problems...

Another article about cosmological problems (biased on some points)
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Cosmology_Problems_Big_Bang

And evidence of the actual BigBang model (biased in the lack of a more exhaustive look at cosmological problems, denial)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/02/2012 08:34:54: Here is the original article about the Dark Flow by Kashlinsky:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/pdf/276176main_ApJLetters_20Oct2008.pdf

A recent article against it:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.0631v2.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/supernova-research-challenges-cosmic-dark-flow-mystery.ars

First data analysis from the Planck satellite seems to show a real Dark Flow (same as previous link above):
http://www.astronomy.com/~/link.aspx?_id=001cb59f-d985-4fd7-a01e-c31716287259

Other links or comments are welcome!
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: JD7651 on 13/02/2012 04:33:26: Is this like the Landau theory of the quasiparticle: as n-well is to energy field could this also be gravator-at least in menkowski space-as n-well?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 13/02/2012 21:35:42: I don't know much about the Landau theory, my theory defines the ground state of elementary particles. I haven't thought much about vibrational energy but i don't see any contradiction with the existence of quasiparticle, particularly the phonon.

In my theory, everything comes from the expansion of electric charges. All elementary particles are made of two half charges, including the photon, rotating in a circular orbit having an angular momentum of h/2pi. It is the ground state. The electric charges are basically a superfluid unless there is a chaotic pattern of vibrational energy between them. So superfluid forms of matter and supraconductive materials are made of charges vibrating with a non chaotic pattern. For a supraconductor, you just need a vibrational pattern to liberate electrons for conduction so you can get it at a higher temperature than superfluid materials.

About the spin entanglement, both half charges are entangled since their creation with the entire universe. An elementary particle is thus entangled on spin with 50% on its left half charge and 50% with its right half charge. The spinning strings between particles have an infinite torsion rigidity (superfluid) permitting instaneous changes in spins (no time dimension for non-local interaction). There is no energy exchange unless a particle changes its spin by 90 degrees or more (?)...

Space is Euclidean, but the three dimensions we perceive are in fact relative distances between elementary particles connected by strings following the laws of Relativity. Space and time are related by energy, there is no absolute fabric of spacetime. Relativity is a subset of a Quantum unified theory and not the reverse. There is just three dimensions of space but many of energy in space. Time is quantized in Planck time multiplied by 2pi...

Do you have some links about the n-well? I suppose you mean graviton and not gravatar... All forces are mediated by photons...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 15/02/2012 09:02:53: Wow!!!

If it has not been already dismissed...

A hole in the universe???
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12546-biggest-void-in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across.html

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0908v2.pdf

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110321.html

About a week ago, i was thinking that there should be such a hole in the universe...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 01/03/2012 04:39:52: Is the primordial form of the universe one dimensional? A black ring?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-primordial-weirdness-early-universe-dimension.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3434
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 05/03/2012 23:32:59: cosmological constant calculation is wrong:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-weve-cosmological-constant-wrong.html

Black holes as a source of electron-positron pairs production from gamma rays? (photons and curvature) :o)

http://www.space.com/4837-source-mysterious-antimatter.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 15/03/2012 22:14:19: A star gone Supernova into a black ring?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/03/the-enigmas-of-supernova-1987a.html#more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10867687

http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/05/heic0704i.jpg

A special type of galaxy: (the galaxy is the yellow point in the middle of the two beams)
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/03/strange-1st-of-its-kind-galaxy-discovered-holds-clues-to-evolution-of-the-universe.html#more

Later about the photon's spin... How can a photon's spin be measured??? And it depends on polarization...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 27/04/2012 00:36:58: There is no higgs boson... Even if it's not a dark matter particle at around of 125 GeV...

Energy can't have a higher velocity than the speed of light because it is made of light. It is not that i wouldn't like to travel faster... but it is the way it is...

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-elusive-higgs-particle.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/24/gamma-rays-hint-at-dark-matter

The fireball theory trying to explain gamma ray bursts takes a punch:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/23/cosmic-ray-theory-gets-the-cold-shoulder
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Æthelwulf on 27/04/2012 02:31:59: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 27/04/2012 00:36:58
There is no higgs boson...

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-elusive-higgs-particle.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/24/gamma-rays-hint-at-dark-matter

The fireball theory trying to explain gamma ray bursts takes a hit:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/23/cosmic-ray-theory-gets-the-cold-shoulder

There is a situation where certain light rays come from a region with infinite curvature (time-like singularity) in field theories.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 27/04/2012 03:01:01: Infinite curvature is a mathematical aberration.

I invite you to read my entire theory and watch this BBC documentary: Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole (For those who have not seen it).
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Æthelwulf on 27/04/2012 03:05:33: I have read it all. This is all I have done at this place really for the last few days :P
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 27/04/2012 03:34:43: There is a few mistakes i have to correct but no one is very important because they have no impact. But, i must say that though i am sure that space and time were there before the BigBang i am not sure about their true nature. And I don't know much about the rate of expansion but it is due to the decrease in acceleration (or curvature) of our black hole of origin as it grew by eating matter around it. There was certainly some leftovers at the BB. It means that there is no energy cost to space expansion unless you can apply it when you throw a ball (locally). The red shift is due to gravity, relative velocity and; reflection and absorption-emission which are not as fundamental as the first two causes.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 29/04/2012 07:19:05: Is it a proof of retro-causality or a proof of an absolute instaneity? If it is instantaneity, then entanglement information is not limited by its entangled quanta of energy like i thought, so it can explain easily the two slit experiment and its other variants. Euclidean space seems to be possible after all... Usable information is still limited by the speed of light though...

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4834
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Bengt on 29/04/2012 19:42:09: All particles consist of nested strings.
Some of these string-nests are stable, others are not. Photons are examples of one of the smaller stable string-nests that we can easily observe. Examples of less stable string nests are the large number of short lived string entanglements that we see immediately after a high speed particle collision.
Dark energy is most likely primary strings floating around in the universe. Dark matter is most likely strings in early stages of entangling and bonding into particle embryos.
The acceleration of the expansion of our part of the universe is probably the result of the partial pressure of energy rich strings and string-nest embryos expanding into less energy-rich parts of the universe, despite local gravity between matter.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 02/05/2012 03:29:04: A very interesting point of view of a philosopher with a very good physics background about the interpretation made by the standard model's advocates. Specially interesting near the end, talking about time reversal symmetry which obviously is in disagreement with the entropic principle...

http://bigthink.com/ideas/18091

Sorry Ben, but i have to read your theory to see what changes you have made since last year, because i had found a basic flaw in your last year version that couldn't explain the motion of celestial bodies...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Pmb on 02/05/2012 19:59:48: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22
A quantum of light (a photon), may possess an infinitesimal energy and always travel at C in vacuum.
Why do you say infinitesimal energy? It is quite possible to have a photon with a finite energy.
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22
Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter.
That needs more explaination than what you gave here. Under certain certain circmstances matter can be convert into light and under certain certain circmstances light can be changed into matter. You can't simply take an electron and change it into "energy"? Mostly because that's not quite physical description. If you are given a proton and an anti-proton then you can change it into two photons which has a particular energy and matter distribution.
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22
Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything.
That is not true. It's a very common misunderstanding based on a common misconception.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22
For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy?
A photon cannot have an infinitesimal energy. In fact nothing can.
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22
I know it sounds too easy to be true and it turns everything upside down but it is logical and beautiful...
It doesn't sound too easy to be true since I don't seem that it's at all possible.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22
If a photon wave enter a highly curved spacetime region, it could catch its tail:the wave could close on itself.
You are operating on the misunderstanding that a photon has a spatial extention, it does not.
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22
It would stop moving at the speed of light according to outside observers, it would appear to them as a particle and it would even create a gravitational field... You just need curving spacetime and light... Every type of particles and forces
General Relativity predicts that a photon of zero spatial extention will have a speed with is different to the valid c (where c is the speed of light in special relativity = 3.00x10^8 m/s). But the photon itself can curve spacetime to any desireable value. All one has to do is change the frame of reference and the speed is changed and this the curvature changes.
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22
I have been thinking about this for many days now and i don't see any contradiction with existing proved theory that could deny this theory.
The contradiction is quite different than what your personal theory states. But this is probably due to your misundering of certain concepts in physics.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 02/05/2012 23:43:55: My theory evolved from the start, so there is no point to criticize the beginning.

Read it all and think before making any comment. The latest conclusions supersede the earliest ones.

By infinitesimal, i just meant there is no minimum limit to the energy of photons, not that it is not finite. Later, i have changed my mind...

You have no proof that everything is not made of light. All the universe is one wave of light, but you have to read my theory to understand what i mean by light...

How much you wanna bet?

You think i misunderstand some concepts of physics but i think you are more than i am... We obviously all are...

You are supposing GR is 100% right, which is obviously not. It is not a complete theory and you must understand than it has been extended by interpretations that are in no way proved but still integrated in the "official" knowledge of physics.

The problem is that if you know well the standard model and have accepted it, you will have difficulties to accept mine. If your mind is virgin and you look at the facts, not the standard interpretations, just the experimental facts, then it seems a better overall interpretation. You have to look at what has been really proved. W and Z bosons: no ; Spacetime: no ; unification of Strong and electromagnetic force: no ; space expansion: no ; acceleration of expansion: no ; gluon: no ; etc... Most people think it is all true, but the fact is there is only circumstantial proofs and often circular arguments... The nature of the Strong force is totally unknown...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 06/05/2012 06:17:27: One of the conundrum about the standard model of black holes is that time stop at the event horizon for an outside observer. So an outside observer will see an object being ripped and then standing still or smeared at the EH forever (until evaporation). The object is supposed to see nothing special (beyond being possibly ripped apart) and continue toward the singularity.

My first question is what happen to space contraction for the object? Isn't it supposed to be totally contracted? Gravitational potential and relative velocity have similar effects on time dilation and space contraction, and they are supposed to be real, contrary to the newtownian doppler effect, which is apparent (it is not affecting the properties of particles relatively speaking)...

The origin of gravity being unknown in Physics, the simplest solution is that matter stays stuck at the event horizon and this is where gravity comes from and is being generated. This is the limit...

The rest mass being a newtonian solution, if a black hole keeps only the rest mass, couldn't its solution be newtonian (half the schwarzschild radius)? It is strikingly equal to multiple Planck wavelengths having each the Planck mass; the total mass corresponding to the mass of the black hole having a ring shape...

If there is an absolute instantaneity like entanglement might show, taking account of the time travelled by light including relativistic corrections, what you see is what you get and matter is really kept at the event horizon... If you could see the event horizon...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 08/05/2012 05:17:28: If there is no timerate seen by an observer, there is no timerate for all observers who have one...

This is how it must be in Quantum Gravity. It just answers too many questions to be a mere coincidence.

You need to take some from Relativity and give some to Quantum Theory to get the answer. And the answer is in Black Rings... This is where GR meets QM and where it is unified into one force: The Strong Force!!!

No need for inflation, everything was connected into one ring. It explains why space is flat and why there was a Bigbang!!!
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: BlueHorizon on 29/05/2012 23:37:57: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 29/04/2012 07:19:05
Is it a proof of retro-causality or a proof of an absolute instaneity? If it is instantaneity, then entanglement information is not limited by its entangled quanta of energy like i thought, so it can explain easily the two slit experiment and its other variants. Euclidean space seems to be possible after all... Usable information is still limited by the speed of light though...

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4834

CPT ArkAngel
I have been reading your model with great interest (I have sometimes wondered in similar vein but Physics is just a speculative hobby for me and I don't have the advanced Maths/Physics 'tools" to do more than that).

Is it possible to explain in layperson's terms how your model may better explain the double slit experiment (especially the one particle at a time variation).
I would like to say something sensible and thought provoking to a Physics group I tutor at the local highschool).

From the articles you referenced above I now understand that "entanglement theory" is the current explanation of "action at a distance" which seems to be involved here.
Would your model explain this differently? (Let's ignore the additional curiosity of "the influence of future actions on past events" - that is still doing my head in. Unless of course you can explain that clearly as well!)
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 30/05/2012 04:02:31: Retrocausality is not necessary because it takes time for light to move, but you have to accept the possibility that the relativistic space-time is not the complete reality of space and time. Space-time is apparent for energy interactions, but there is more than energy in the universe to account for entanglement.

Then, any elementary particle, including the photon, will always interact as a particle and not a wave. It is the paths of the particles that suggest a wave form. The interference pattern is produced by multiple dot particles on the screen. This is the basis for the realistic interpretation of De Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory. I understand that the problem with this theory is that it does not explain faster than light phenomenon.

The standard explanation for it is a probabilistic mathematical model with no true underlying mechanism.

From my point of view:

Using the basic extended relativistic principle that a photon does not experience time in its velocity direction, the photon have to exist everywhere along its path at every instant (Planck time or rotation period?). Only its elementary energy quantum exists at relativistic space-time coordinates (relative to other elementary particles). All elementary particles of the universe are made of electric charges and are all entangled at different levels. (Maybe some Alien beings found a way to disentangle particles but it is only a funny speculation :o) )

The spin is the perpendicular directional vector to the rotational direction of the charge (there is another parameter for the velocity direction vs rotational direction). In the standard model, the spin is not a well defined classical parameter because of constant changes of direction due to its multiple level of entanglement and that neutrinos and photons are not supposed to be made of charges. So, in the standard model, it is, again, a probabilistic mathematical model with no underlying defined reality.

The last necessary ingredient is that relative motion of massive particles is a relative photon form and it is necessary to a wave form of the path. It depends on the level of entanglement with local and moving particles with respect to apparatus of the experiment (collapse of the wave function). This is why there is time dilation (photon form)...

This is all the basic ingredients needed for a realistic model. The problem is that the experiments are made of a huge amount of trials and errors which is a big fudge factor. I don't have one model but many, and no one is complete. I will try to give you my best shot next weekend.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 03/06/2012 23:21:21: I looked at wikipedia links that i have posted a while ago about the pilot-wave theory and much information has been added since then. I found that my theory is almost identical to it. All your answers should be there. Bohm interpretation is that there is a wave guiding particles along their trajectories. This wave is deterministic and is probably a faster than light result of the entire universe. This wave passes by both slits, but the particle passes by only one of the slit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html

How my theory explains the seemingly retrocausality in prof Zeilinger's experiment is that all detectors states are already fixed prior to the beginning of the experiment and that even if you force entanglement of the two photons at Victor's detector, the photons at Alice and Bob are still entangled with Victor's photons, just one level lower (at least), making Alice and Bob being entangled at a measurable level by a parents to children near relation.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: BlueHorizon on 07/06/2012 03:10:07: Thanks
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 07/06/2012 06:18:36: Here is one of my answer from another discussion that might interest you.

"Energy can only be exchanged locally but not necessarily information as 2 spin entangled particles stay entangled as long as there is no exchange of energy of the spin of one (or maybe both) of the two particles with a third one locally... The spin entanglement seems to be quantized not only in its absolute value but in terms of changes in angle vs energy exchange too.

Euclidean space means preferred directions in the universe. Recent observations tend to show exactly that but people keep trying to find a solution in Minkowski spacetime..."

http://www.astronomy.com/en/sitecore/content/Home/News-Observing/News/2010/09/Fundamental%20constant%20might%20change%20across%20space.aspx

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/03/is-our-solar-system-a-region-of-the-universe-just-right-for-life.html#more

Some must see documentaries:

Through the Wormhole "How the Universe Works"

BBC: "What Happened before the Big Bang?" and "Is Everything We Know about the Universe Wrong?"
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/06/2012 06:05:40: Path vs momentum and position...

About neutrinos:

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-underground-neutrino-properties-unveils-results.html

... and dark matter:

But have annihilations of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos been observed? Neutrinos being true neutral particles, they might have no annihilation mechanism... In my opinion, neutrinos are their own anti-particles and they are probably the missing dark matter in a cold form (slowed down mainly by black holes). Supernovae produce a huge amount of them and there was, possibly, remnants from a pre-bigbang universe...

After all, the only difference between a neutrino and its counter part is its helicity, left-handed vs right-handed...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 19/07/2012 02:23:54: Neutrinos and the weak force

In the Standard Model of particles, particles interactions and their decay modes are explained by forces which are mediated by exchanges of particles. These particles mediate the quantum states of the interacting real energy quanta. There is no geometry involved as particles are supposed to move in a random and non geometrical discontinuous pattern following a wave function. The pilot wave theory, on the other hand, drives us toward a possible model.

How i understand it is that the SM is missing one thing: GEOMETRY of elementary particles.

There is no weak charge, only electric and mass charges, the mass charge being a potential charge having the Planck mass. The weak and nuclear forces are mediated by a photon between two charges, exchanging a '+' for a '-' half charge. The photon have an inertial mass in its velocity direction (longitudinal) and a gravitational mass in its transverse component (perpendicular to the velocity). Instability means excess or missing energy, this is why there is the weak force.

The neutrino's geometry depends on its relative speed, at near the speed of light, they are almost flat in their velocity direction. At rest, they would simply be spherical.

A spherical neutrino might not have a geometry for interacting weakly.

It is important to note that a for massive elementary particles, like the electron and the neutrinos, shorter longitudinal length means higher inertial mass in the axis of velocity. Invariable or rest mass is constant. For photons, the longitudinal length is zero, it doesn't mean infinite mass but zero gravitational mass and an inertial mass proportional to its frequency because its speed is constant. No gravitational mass, not in the time dimension (at least for the photon's longitudinal existance).

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/27/follow-up-on-the-solar-neutrinos-radioactive-decay-story/

The neutrinos, having a smeared neutral charge due to the Uncertainty Principle, pass through matter and interact gravitationally with ordinary matter, which permit nuclear and weak interactions because these two forces are in fact produced by electromagnetic and gravitational forces at short ranges.

The solar flares are created inside the sun. The neutrinos are coming out before the observed flares because they don't interact much with matter contrary to the photons. The delay is an indication of how deep inside the sun the reaction is coming from...

What is the spin value for the photon?

According to Gauge Theory, it has a spin of 1. I never found any direct measurement of it, thus it is theoretical. A priori, in my theory, it should have a half spin (1/2), though it is possibly a spin 1 particle if it has two full charges or if the two dimensional photon spin doubles its spin to a full potential of spin 1...? Why the photon would rotate at half the Schwarzschild radius for a black ring?

Next is why there is no frame dragging for a black ring? I will let you think about this for a while. Let just say that the black ring is a superfluid... So what is frame dragging? :o)
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 24/07/2012 02:19:12: How to detect dark neutrinos having low relative velocities if it is not weakly interacting?

By observing neutrino oscillations. Neutrino oscillations are created by interactions with dark neutrinos, possibly. In this case, it should be reversible according to the laws of Relativity. Energy oscillating between known neutrinos and dark neutrinos.

I tell you vacuum energy is too convenient to be good, this is one wave of expanding charges. These were all entangled with the strong force in a huge black ring before the BigBang... ;)
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 16/08/2012 00:57:00: "If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies."
Albert Einstein, 1905

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

No graviton, no gravitational wave...

Space being Euclidean doesn't mean there is an absolute reference frame, it means there is a preferred frame of reference regarding our big bang, because the expansion is kinetic. Our big bang is still relative to other black rings in a seemingly infinite Universe. Don't forget that the actual standard model is based on a singularity...

Wake up people!!!
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 04/09/2012 23:59:05: I have searched an article like this one but i never found one until today... Generalized maths for many types of black rings!

What no one seems to catch is that the charge is the compact fifth dimension.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0608012v2.pdf

A few weeks ago, i read an article stating that Kaluza-Klein theories were rejected mainly because they didn't have a spherical solution, only 2D solutions including ring solutions...!
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 07/09/2012 05:09:02: Best evidence for a black ring at the center of the MilkyWay from the Planck satellite!!!

A very good name indeed, for this satellite... And it is only the beginning. Wait for its CMB measurements, it will be an earthquake of 10 on the richter scale! But be patient...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5483
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 24/09/2012 01:08:42: Dirac didn't believe in his own theory. Maybe you should listen to him if you don't want to listen to me... :o)

It is a very entertaining and interesting presentation on Dirac by physicist and biographer Graham Farmelo.

http://keentalks.com/paul-dirac-mathematical-beauty/

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strings02/dirac/speach.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 01/11/2012 00:10:16: The ultimate proof that photons contain electric charges?
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-mavericks-synthetic-magnetism.html

Multiple supermassive black rings rotating in the middle of M87: the cause of elliptical galaxies? spiral vs elliptical galaxies...
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-super-massive-black-hole-inflates-giant.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-monster-galaxy-black-hole-mischief.html

Three other interesting articles:

http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/23/does-the-higgs-field-give-the-higgs-particle-its-mass-or-not/

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/10/the-unseen-universe-billions-of-undetected-galaxies-todays-most-popular.html#more

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-space-cope-quantum-theory.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 05/12/2012 05:47:10: There is no time in space, only where there is matter, there is time.

Time and space are in the relativity of energy quanta. Gravity is included in time and space. The vacuum is not empty but his wavy content obeys to an instantaneous causality.

Cold (or slow) neutrinos are so large compared to other elementary particles that they can't interact with them. Thus they appear flat because of there huge relative size(s), even though they are extremely circular at a low speed.

Energy is in the curvature...

Hawking-Unruh radiation is the elementary particles themselves. It is all around us, we are made of it... :o)

What is strange, is our sense of time...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/01/2013 04:19:55: Entanglement between all elementary particles is certainly involved in the process of the separation of the three dimensions of space and the separation of the forces...

Our black ring of origin was possibly entangled with other black rings, so these black rings, expanding or not, may participate or even be necessary in the separation of the dimensions and forces...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/01/2013 06:26:13: news
About vacuum:
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-spacetime-smoother-brew-knew.html

About Dark Energy:
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dark-energy-alternatives-einstein-room.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/01/2013 03:09:09: A clock from a rock using Compton frequency:

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-clock-physicists.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/01/2013 04:11:01: Pete, in this same page, i describe how i see the photon now, it is two dimensional. I refined the model all along.

Now, from my point of view it is reconciliating QM and Relativity. Not the usual GR but a modified version of it, using only special Relativity and the gravitational source, the mass that forms from matterwave produced by the charges (planck length point charge). The photon has charges with total=0 and a gravitational mass only in its transverse components, there is no problem because it is special relativity. I did not describe it yet, but a glimpse, because i need answers, experimental ones.

Take care!

And be patient reading my theory...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/01/2013 04:32:06: The source of gravity and inertia coupled with entanglement is the missing link between QM and Relativity and Electromagnetism.

But the entanglement part cannot be fully described yet, so it is a major problem...

And i can tell you that experiments will show higher and higher numbers of particles coherently entangled in systems until acceptance that all the elementary particles of the universe are actually entangled.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 12/01/2013 10:04:46: about matter waves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

What is very interesting when you look at the relativistic equation of the frequency with v=0, E=hf=m₀c^2; there is no wave to be measured, which is in agreement with my theory: At rest, all the wave is shearing entirely in its own frame, creating m₀. Kinetic energy is a form of opened photon wave which is added to the rest frame.

In the case of a particle like the electron, the circular wave at rest forms a circle which produces gravity in the 3 dimensions. This is the zero timeline of the charges.

Non homogeneity in the universe:
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-astronomers-largest-universe.html

How many times in your life have you heard that there is no center to the universe?

This is difficult to break...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 14/01/2013 23:44:16: There is no center to the universe but there is one for our BigBang.

About frame dragging:

A black ring will certainly have a precession due to gravity potential changes in its surrounding. It will induce a precession in the accretion disk, if present.

The rotational velocity of a spherical body changes its center of mass into a ring shape for a moving observer due to relativity of mass. (beware, there is a difference, by definition, between the center of mass and the highest point of gravity potential).

Differences in gravity potential produce differences in time rate.

(A hypernova may possibly create a black ring from multiple photons at once and not from a single photon near the center of the star.)
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Expectant_Philosopher on 21/01/2013 17:12:26: Can there be an extra dimensional aspect to the Photon that would solve for entanglement's instantaneous action at a distance? Bell's Theorem and EPR Paradox ideas localize quantum theory and tell us that the theory of Quantum Mechanics is incomplete. Time as a relevant dimension is already taken into account. Could there be another dimension beyond time that connects to all locations in our observable dimensions providing for Newtonian conservation of momentum as the basis for quantum entanglement - with the Photon as the structure of the force? Then beyond explaining "spooky action at a distance", even the effects of gravity might be thought of as a symptom of the interaction of photons across the "surface" of an extra dimension.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 22/01/2013 01:57:15: It is a big question!

Bell's inequality has been proved. The conclusion is that two photons correlated in their spins from a source are influenced by the state of both detectors at a speed faster than light.

In all experiments, to scramble the information of momentum, the detectors states must be randomized. You could argue that if both photons are initially correlated to both states of the detectors, the defective randomization process could explained the remnant correlation. But the sources of photons have been characterized to some extent, prior to the experiments. But still, you may logically doubt, unless experiments show entanglement when changes in the detectors states occur during the travel of the photons. Which, i think, hasn't been realised...

One more thing. I don't see how an experiment may possibly differentiate causality and retrocausality. All the laws of physics, on which such an experiment would be interpreted, are time reversal symmetric.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 22/01/2013 03:17:35: Even time could play the role of the missing dimension...

The Compton frequency of a particle determines its mass and energy. From the big bang of our black ring of origin, the quanta have generally expanded from the Planck mass or Planck time to the particles we observe today. It could be the charge itself that expands leaving only a wave. A particle rest frame is real and is simply a wave curled up on itself. The wave could be extended between all elementary particles and react no faster than the speed of light. A classical field theory.

But if entanglement faster than light is proved, time and space are somehow two distinct sets of dimensions. So you could have a wave in space reacting in no time. It could be space itself. No fifth dimension, no point charge. The uncertainty principle may hide the fact that the charge is in fact a localized wave being measured by localized waves...

We are left with the possible necessity of higher dimensions to explain more complex sytems. I must say i like to see the charge as beeing a fifth dimension. But is it necessary?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 30/01/2013 03:40:45: Entanglement faster than light:
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-einstein-entanglement-quantum-erasure-deconstructs.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1221.full

Special Relativity with faster than light correlations (approximated or equal to instantaneity) involving information exchanges without energy exchange. There is quantizations of the entanglement states, each representing the correlation of the wave-particle being measured with another particle. This is what i call the level of entanglement. If the photon is made of two charges, the simplest solution give a maximum level without energy exchange of 25% between two photons (unless they are entangled by the strong force). Experimentally to obtain such a level, all photons measured would have to stay entangled at the first level all along the paths.

Multiverse? It is not necessary at all...
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/the-accidental-universe/1/
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 06/02/2013 01:50:52: Solitons? Only local actions?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.7351
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 05/03/2013 04:00:53: Any charge has the velocity of light from any inertial frame of reference. A reference frame being a circle and not a singularity, we have uncertainty on distance which is equivalent to uncertainty in time...

Some precisions on spin entanglement:

We have an electron with two halves of a minus charge entangled at 100% by the strong force. Then, this electron is entangled with the rest of the universe at a 100% level. The rest of the universe determine entirely its spin. It is all relative. The electron is entangled at 50% on its left charge and 50% on its right charge.

We have a production of an electron and positron pair from two gamma rays by an half charge exchange. At the pair creation both particles are entangled together at a 50% level, 25% from each of its half charges. Then the electron and the positron are entangled at a 50% level with the rest of the universe.

Experimentally, you can only measure a finite system of particles. There is always parallel connections to the rest of the universe with all charges of a closed system. The first unknown is the spin direction contribution from the outside system which can only be reduced to a probability. The other unknown is the entanglement level contribution which can be known if we know all specific relations of the closed system. At the start of the experiment, all half charges have already a relation with all other half charges of the system. Most relations may be negligeable or not. The relation decrease has 1/2^n.

Four main examples of highly entangled systems are atoms, molecules, lasers and crystals (magnets, human beings, stars, galaxies...).

News:
It says it all, almost. It may be a proof of GR but not GR as generally understood for sure (what is the source of Xrays). It is just a question of time before it will be shown that all black holes rotate at the speed of light.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/feb/27/black-hole-found-spinning-near-the-relativistic-limit

How can this be without electric charge exchanges? Remarkably, it is for mesons (two quarks) having a total charge of zero...
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-lhc-team-instance-d-mesons-oscillating.html

About the black hole article, it seems all reporters have not understood that the x-rays don't come from the accretion disc but they are reflected from it, as explained by the astrophysicists participating to this research.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29607590
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 23/03/2013 06:38:24: Forget Inflation!

Anisotropy results from Planck mission:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5083
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 27/03/2013 02:02:48: The standard cosmological model was based on isotropy and homogeneity of the universe from limited observations. Now, we have proofs that it is not homogeneous (dark energy) nor isotropic. Anyone saying there is proofs that there is no center to the big bang is lowering his credibility.

When astronomers find out about dark energy, there were suprised because they were expecting a slow down of the expansion due to gravity, not an acceleration.

If you change your point of view and suppose a center, dark energy suddenly appears as a deceleration...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So why the visible universe seems almost isotropic and homogeneous then?

Inertia is mediated by photons...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 01/04/2013 21:37:31: http://spaceinimages.esa.int/Images/2013/03/Planck_enhanced_anomalies

What can i say? Amazing!!! Thanks to Planck mission!!!
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 03/04/2013 21:11:36: Why gravitational-wave interferometer like LIGO will never get positive results?

There is no proper expansion of space and no matter with relative speed higher than the speed of light. Using one laser source and one clock, it is therefore impossible to detect gravitational waves. The variations in time are compensated by the variations in length, locally.

The Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect is a myth, if I am correct, evidently. A photon passing through a gravitational well will only be affected by it locally. If there is no interaction locally with matter, there is no effect on the photon other than on its path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 03/04/2013 21:27:35: Time is of the essence

Time is motion, motion is energy. No energy, no time, no space, nothing.

Either, we are in a simulation (something from nothing) or there is a cyclic big bang (something from something)...

One thing is sure, time is eternal...

In a cyclic big bang model, space may or may not be infinite. It could still be closed.

The first question is: Is there only one bang or multiple bangs in the universe?

My answers on that are speculatives, i must admit.

If the center of our big bang is the cold spot, the universe is much older than what the current model indicates. It is possible that there was an earlier epoch full of supernovae that produced the now dark neutrinos (dark matter).

This would imply that the further we look in time, the higher the density of supernovae should be observed, unless it decreased sharply in time at a very early epoch. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be the case. So I guess there is multiple big bangs based on that, explaining dark matter, but there is many holes that you can fill with other theories...

Or maybe, the dark neutrinos originate from the annihilation of matter-antimatter shortly after the big bang...?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 06/04/2013 00:14:02: Lee Smolin lecture on a possible model for Quantum foundations:

http://pirsa.org/13020146/
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 08/04/2013 21:54:55: About the origin of the Schrodinger's equation:

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-schrodinger-equation.html

Unfortunately, i haven't read the original paper.

Motion is momentum through time. The photon is the most elementary particle.

Does the photon have a thickness?

The universe is advancing through time, frame by frame, following a suite of events. At our theoretical level of knowledge, we can perceive that space and time are very distinct. We may find the solution connecting these events at the level of the elementary particles.

Entanglement seems to demonstrate that there is a spatial connection faster than light and possibly instantaneous... But, for me, causality is in energy relations, thus limited by the speed of light. Space may still changes instantaneously to changes in energy.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 25/04/2013 08:05:47: Another very interesting presentation by Lee Smolin:

http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=13040103

By the end you should be surprised...

On another note, does dark matter is the missing antimatter?
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-lhcb-matter-antimatter-
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.6173ml

Next, the mass of the electron neutrino and the value of the Weak Interaction coupling constant.

Neutrino mass = 0.209634 eV
Weak coupling constant = 4.10244 x10e-7

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/borexino/nu-mass.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 28/04/2013 04:56:07: How about an engine powered by dark matter?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 07/05/2013 07:40:07: This seems to show a center to our big bang. The alleged variation of the fine structure constant has an axis aligned with the Cold Spot!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4758

In my opinion, it is due to anisotropy of the relative velocities and gravity potentials of the absorption clouds...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/05/2013 07:53:54: GR from SR with a set of flat spaces

Measurements have demonstrated that space is flat within the experimental uncertainties. Why?

According to the current cosmological model, space was already flat shortly after the big bang.

On the other hand, entanglement may be explained by negative time signaling or by instantaneous connections.

Let’s consider only instantaneity.

The concept of instantaneous connections across the entire universe is not much in conflict with GR, contrary to what you might think of. It is only conflicting with the concept of space-time being a continuous 3D entity causing the gravitational effect. Other than that, I don’t see any problem. The singularity appearance from GR equations just indicates that these equations are incomplete. QM clearly shows that the universe is made of discrete elements. Let’s go back to instantaneity. But where comes from gravity in SR?

All elementary particles (EPs) of the universe are unique rest frames. All these rest frames advance in time, being instantaneously synchronized. The basic unit of time is the time it takes for a photon to generate a relative space of one minimal Planck wavelength corresponding to the maximal relative mass, the Planck mass, therefore 2*pi*T_P .

Remember that all states of an EP are determined by all other EPs of the universe by entanglement (this is why an electron appears to be spherical at rest; when considered disconnected, its spin is entirely unknown). Entanglement is relativity.

Now, let us consider the universe from the point of view of an elementary particle (or a rest frame):

The universe is a flow of static space frames. Static space implies no motion within the frame and it also implies a flat space…

A static space is a Euclidean space; no motion = Newton’s law. Thus the universe is composed of a unique set of Euclidean spaces, one space for each EP. Time is real and primordial, space is emergent if finite (it doesn’t mean unreal; it depends on your definition of reality). If space is infinite, then it is primordial, but energy must also be infinite. Time is necessarily endless and it has no beginning.

The curvature is not in space, it is in discrete space-times (the EPs, now including the photons). Curvature and momentum are the properties of these discrete space-times. It is what I would call matter-wave or our perception of reality. You may only perceive reality over time… When you dream, your brain generates a virtual space in real time… :o) But regarding time, it is an assumption to get something real and primordial...

Photons have +1/2-1/2=0 intrinsic curvature (no rest frame). The real breakthrough is in the orthogonality of momentum and time. Momentum is space over time and gravity is time over space. This is my solution to smoothly include gravity in SR agreeing with QM.

The charge has always a velocity of light from the rest frame of any EPs. At rest, it forms a circle and the solution is Newtonian. Relativity is in motion; it is the relations of the causal path between the sets of static frames which represent the universe.

Energy is in motion, therefore, there is no elementary particle having a spin of zero: the Higgs, if real, cannot be elementary if it possesses a spin of zero, because it would imply a mass of zero and zero intrinsic energy. If the Higgs has a spin zero, it must have zero mass and it is truly unreal (virtual), then, when a Higgs is detected, the primordial energetic vibrations produced must be two photons with opposite spins.

Next, GR explained from SR; the solution is in the relativistic components of the Doppler Effect. Then the foundations will be laid for my calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron; and this lead me to the possible mass of the neutrino (certainly directly linked to it, and probably it is, from my point of view).

Note 1:If space is finite, instantaneity is not necessary. The maximum speed necessary would be the size of the universe divided by 2*pi*T_P.

Note 2: A black ring does not absorb nor radiate thermal photons, but only reflects them. There can't be no absorption nor radiation at the minimal relative length, how could it be... only in discrete quanta of Planck mass...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/05/2013 21:13:11: Time has a direction in space.

There is no negative energy but there is time vectors in opposite direction in space.

Time is energy.

Energy quanta are confined to a timeline.

There is no vacuum energy.

There is no flow of space at an event horizon or anywhere in the universe.

Frame dragging is not caused by a pervasive spacetime, its causes are relativity of mass and relativity of time. Therefore frame dragging is not a good expression.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/05/bizarre-state-of-matter-discovered-at-core-of-a-neutron-star-weekend-feature.html#more

This is something Ernst Reichenbächer seems to have understood. Unfortunately, i don't speak german...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 26/05/2013 19:30:33: Another interesting presentation, by an interesting woman...

(Causal set and discrete spacetime)
http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=13050000

Is there a firewall at the event horizon?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/black-hole-firewall-theory-paradox-einstein-equivalence_n_3036733.html

Electron model:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf

Gouanère article:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gouan%C3%A8re%20annales%20fondations%20louis%20de%20broglie%202005&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Faflb.ensmp.fr%2FAFLB-331%2Faflb331m625.pdf&ei=mVOiUdTDKZXD4APl0YG4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFdKNTor47AMcEbDRO0O6gXTAiYEg&bvm=bv.47008514,d.dmg

Thanks to Yor_on!
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 26/05/2013 19:52:12: [b]Gravitons and Casimir effect[/b]

I had an idea of how gravity might be mediated.

Gravity may be mediated by photons exchanged between elementary particles (the transverse component of the photon that generates the particle). Each photon having one wavelength between each particles. We can call it a photon if it is limited by the speed of light. In the contrary, as I suspect, we could call it a graviton. I suggest a model of graviton having a variable speed but a fixed delay of the Planck time. Gravity is a reciprocal relation.

It would explain the Casimir effect. For gravity, there is no cut off and it increases at shorter distances. Inertial push is produced by quantized photons at the speed of light (the longitudinal component). Only the photons having a shorter wavelength than the distance between the planes can contribute to the push. Therefore, there is a cut off...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 02/06/2013 02:30:17: Another confirmation of the Dark Flow:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/06/the-dark-flow-the-existence-of-other-universes-new-claims-of-hard-evidence.html#more
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: BlueHorizon on 09/06/2013 01:45:54: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 03/04/2013 21:27:35
Time is of the essence

One thing is sure, time is eternal...

CPT AA what extactly is meant by this in scientific discussion?
(1) Time has no end?
(2) Time had no beginning?
(3) Both the above?

Given some understandings of the concept of "time" ... to say "time had a beginning" is a logical contradiction.
That isn't the same as saying the actual reality (as opposed to the concept of it) is eternal.

Is it ever correct to say "there was a time when there was no time"?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/06/2013 23:24:00: Energy is conserved. We are made of energy. Everything you can feel is made out of energy. If energy is made out of time, time must be eternal. You can't stop motion, you can't stop time. Therefore there was no beginning and there will be no end...

A black ring has a time relation to other black rings. A photon experiences time in a 2-dimensional world (maybe it has a fixed thickness in the direction of motion).

There is still the possibility that we live in a simulated world which had a beginning, but then, there is necessarily an underworld without a beginning. There can't be an infinite sequence of simulations inside simulations, because a simulation has necessarily a beginning...

But maybe, only maybe, the real question is : who wants to live forever...?

I do...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 21/08/2013 09:15:17: The fear of death and its link to evolution. Is it accidental or not? That was my question... :o)

Soon I will post my calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron as an attached pdf. It won't be my final version but people who understand my theory will decode it easily. At last, I have the perfect prediction...

Important articles by Lee Smolin and Marina Cortês related to my theory:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6167
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.2206

Holographic principle necessary?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.1977
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 03/09/2013 23:06:26: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Feynman (1968)

first read this
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/sethna/Cracks/QED.html

My calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the neutrino mass is in attached secured pdf file.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 04/09/2013 17:48:28: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-bizarre-alignment-planetary-nebulae.html

The nearer a star is from our galaxy supermassive black ring, the more aligned to the plane its orbit must be in order to be stable. It is a matter of history...

How many strikes I need to convince you?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/09/2013 20:43:37: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-physics-classical-quantum-world.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3708

There is no truly isolated system. All particles of the universe are entangled with each other. Fifty percent of level of entanglement between two particles is sufficient to know at 100% certitude that if you define one as having a spin up, the other has a spin down... If the first particle has a spin at zero degree, the other will have a spin between 90 and 270 degrees. It always has a non zero component at 180 degrees. In fact, its maximum probability level is at 180 degrees, if you consider the outside system (the rest of the universe) as having a circular probability function (spherical in 3D) for its contribution to the spin of the particle.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/09/2013 22:27:39: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 07/06/2011 03:58:08
Euclidean Space and Relativity

In my opinion, we are in an Euclidean space, but as we are made of light (all matter and energy), we cannot perceive a speed higher than the speed of light. So the Newtonian Doppler shift of the frequency becomes relativistic... Timerate really slows down with acceleration and increase of gravity. The length perception contracts because of the variation of timerate and frequency. There is no black holes but there is black rings. I would bet anything on it... Mass, gravity and time are strongly related.

As no mass can exceed light speed then it seems sensible to assume that no mass can collapse inside its own Schwarzschild radius as that would preclude emission of photons. It may approach the event horizon but never actually compress itself beyond that limit. As time dilation is highly accentuated at this surface electromagnetic waves would be emitted at a greatly reduced rate and a frequency too low to detect. This stretched waveform could be the driver of the expansion of the universe. The 'black hole' would eventually evaporate but over cosmic timescales.

As every action has an equal and opposite reaction the expansion is a reaction to the compression of the collapsing mass. Time dilation and its effects could describe the rotation of galaxies.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 13/09/2013 23:46:28: I invite you to read my theory entirely, keeping only the latest conclusions. You should click on my pseudo name "cpt arkangel" and read the other latest comments I have made which are not included in my theory.

Space is not Euclidean. Space is a relation from each elementary particle to all other particles of the universe. There is a set of flat spaces evolving through time. From Earth, if you look at the universe, measure the CMB radiation and you subtract Earth relative motion from it, you get a flat space, taking account that the measurement is instantaneous-like compared to cosmological time and motion. So you are left with an elementary particle measuring the geometry of space at a specific time.

General Relativity is not a complete theory and it is flawed at the level of particles (read other of my posts to find the proofs, some are outside my theory). There is no point particles and the concept of spacetime introduced by GR is wrong. GR was made long time before entanglement was sufficiently understood.

Concerning black holes, even if I use the term "event horizon", there is no event horizon as understood in the "standard models".

The expansion is due to the release of the longitudinal component of photons at the big bang from our black ring of origin. How it happened will be the next big mystery to solve and it will explain the mass of the elementary particles. If there are different possible starting conditions, there is a different possible set of particles to each big bang.

A black ring does not evaporate in any way, it is the lowest form of entropy. The solution is simple. The expansion energy, which is 50% of the total of the original energy, never go back to its origin but it is lost due to the geometry of the rings and it produces gamma ray bursts when a sufficient quantity of matter is absorbed in a relatively short amount of time.

Another mystery is how kinetic energy could be caught again in a larger universe... maybe it transforms in neutrinos... the lightest particle... ??? Neutrinos=dark matter...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: petm1 on 24/09/2013 04:16:04: Why not think of each photon as a monopole?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Pmb on 24/09/2013 07:48:06: Quote from: petm1 on 24/09/2013 04:16:04
Why not think of each photon as a monopole?
Why would anybody do that? It'd be like asking "Why not thinkg of each photon as a cow?" Sure. If you tossed everything you knew about physics out the window and put on your lying hat you might convince yourself to say such a thing. But you'd have to be drunk enough to come up with a motive for actually wanting to do such a thing. :)

They're unrelated entities. Why do you ask these questions? A photon is nothing like a monopole and there's nothing in physics to suggest it. So where on earth did you get the idea to ask such a thing?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 26/09/2013 04:32:32: Yes, you can see it as a monopole, but certainly not a magnetic monopole and it is conflicting with the relativistic point of view of one particle. It is interesting but I don't see its usefulness right now. By the principle of reciprocality, you can see it as an inertial monopole.

Photons have mass?
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Pmb on 26/09/2013 04:48:22: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Yes, you can see it as a monopole, ....
The term "monopole" when used without further clarification it's usually assumed to mean "magnetic monopole". Simply do a search on google to see that. But in no way can a photon be thought of as an electric dipole.

With responses like this I can't accept your claim that you studied physics in college.
You certainly can not. If you believe otherwise then please post a proof rather than just make the claim.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Photons have mass?
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
No. Read it again. This time more slowly, i.e.
Quote
...act as though they have mass ...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Pmb on 26/09/2013 05:14:03: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
there is no point of arguing with you because you are too stubborn Pete.
If there's no point of arguing then don't. Being very stubborn is a good way for a physicist such as myself to be. It helps us not buy into whatever someone wants us to believe just because they say so or think something.

What is an "my interrogation mark" and why would I see it?

So, that's JP and myself down now. Whoelse?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Pmb on 26/09/2013 06:31:58: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 26/09/2013 05:36:01
question mark "?"

No wonder why you got kicked out of the physics forum...

It is just like you always want to shoot someone. You won't shoot me for sure, I will not answer any of your questions anymore and don't ask me why!!!

I don't deserve this. I did not attack you in any way.
Wow! I'm amazed at how paranoid you are and how much you've read into things that aren't there. You wrote "Haven't you seen my interrogation mark?" and I wanted to know what that meant - Period.

When someone writes No wonder why you got kicked out of the physics forum... it's (1) very insulting and (2) tells me that you were waiting/looking for a reason to assume its true. I was told to leave because they don't like it when people disagree with them and they can't force their beliefs on others.

You've turned vile in a very short time span so you're going into my kill file for being so cruel.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/09/2013 15:10:54: Quote from: Pmb on 26/09/2013 06:31:58
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 26/09/2013 05:36:01
question mark "?"

No wonder why you got kicked out of the physics forum...

It is just like you always want to shoot someone. You won't shoot me for sure, I will not answer any of your questions anymore and don't ask me why!!!

I don't deserve this. I did not attack you in any way.
Wow! I'm amazed at how paranoid you are and how much you've read into things that aren't there. You wrote "Haven't you seen my interrogation mark?" and I wanted to know what that meant - Period.

When someone writes No wonder why you got kicked out of the physics forum... it's (1) very insulting and (2) tells me that you were waiting/looking for a reason to assume its true. I was told to leave because they don't like it when people disagree with them and they can't force their beliefs on others.

You've turned vile in a very short time span so you're going into my kill file for being so cruel.

Which physics forum was it? I found one that was very hostile to debate and wonder if it was the same one.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CliffordK on 27/09/2013 06:40:32: Somehow I think this topic has gotten a bit off topic.
Can you please get back to a discussion of photons?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/09/2013 14:31:06: The photon as the only elementary particle would have to also play a role in the Higgs Boson and so be involved in mass in some way. This is self referencing like pulling yourself up by your own bootstrap. Also the Graviton is shown to have spin 2 and mirrors the photon somewhat mathematically. The expression of gravity would have to come out of the photon. How is that possible?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 27/09/2013 20:53:01: In my theory, the photon has a transverse gravitational mass and a longitudinal inertial mass. The graviton is a hypothetical particle, but it could be made of 2 photons' transverse component, because any interaction must obey the principle of reciprocality. Yes, the Higgs boson is made from 2 photons, probably a total of spin 0, which conveys inertia, the longitudinal component, for some specifically quantized interactions. Yes, it is a very interesting idea. Thanks!

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 21/10/2013 05:11:18: I think it is probably right to say that gravity is mediated at the speed of light.

If non locality of entanglement is here to stay, it is obvious to me that to conserve causality, space is the end product, space is the result of any interaction. The world may be a hologram. Space is just the spatial dimensions and it is the end product of the causality chain.

But what is more interesting is if spacetime is quantized and localized into energy quanta represented by particles, it means that the limit imposed on the speed of light necessitates a limit on the minimal delay in time (space is the end product therefore you need a limit on time!).

There is no gravitational wave...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 16/12/2013 23:06:29: A must read about Mach's Principle:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9781461456223-c1.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1364319-p174609485&ei=032vUuykJsqi2wW_vYG4CQ&usg=AFQjCNHsb3eIb-kwR1o4sNxnEnKBBPpBpQ&bvm=bv.57967247,d.aWc

All charges move at the speed of light relative to any frame of reference and elementary particles are not truly elementary, they are made of at least two constituents. Space is flat...

More on that later...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 25/12/2013 20:10:09: Here is my 'proof' that there is no event horizon.

1- Forget the GR answer, because gravity is a reciprocal interaction. It must respect Mach's Principle in a theory of Quantum Gravity and that is what Einstein truly wanted for GR, without success.

2- A black hole keeps only the rest mass of particles falling into it.

3- By principle 2, kinetic energy must evade the black hole somehow. Therefore, the maximum event horizon has the Planck Length.

An electron, falling into a black hole, is a superposition or a correlation between an electron rest form and a photon form. The photon form is the kinetic part.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20121221-alice-and-bob-meet-the-wall-of-fire/

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-birth-black-hole-radio-star.html
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 01/01/2014 01:12:21: No matter, no time and no space.

It is Einstein who first used the term “Mach's Principle”. According to Mach’s Principle, if the universe was made of a single unitary element, this element wouldn’t have any property, no mass, no spin, no charge, no momentum, no energy and no space. The properties of each unitary element are determined in a relation to other unitary elements. Einstein wanted GR to follow this principle and it makes perfect sense.

It is important to understand that Einstein’s views, guiding him to the foundation of General Relativity, may not be solved entirely by the mathematical solution proposed by Einstein: The GR field equations. Minkowski influenced greatly Einstein in his search for a mathematical solution. This is Minkowski’s spacetime which introduced gravitational waves. Something Einstein found but something Einstein doubted about its reality. And there is the black hole solution which he understood to be wrong.

Einstein introduced the concept of spacetime because he didn't have a valid description of matter, including the source of inertia and gravity. Spacetime replaces matter in GR, if you follow Mach. There is spacetime without matter in GR! This is why GR failed to follow Mach’s Principle. He simply couldn’t find a valid solution in agreement with his own understanding.

“Einstein added the cosmological constant term to make static cosmological solutions possible by including a long-range repulsive force. But he also hoped that the inclusion of the cosmological constant term would render his field equations solution less in the absence of matter. Willem deSitter quickly showed that Einstein’s new equations had an expanding, asymptotically empty solution, one with full inertial structure; and a vacuum solution, too. So Einstein’s attempt to include Mach’s principle in this way was deemed a failure.”

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9781461456223-c1.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1364319-p174609485&ei=032vUuykJsqi2wW_vYG4CQ&usg=AFQjCNHsb3eIb-kwR1o4sNxnEnKBBPpBpQ&bvm=bv.57967247,d.aWc

Spacetime is matter and it is discrete. No matter, no time and no space.

If there are more than one big bang in the universe, there is still a space and time solution without our big bang…

Now you can understand why I say there is no vacuum energy. There is no vacuum energy without matter.

A fifth dimension might still be necessary to explain the electric charge and fields.

Einstein’s unsuccessful investigations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_unsuccessful_investigations

Happy new year!!!
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 14/01/2014 23:21:13: The Big Bang (it is all about synchronization and the physical value of 'pi')

A black ring is a particle made of multiple wavelengths (n*2pi*Lp). Thus, the value of 'pi' must be finite in our physical reality. We have an inertial clock having a time rate of 2pi*Tp.

Then, we have a second clock for the gravitational force. This clock has a time rate of Tp.

These two discrete clocks are always out of sync in elementary particles because each of them is made of one wavelength (note on the relation of stability and synchronization). This is not the case for a black ring! While a black ring keeps growing, it will eventually reach a synchronization point between those two clocks. This is the cause of big bangs…

If you find the real discrete value of 'pi', you find the tuning value needed to explain the set of particles we have and you find the size and the mass of our black ring of origin. Good luck!!! :o)

In fact, you need 'pi' and T_p.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 07/02/2014 01:35:43: The story of the lonely Mr. Electron desperately seeking love (The endless pursuit of happiness)

Mr Electron is looking for his dreamed particle. He asks to a psychophysicist friend about Miss Positron. She looks so perfect to him.

He learns that the price to pay for a wedding with Miss Positron is the lost of identity of his charges and a split of his massive personality.* He then learns that they could not agree when they talk about their mass. Moreover, after having exchanged half of their mass, they would immediately understand their ultimate incompatibility about it and they would decide to separate at the speed of light.

Later, Mr Electron thinks he has found his perfect half in the name of Mrs Blackring. After their first meeting, they become inseparable. But Mrs Blackring seems never satisfied; she invites others to share their home. Mr Electron cannot leave her because she is simply too attractive.

One day, Mrs Blackring makes a fatal mistake; she has charmed Mr Pi. Once Mr Pi enters their home, everybody understands that his dream can only be fulfill somewhere else. Suddenly, Mrs Blackring doesn’t look attractive anymore; she is not the perfect one. Everybody leaves in a big turmoil, continuing his endless search for happiness, for his perfect half.

Mrs Blackring has become a memory, a story, but she is still a part of their present and a part of their future…
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 25/03/2014 03:42:04: An interesting article about entanglement and spin propagation:
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-diamonds-friend.html

Note the difference in the spin lifetime when in the middle compared with when at the edge...

This one is related to what I've been thinking for quite a while (black rings and elementary particles tails):
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-kelvin-quantum-tornado.html

Without tails, there would be no interactions... More on that later.

About the B-Mode polarization signal in the CMB, it is due to supermassive black rings jets which were active for billions of years. (remember that it is very faint)

Why the Milky Way signal has to be subtracted from the CMB and not the signals from all other galaxies?

Why the CMB forms a sphere of a radius of over 13 billion ly only a few 100 thousand years after the big bang?

Faster than light expansion of space is nonsense because the expansion is caused by light... There is only circular and circumstantial proofs of proper space expansion!

There is no such thing as an ultimate free lunch! Nothing is free, and we all know that... Unfortunately, entropy is the mother of evolution...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Tenergy on 09/04/2014 06:25:54: I have to wonder if there’s yet another kind of particle that's even more fundamental.http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/Smileys/default/wink.gif
I'm just someone with a hobby and would like to share here some exciting hunches. Hopefully you can help here (or just shoot holes).

1) A far more powerful and mysterious undetectable ghost particle powers blackholes.
2) ‘Big Collision’ was responsible for the Big Bang which resulted as a ‘blackhole supernova’.

Could tachyons be the ultimate elementary particles of the universe powering blackholes - making them be incredibly stable tachyon stars?

Picture matter and energy falling past the event horizon of a blackhole. Inside the blackhole they ultimately 'break' (or ‘decay’) into tachyons which when ‘activated’ always travel faster than light making it possible for it to escape the blackhole’s gravitational grip. This not only solves the information paradox but also may help explain other bizarre behaviors involving galaxy formation. Today most galaxies from the early universe still have supermassive blackholes at its core. So unlike stars these objects tend to be very stable hanging around since the Big Bang days. A blackhole may in essence be a tachyon star that is possibly the most stable object in the known universe. Perhaps a relationship similar to E = mc² also exists for tachyons where the equivalence could be expressed something like:
T ~ kEv_t² = kmc²v_t²

T =Tachyon Energy
V_t = an unknown constant velocity of the associated tachyon within the blackhole’s ‘spacetime’.
k = an unknown constant involved. (True ‘vacuum’ condition for a tachyon inside of a blackhole is unknown.)
E = energy of the equivalent particle (~photon) within the known universe where tachyon energy is much greater than the equivalent particle’s energy.

When a blackhole really stops feeding it can get so ‘cold’ that tachyons inside go into a ‘condense inactivated’ state where it is ‘frozen’ moving at its slowest speed - the speed of light. It still may not have a high probability to escape so over time the frozen blackhole slowly shrinks/evaporates (possibly into a normal black dwarf).

But say new photons enter past the event horizon (or firewall) – the locked up ‘degenerate’ photons can convert into a shower of ‘frozen’ tachyons that are entangled. And let’s say the blackhole’s increasing feeding behavior from huge amounts of in-falling matter and photons in turn cause the blackhole’s overall temperature and gravity to rise freeing more tachyons to get ‘activated’ to travel than faster than light and have a greater probability of escaping the blackhole thereby avoiding any runaway implosion effects and providing a dynamic equilibrium just like a star for countless eons. Conversion of higher energy photons results in more tachyon energy either by converting them into more tachyons or by increasing the energy of newly formed tachyons. A tachyon could however still remain trapped colliding inside the blackhole’s unique spacetime so that it takes on average even millions of years for a tachyon to escape the degenerate blackhole much like how a photon zips/collides around forever inside the core of its star. (Details on both the ‘frozen’ behavior and spacetime trapping mechanism may still need more thinking here.)

When a blackhole floods the universe with tachyons – after leaving the blackhole’s spacetime and its event horizon the flow of tachyons can then inflate the normal space of the known universe. (The only spacetime that can curve the tachyon is one that’s inside of a blackhole).

Normally only matter decays into energy but I wonder if a strange ‘energy decay’ process can also occur? Could photons somehow ‘decay’ into tachyons? Could that also help explain the conversion of ‘degenerate’ photons into ‘frozen’ tachyons inside the event horizon?

On the other hand - could tachyons having no interaction with matter or energy (a tachyon is neither matter nor energy – it’s only another form of the substance having an ‘equivalent’ relationship to energy and matter) somehow while stretching our normal space ‘merge’ together to form the known mediating elementary particles of the known universe (including those fabulous photons)? If that’s the case then the tachyon would truly be the ultimate elementary particle. Some may say this is dark energy – but I say it’s distinctly a faster than light no interaction particle (tachyon) with its own constant velocity and a much lighter footprint than a photon thereby preserving the universe’s conservation of momentum.

Could ‘Big Collision’ have caused the Big Bang and Dark Flow?

Ok now picture my other hunch. I assume there can only be one universe (contains all multiverses if they exist and any unknown entities). That being the case our ‘known’ universe was once a mighty blackhole. It was orbiting within a neighborhood of relatively peaceful similar blackholes all moving along a certain direction within a far larger universe filled with boundless dust clouds of free tachyons and unimaginably huge tachyon star clusters of clusters (like trillions of light years across where between tachyon stars are huge voids consisting of mainly dust clouds of ‘frozen’ tachyons. Only tiny clumps of matter and energy may exist in the universe then. (If no matter exists then what does a blackhole in this universe feed on? Certain kinds of tachyons that cannot escape the grip of a truly dynamic tachyon star like those ‘frozen’ tachyons. Remember a tachyon star’s escape velocity can be much greater than our normal speed of light in our normal universe vacuum.) Regarding the laws of physics in our known universe – some may only work locally needing expansion to accurately cover events in the larger universe while others may still apply.

Suddenly a huge fast moving rougue blackhole (can a blackhole stretch space and jet across it faster than the speed of light?) slams into our blackhole kingdom colliding with our main blackhole causing the all kinds of blackholes to get entangled and go unstable. This in turn causes the mightiest blackhole supernova explosion (Whitehole? Is there still a core?) and possibly the occurrence of subsequent GRBs resulting in a shower of many smaller blackholes along with tachyons that have merged into new clumps of matter and energy while stretching normal space.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/04/2014 23:30:20: Quantum Mechanics demonstrates that everything we measure is quantized.

Quantum entanglement experiments tend to prove that there is a residual correlation between particles spin which is faster than light but somehow non causal within relative space and time. The spin is quantized, meaning it changes in energy steps in local interactions (no faster than light).

In my theory, an elementary particle’s spin is determined by all other particles of the universe as 1/2ⁿ, n being the degree of relation from 1 to N. The sum of all terms is equal to one when N is equal to infinity (opened question). Thus the maximal relation between two particles is ½ or 50 percent. When you measure the spin of a particle, the particles of the detector become entangled with it at a level depending on the strength of the measurement and the noise. The maximal level being 50% between the two originally entangled particles, there is no way to exchange information faster than light because there is 50% of unknown. Even without any noise, you cannot determine the spin value of a single particle in advance of its measurement. In fact, it is Nyquist and Shannon theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

So case closed you will say? No, it is not. Still, there is a residual correlation. It is non causal in relative space and time but it is causal in the origin of space and time.

There is no absolute frame of reference in relative space and time but there has to be a quasi-instantaneous relation between every particle. The laws of physics are the same here and far away. Protons and electrons are the same everywhere we look. There is no absolute zero temperature.

There are metalaws (or alphalaws). These laws are prior to the laws of Relativity of space and time and they seem to be static or immutable to us.

So, finally, it is possible that there is a kind of tachyon, but I don’t think it is a particle as we know it because it is beyond Relativity of space and time. I prefer an ultimate clock but you could prefer and ultimate ruler. It seems to me that it is more reasonable to think of emerging space than emerging time.

For tachyons and your black hole explanation, I would say it is very improbable because it is based on a very improbable model of black hole which itself is based on GR which is a macroscopic approximation of reality for the reasons explained earlier in my theory. There is no particle in GR. You need a quantum gravity theory. You must find a way to understand Relativity and Quantum Physics as a single theory…
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/04/2014 01:01:01: Concerning the Nyquist-Shannon theorem in the entanglement context of a single pair of particles, you have only a half of a sampling per wavelength. At this sampling rate, the signal is supressed entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency

More explanations later... But it works for all sampling rates of 1/2ⁿ...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 06/03/2015 17:28:49: The reality of photons

Photons are real objects. Any photon is real for every other particle of the Universe. Therefore, a photon must have a minimal relative energy which constitutes a fundamental physical layer. We already have many hints that there is a maximal value, probably around the Planck length.

The motion of a particle, relative to another, has a photonic nature. The particle is a special correlation of a rest frame with a motion frame. The motion frame is a real photon. Thus, there is a minimal relative motion and it is impossible to attain a temperature of absolute zero (no motion state).

Einstein’s Ether is not in space but in time

After that the Special Theory and the General Theory of Relativity have been recognized, physicists got rid of ether and other absolutisms. Newton’s Theory seemed dead. Everything must be relative, most scientists thought.

But as Einstein said, everything cannot be relative; there must be some kind of reality, something absolute, at least in a sense. Something must replace ether and represent a palpable layer of reality. We should get rid of absolute relativity then…

In principle, the Earth’s rotation could be stopped for an infinitely small amount of time. The Earth is an aggregate of elementary particles and its rotation is defined relatively to all particles of the Universe. The no rotation of the Earth is a boundary for Relativity, in the same way absolute zero temperature is.

The no rotation is an absolute limit replacing Ether. It is not in space but it is in time. There is a privileged frame in time. A reference in space is only an emergent one. The circular gravitational lightwave (or matterwave) of an elementary particle represents a non rotating frame: the electric charge rotates at the speed of light, not the circle…

Ultimately, the absolute reference is in time, not in space… Physicists of a distant future will one day try to crack what is hidden during the Planck interval…

Notes:
This might sounds trivial for you and you might think it doesn’t add anything to my theory. But the fact is, even though it is implied, there is no description of the source or the boundary of a no rotation frame in the Theory of General Relativity.

It is interesting to note that the only solution for a stationary orbit around a single non rotating object is a straight line away to infinity…

Article on Einstein’s ether:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fredshift.vif.com%2FJournalFiles%2FV08NO3PDF%2FV08N3GRF.PDF&ei=NXP1VOX5HsTksATisoGIDQ&usg=AFQjCNGdFTm19LgnJMFtPmTjTlq_kdfCnA
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: jccc on 07/03/2015 05:16:23: there is no photon. light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26362.275

a matter/mass/charge has force/gravitational field, if the matter moves, the field follows. if the matter vibrates, the field follows.

if the sun has a big ejection/quake, we should be able to detect it 500 seconds later. we might even have a earthquake.

atoms, each has mass, when atoms exited, their fields exited, within that field, you feel light.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/04/2015 02:09:52: Just a precision: The minimal relative energy of a photon may possibly be dynamical and not fixed, even though it still represents a real physical boundary.

Olbers’ paradox debunked:
“The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.”

It is simply not true. The brightness depends on the average density of radiation (temperature). The paradox disappears if you understand the implications of infinite space and discrete photons. If a star is far enough, you may have to wait a very long time before one of its photons hit one of your retinas.

I don’t think we will ever know if the Universe is finite or not, but I guess it is… According to my theory, the universe may be finite or not. The universe is made of discrete particles of energy, but the quantity of these particles is still undefined.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Spring Theory on 19/05/2015 14:05:43: You're on the right track about photons being the fundamental "particle" but you assumption that the speed of light is constant should be reconsidered.

If we are made up of photons then if their speed changes, we could not notice it or measure it since our own photons orbitals would change in cycle time also.

This is what appears to be time dilation. Einstein just had it backwards. Time is constant. The speed of light is variable.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 20/05/2015 05:15:42: Time dilation is demonstrated in longer half lives of particles in accelerator and cosmic rays. What about GPS and other experiments? It is in agreement with Einstein's theories.

Time rate is constant locally but relative for different localities. The speed of light is only constant locally because it is defined by the speed of time. The flow of time depends on relative speed and relative gravity potentials.

In my theory, I defined a locality as being a single elementary particle. There is no structure of space. Space is the result of all interactions between particles. It is misleading to talk about specific coordinates in vacuum like an arbitrary point in space between you and the screen you are looking at right now, unless you put yourself in relation to a particle of air... There is no Euclidean or Newtonian space. The only absolute and common space is the Planck Length.

I have an unpublished article about it that I wrote a few months ago. I will transcribe it on the forum soon.
(I found the ISW effect in my theory but from a simple and different interpretation than the main one: there is no disconnection possible between particles)
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: PmbPhy on 20/05/2015 06:30:41: Quote from: Spring Theory
]
This is what appears to be time dilation. Einstein just had it backwards. Time is constant. The speed of light is variable.
That's quite incorrect. Where's your proof or an argument to justify your assertion?
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Spring Theory on 20/05/2015 12:37:44: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 20/05/2015 05:15:42
Time dilation is demonstrated in longer half lives of particles in accelerator and cosmic rays. What about GPS and other experiments? It is in agreement with Einstein's theories.

Time rate is constant locally but relative for different localities. The speed of light is only constant locally because it is defined by the speed of time. The flow of time depends on relative speed and relative gravity potentials.

I am not arguing with the time dilation effect - I agree it exists, but simply disagree with the mechanism behind it. Consider that instead of time slowing down in a gravity well, the speed of photons is reduced. Since particles are made of photons, the particles that compose our bodies and our time measuring devices will also slow down, creating time dilation.

The time dilation effect is equivalent from either perspective. The major difference is that Spring Theory explains the nature of space time rather than making an assumption that "time slows down".
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Even2 on 22/05/2015 04:15:50: Hi my model of the simple universe posits that the electron or rather the electro-positron is the only basic particle.
All particles including the photon which in this case would be an expanded electro-positron are formed from this one particle.
Mass in this model is a product of both positive and negative static electric fields.
Compressing these fields increases mass, and expanding these fields decreases mass.
So a photon would be an expanded electro-positron.And when the photon is compressed in a collision it gains mass and becomes either a positive-electron or a electro-positron.

even2
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 17/02/2016 02:41:20: An idea about Dark Matter

I won't talk for quite a while about a cosmological model including the ISW effect.

I want to describe the gravitational tail of particles, which is exactly the gravitational correction I have voluntarily neglected in my calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. With the recent discovery of gravitational waves, I found answers I desperately needed... And it is quite a revelation for me. It is in agreement much more than what I expected. It fills the voids... literally...

Just a last and quick thinking about the possibility of a universe made of multiple big bangs, each having a different finite value of PI fixed at a big bang... PI is related to the longitudinal mode (or dimension) which is inertia and it determines its wavelength. While Gravity is the transversal mode and has a wavelength in multiples of the Planck time without the direct relation to PI. Electric charges necessitate connections between both the longitudinal mode and the transversal mode to explain the two polarities. These connections were fixed by the value of PI at the big bang. But if there are other big bangs with different values of PI, what will happened? Invisible Matter, only perceived by its gravitational interactions.

It is a bit a spooky idea and a very long stretch, I must admit...

You might think there is a flaw in how matter may interact gravitationally with Dark Matter and produces its motion. You must know that Dark Matter would have charges of its own, where the Dark longitudinal mode is connected with gravity (the transversal common mode).

The magnetic field is a mixture of both dimensions...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 18/02/2016 23:42:01: No sterile or Majorana neutrino

Asymmetry is the cause of the big bang expansion. It is the cause of the multiplicity of the particles. If you considered that the perfect symmetry is the number 1 and the maximum entropy is zero (0), then no two particles can be perfectly symmetrical. The interactions between particles are the leftovers of earlier forms of particles; which, on average, had a lower entropy than their products. At the Big Bang, the entropy was at its lowest point but it was not 1 (no entropy and perfect symmetry). You need a string or a tail between particles to make them interact. This string is the asymmetrical result. Together, the particles symmetry is nearer the value of one. From this, it is unlikely to have a product which is of much greater symmetry than its genitors.

My model of elementary massive particles is determined to be two concentric circular waves because it is asymmetrical and absolutely necessary to explain spacetime and interactions between particles...

You should read: "The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time" by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin
Lee Smolin's part is essential because he provides another perspective and he identifies general principles I follow without defining them. These are essential general principles to achieve a unifying theory. I agree with all of them, except maybe one.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 17/04/2016 22:45:51: Copenhagen vs Everett, Teleportation, and ER=EPR
By Leonard Susskind

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.02589

I’ve learned a lot from Susskind. The basic concepts of entanglement and the holographic principle are those that come to my mind. I disagree on the fringes but it is normal as the fringes are ‘where people disagree’ by definition… You can find Susskind courses on entanglement on the WEB.

It seems I’m entangled with Susskind… But how?

When you discuss with someone, you become entangled with this person. The information is physically exchanged by the dynamical process of entanglement through time. This information is filtered by the brains and then stored in memory. It is a reciprocal process but time gives it a direction, at least for purely local interactions (further considerations are necessary to establish the order of the causality chain).

When you read someone writings, you become entangled with him or her. Your brains are entangled. By particles associations, you could in principle, have access to all contents, though the information is limited by the fact that the other person is entangled with his environment and that time has elapsed since the actual writing process. But the brain, obviously, has a capacity to maintain a high degree of entanglement in a selective memory using multiple particles and keeping the order. Many scientific studies show this but without explanation: This looks more like a magic trick.

Can we acquire information faster than the speed of light? The memory could be like a battery: you have to get physically entangled with someone to re-establish the link in analogy to the charge of a battery. You lose gradually your connections to a person as you and the other become entangled with other things and other people. There might be a preferential network of wormholes and/or space-time connections between all the brains on Earth due to their special abilities (your pets included). Anyway, FTL or not, information is exchanged by entanglement and the more macroscopic the information ensemble is, the greater is the multitude of entangled particles necessary to conceptualize it and to store it in memory. The level of entanglement can explain why our memory is not perfect but still very efficient...

Sometimes, it may be necessary to disconnect yourself from parts of your environment and connect to some other people to be enlightened (thinking out of the box). Thus, differences are necessary. Respect and honesty are the keys to maximize the validity of the information exchanged… I hope someday, not too far, we will all understand that it is a real physical process and no one can escape it! No one should escape it! If you don’t respect other people, don’t expect respect from others.

Fear is not respect!

The concept of success in our society is mostly related to our profound desire for freedom and the need to have an example to follow, without understanding the actual history and further consequences. In our society, money is power, power represent “freedom”. Truth is only important if someone realizes he can make a buck out of it… We all know that truth should be more important than money because truth is the only way to fulfill one’s dreams… It is the only way to minimize uncertainty while maximizing freedom by following the best paths accordingly. This is a dynamical process that must be continuously maintained.

Just open your eyes and stop giving power to those who don’t deserve it so we can all connect our heart to our brain and continue to evolve… So it becomes true to say that truth is more important than money… Money is just paper and its value is in your head… It has more a tendency to maximize uncertainty than the other way around…

The word “honesty” and all its derivatives seem to be vanishing from many people’s vocabulary these days, often from powerful people’s vocabulary. In fact, if you are honest and speak openly of your desire for honest and opened relations within a business, political or law context, you will probably face expulsion and you will be exposed to ridicule. Those people don’t seem to understand that they are a part of the play. The concept of constant evolution is absent from their narrow mind, though from a monkey and beyond, we have evolved…

PS.: I still think that space is the result of the causality chain and that there is a preferred direction to time, simply because it is our daily experience.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 24/04/2016 14:01:51: There are several problems with your discussion. You have curved space-time. Where did that come from? Then you have a photon. What is that? Is a photon an entity in itself or is it merely a perturbation in the gravitational field. thus it is a quanta of the light wave which interacts with matter and transforms into spherical energy (mass) and or linear energy (momentum).
As I see it, the fundamental particles are spherical dot-waves which are positive, negative and bi-polar dot-waves. They come in three different forms of momentum. Linear, angular, and spherical. It is the spherical form which causes gravity.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 24/04/2016 20:04:33: I leave for two weeks, then I will have more time to give you more explanations. You should read all my theory and keep only the last conclusions.

About binary black holes merger:

Each black hole, being in a degenerative orbital motion, represents a dipole because my black hole model is two concentric rings separated by the Planck length bound by the strong interaction which is gravity (at the planck length). Two black holes having the same mass and merging will produce only gravitational waves (gravitational quadrupole: each black ring is a dipole). A single particle like the proton or the electron falling toward a black hole, will spiral around one side of the ring before merging with the black ring. As the mass of the ring is much higher, this produce only a dipole i.e. only one particle oscillating from the point of view of an outside observer. As gravity is suppressed only in the middle plane of the black ring, this is where two photons in opposite directions will be launched, considering that the momenta for the black hole and the particle are reciprocal. This will produce gamma ray bursts and jets when sufficient number of particles will fall in. Thus the difference in mass for a two black holes merger will produce photons. See latest FERMI possible photons detection corresponding to LIGO black hole merger observation.

This produces Dark Energy too... in the long run...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/04/all-the-light-in-the-universe-is-it-coming-from-an-exotic-unknown-source-weekend-feature.html#more

Black holes recycle the energy of expansion!
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: PmbPhy on 26/04/2016 02:12:25: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
taken partly from another of my post:

A quantum of light (a photon), may possess an infinitesimal energy and always travel at C in vacuum.
What is an an infinitesimal energy? I don't wish to be nit-picky but I'm concerned that you may not know that there are more than one definitions to this term. The context tells me that you might mean it to be extrmely small. Is that the case here?

The mathematical meaning of the term infinitesimal has a meaning only when it is applied to differentials. It cannot be used to refer to a finite quantity since it would be meaningless in that context. Please see the definition of that term at: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinitesimal.html
Quote
Infinitesimal: An infinitesimal is some quantity that is explicitly nonzero and yet smaller in absolute value than any real quantity. The understanding of infinitesimals was a major roadblock to the acceptance of calculus and its placement on a firm mathematical foundation.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory.
Where did you get that notion from? The conversion of matter into light and vice-versa is from special relativity and elementary particle physics (EPP). EPP is not the same thing as quantum theory and the conversion has little to do with waves. It's unclear to me what you mean by the term "model" here. What is it you mean by that term in this context?

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything.
That is not the case whatsoever.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy?
It's unclear what the two have to do with each other. And the energy of a photon is frame dependent. While a photon may have an extremely small amount of energy in one frame it will have an extremely large energy in another frame which is moving extremely fast in the direction the photon is moving.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: poiesis on 11/05/2016 10:45:50: Your theory has some similar points to my theory, Quantum Metaphysics (QuMe), which states that photons do not travel at all but are more like relay stations that push out information to other particles. In this way, a photon is the medium through which information propagates. It doesn't move in spacetime but the information it sends out has a velocity as it propagates through space. A photon provides information to other photons that are near it, but there is only resistance with those types of photons that don't have its type of information. When there is no resistance, there is no result from the interaction and we can therefore say that it wasn't sent to those photons at all.

QuMe postulates light either carries information about relationships or about interactions. When it carries information about relationships we call it time (and mass). When it carries information about interactions we call it space (and velocity). When it carries both, the information appears in the form of energy.

Further, there is no real 'spin' of a photon but simply the way the information is relating to other particles.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 09/12/2016 21:56:38: ENTROPY AND THE UNIVERSE

If we postulate that the universe is finite and that there are a finite number of possibilities in the universe, it means the entropy is constant for the entire universe but it is increasing in any locality and any subset…

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

According to my theory, there is an absolute time connecting everything in the universe. In this now, energy is conserved. That is why, energy is always conserved locally and that the speed of light is a local constant. The now is local only, for any observers or interactions. It is the connections of all localities. What we see is not what it is, but what it was! Though we live in the present, everything we perceive is in the past.

Time may be real in a block universe… Though the laws of physics may change over time, the number of possibilities must be finite if we want to keep the unitarity of the universe.

DIMENSIONS, PHOTONS AND MASSIVE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES

A photon is made of two electric charges (probably half charges), one negative and one positive. A charge is an intersection between the two dimensions of time. The two charges are connected in a one dimensional space for each of the two time dimensions.

The first dimension of time is transversal to the relative motion and is based on the Planck time. This dimension produces a contraction of space. Thus it implies a transversal separation of the Planck length between the two charges or intersections.

The second time dimension is longitudinal, meaning it is in the direction of the relative motion. It is based on the Planck time multiplied by a fixed and finite value of Pi. This dimension produces an expansion of space. Thus it implies a longitudinal separation of the Planck length multiplied by Pi between the two charges or intersections (possible error of a factor of 2).

The two transversal components rotate independently around the longitudinal spacetime axis according to the local connections to the rest of the universe (attractive and repulsive). This produces a three dimensional spacetime.

If the charges are connected in two one-dimensional spaces how do we have three dimensions of space and a four dimensional spacetime? Something is obviously missing.

For massive elementary particles like the electron and the quarks, the two charges are connected in a two dimensional longitudinal and expanded space for their transversal components which is the strong interaction between the two charges. This produces three dimensions of space and a four dimensional spacetime by their relations to the rest of the universe.

All this is local and limited by the speed of light. Only the Planck time and quantization is non local. The two charges of a particle are probably non locally correlated in the two dimensional longitudinal space to keep a quantized spin and form a ring. This ring is then correlated to all other particles of the universe in a three dimensional space.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/12/2016 00:41:18: The ring is what we call a local frame. Any charge (intersection), move at the speed of light relatively to any local frame.

This is only a basic frame of the theory. A full description of the connections between the two type of charge is necessary.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: GoC on 10/12/2016 14:24:30: CPT ArkAngel

I have been on your path. There are some inconsistencies with your interpretations. Space being curved is a 2d explanation of a 3d process (dilation). A planet to space is also an atom to space relativity. You are missing what gives the electron motion in the first place. You are trying to give explanations in terms of the standard model and that causes a conflict in the minds of your readers. You have to realize your understanding while I agree is on the correct path needs to readjust the mindset of your audience in order to project your thoughts. And drop the metaphysical drivel. Entanglement is created at the creation of light. It is a mirror image in the spectrum not faster than the speed of light, just a trick on the standard model. You might be ready to grasp what causes the electron to move. This is ignored by main stream and the next step in the evolution of understanding.

Here is a hint: E=mc^2 Here is another form E= m*c * Space * c. Photons are a distortion of a grid pattern of c spin that give electrons a rotation in any direction of space. The jump of the electron is the photon distortion. Fundamental energy c is the only energy. Kinetic energy is a macro mass concept only. Electron and up to the black hole which is super macro mass or an electron in a different fractal universe.

The spectrum is just different distortion patterns of the separate fundamental energy system (quantum mechanics). Quantum mechanics is the cause of relativity.

You do not create positrons and negatrons (both electrons) only the representative wave form in the spectrum.

Fusion creates electron pairs to form protons and neutrons using flow patterns in a stable positron negatron complimentary spin state of flow and creating a radiation spectrum pattern.

Fission destroys the mass back into photon spin particles also creating a radiation spectrum pattern.

So yes everything evolved from fundamental energy.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/12/2016 16:29:36: GoC, you should write your theory.

I forgot to mention something very important: The two time dimensions produce collinear spacetime coordinates for a local frame. As relative speed increase, they separate and become perpendicular at the speed of light...

(Equivalence Principle...! And electricity and magnetism...!)
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: GoC on 10/12/2016 20:17:02: CPT ArkAngel,

There are only a few of us traveling our path. You are explaining things the general way I understand them. Not exactly the same but close enough to understand your position. You do realize to many others we speak a different language. Its a stepwise process so the leap is to challenging. We appear to be on the same stairway. Our theories shut most trained minds off and the untrained minds cannot follow some of the concepts of relativity. It becomes an exercise in futility. But I can appreciate you Alex and Nilak.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 11/12/2016 01:58:08: I have some ideas about the issue, but as most of them are in correlation with the seek of a new understanding of the same relativity, I prefer to keep absorbing information of yours, and thinking about simulations...
I do considering my recent "alternative" self-inflicted looking over photon, to understand if different from the photons being sole elementary particle, if inst backwards... If is not the spinning "only of the photon" that shares its own mechanics of light(kinetic energy) onto a single photon, infusing it with "plus" quanta and than completing another incomplete photon, into a new created electron...
I wondering if when the electron leaves if photons, not on void but on mater, immediately with no time, infuse one or more single photons with their own quanta in order to achieve new point of reference on that atom...

It's hard to define cause here I'm assuming that particle are but packs determinate by C of space(happening on it), and that energy is something that I still not sure about...
I can sort of understand the behavior of matter, but the "existence" of quanta, it's origins is at best uncertain...
I do like the concept where the smallest configuration of quanta (photon) started everything...
I terrified by some alternatives where space is not at C, but the only C that is happening here is the one of a constant photonic attempt.. Sort of photon is not the only thing that moves and spins at C, but where surety it was the first configuration to do that, and all the other come from it...
One assumption makes me wonder the origins of a eternal space that is at C, the other that the impossible shape/configuration of the quanta on the photon takes it up to +50% the way towards a stable particle, it develops mass and looses the mass at C, letting behind the mass, the center of the photonic attempt would be happening at C, and C would be also it's "self propagation" ahead of its just created mass on the previous frame...
My opinion on the issue than variate between two possible frames here, one where the creation and loss of mass on the photon propagates itself at C(speed of light) or the one where the attempt stays bellow -50% of a particle configuration, so never achieving mass to be lost at all, on this case the speed seems to be simple zero, and light is adrifting on C of space... Perhaps both, do not know, do not see...

On this case I do prefer to save assumptions, and keep following the topic to observe what it takes...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: GoC on 11/12/2016 16:34:23: A photon of course is a propagating energy packet. Which brings up the question what is energy. In the standard model there is a point source creating a wave tail behind. We only measure the wave portion hf as the photon. This makes the point source a moot point since relativity mathematics does not allow mass to move at c. This was overcome by the claim its a virtual photon. The hf is not virtual but a real observation propagation at c. How can relativity claim mass cannot move at c while claiming a point source entity carries this energy?

So lets concentrate on what we understand as energy. In our everyday lives we recognize energy in its kinetic form of work. This is mass level work. So we only recognize energy from mass. Relativity comes along and adds a layer to energy not considered previously but we cannot divorce ourselves from the idea of energy only coming from mass electron up. We just get started in suspecting something below the electron level and here comes the MMX. This proves correctly there is no stationary medium. Coupled with Einstein correctly saying a medium cannot have motion for relativity to be observed science closed the door on a medium. This makes things much simpler for the mind to accept. Relativity math becomes the reason for relativity with no mechanical reason needed. It becomes to difficult to find a mechanical reason so the postulates remain as the observed cause.

So we have nothing to work with for the cause. There is only one medium left to work with mechanically and at the same time create the mechanics of relativity observations. The same static uniform medium from the past spinning at c. This would allow electrons to move in the first place which is missing from the current model. To believe electrons are uncontrolled is a fiction created by the MMX. The MMX was a wonderful experiment with a terrible subjective conclusion made by scientists. We know the medium does not have velocity because the speed of light is the same in all directions. The same could be said about a spin state but there is a configuration of spin state that can cause electrons to move and photons to propagate.

Quote
The two time dimensions produce collinear spacetime coordinates for a local frame. As relative speed increase, they separate and become perpendicular at the speed of light...

I agree with this statement but in the form of grid spin states. They would have to be uniform positions and offset 90 degrees. We all understand (or not) time by our own passing through time. But relativity time is based on c spin as energy and propagation. The measure of time itself is the distance electron travels to cycle time of the electron. A frame is considered different when the distance the electron travels is more or less. Traveling through space takes energy from space by moving the electron through more space in SR. c is the total energy so the electron can only take the same distance per cycle as its rest state. The rest state is quicker because there is less space to navigate. At ~186,000 m/s ( if mass could go that fast ) the electron would quit cycling all together. And since our measure of time is based on that cyclic model we would consider time has stopped. So the speed we travel through space affects cycle time which also affects reaction time in the frame. Half the sped of light does not make your clock tick at half its rate vs. the compared rest state. This becomes a geometry based distance issue that follows relativistic observations. At 0.866 c your clock would tick at half its rate at comparative rest. I can show the Lorentz contraction in Euclidean geometry. The standard model claims you are in non Euclidean space and contraction is physical with relativistic speeds. I disagree and can show the mathematical equivalence to the Lorenz contraction in geometry. The standard model does not follow the postulate of light being independent of the source. The standard model suggests light has momentum. That is a violation of relativity by standard model design.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 02/01/2017 07:22:16: About an absolute time and its measurement

I have some subtleties to explain about the implications of an absolute reference of time.

If the universe is infinite, the necessity of an absolute time vanishes. In an infinite universe, time may be divergent and may have infinite dynamical references. The big question here is if the infinity of time alone is sufficient for this possibility to be real. There is still the possibility of fixed time references for subsets of the universe in this context, though these should not be permanent.

In a finite block universe, having a finite number of possibilities, an absolute reference becomes a necessity. I chose time because of its association to motion. It implies a minimal space dimension too. This could still be valid for a subset of an infinite universe but for a finite duration.

I expect a lot of criticism concerning the Lorentz invariance, so I have to explain how this is still a possibility and how it should be measured.

First, I must say you can’t measure it directly because it lays at the absolute zero and it exists only at the full scale of the universe or the subset we are a part of. But there is a way to find its convergence besides the absolute zero temperature (here I suppose it is not enough of a proof).

At the event horizon of a black hole (a black ring is considered to be the event horizon in my model), spacetime contraction converge toward the Planck length and the Planck time, though it should never truly reach it before another big bang would be created. This implies that a big bang cannot encompass all spacetime and matter of the universe. There is an exterior cause to the big bang: It needs and oscillation with exterior elements. A black hole cannot become unitary, that’s why there are bangs…

To measure the convergence of the Planck time, you must somehow circumvent Relativity. If you measure the frequencies of intermediary particles, you will still encounter Lorentz invariance by virtue of the relativistic principle. The frequencies of photons measured are still very far from the Planck length. It is only in measuring time intervals of events synchronized near the event horizon that it is possible to circumvent Relativity. But there is still the Relativistic point of view of the observer. An observer on Earth should find no relative motion in the timing patterns for different black holes and for events synchronized near the event horizon. An observer on the moon should observe the same patterns but at a slightly longer time intervals due to a slightly lesser gravitational potential on the moon.

You can see it as a mirror image of the observer own reference frame.

It should be easier to measure these timing patterns for supermassive black holes than for smaller black holes and it should be easier for event horizons of the same sizes.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 02/01/2017 11:29:26: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 17/02/2016 02:41:20
An idea about Dark Matter

I won't talk for quite a while about a cosmological model including the ISW effect.

I want to describe the gravitational tail of particles, which is exactly the gravitational correction I have voluntarily neglected in my calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. With the recent discovery of gravitational waves, I found answers I desperately needed... And it is quite a revelation for me. It is in agreement much more than what I expected. It fills the voids... literally...

Just a last and quick thinking about the possibility of a universe made of multiple big bangs, each having a different finite value of PI fixed at a big bang... PI is related to the longitudinal mode (or dimension) which is inertia and it determines its wavelength. While Gravity is the transversal mode and has a wavelength in multiples of the Planck time without the direct relation to PI. Electric charges necessitate connections between both the longitudinal mode and the transversal mode to explain the two polarities. These connections were fixed by the value of PI at the big bang. But if there are other big bangs with different values of PI, what will happened? Invisible Matter, only perceived by its gravitational interactions.

It is a bit a spooky idea and a very long stretch, I must admit...

You might think there is a flaw in how matter may interact gravitationally with Dark Matter and produces its motion. You must know that Dark Matter would have charges of its own, where the Dark longitudinal mode is connected with gravity (the transversal common mode).

The magnetic field is a mixture of both dimensions...

Applying the sum of everyone else observations about the issue "Dark Matter".
Dark Matter most likely is the lost mass of the traveling energy(photons).
Accepting that a photon is a hybrid state particle/wave, and so that it is but a temporary "impossible" configuration,
that is happening in time, and it is happening at C, in time...
Dark Matter seems to be the PAST mass of the now future photon, that on an instant of C...
Photon gaining mass but not becoming a particle, such mass would be happening outside the attempt,
and also at the same time the lost mass on the previous frame of that photon(past), would bend space and "inadvertently" propel
the photonic energy trough time. The event would be happening at C, and not traveling at C...

This is not only restricted to the mass of the photon, but of any other particle that is under great acceleration, such particle, would be able to
speed up it's own frame of existence, letting behind only the place and effects it was occupying on space...
The so called Dark Matter effects that we have being observing out here and nonetheless the only proof for it's existence,
I'm suggesting that are not effects at all, if photonic energy is the cause, the invisible effects of DM on gravity, are on themselves, it's own existence...
For if "Light" is but a visible "past" image of the now, "future" photon, we are observing the mass of the photon there, back on time(distance),
but the photon itself, the cause has being long gone, at C, so fast that it able to sort of "extend" its own past, so it may come visible to us...
One may believe that there is no light where there is no star or galaxy, and that would be correct, but that doesn't mean that dark matter is not there...
The observable Dark Matter holding a galaxy, is but the mass of all the photons being left behind cause of C, in open space...
Dark Matter, is than the "Ghost" of the previous dilatation of the past of photon as it is happening at C...
I'm not meaning that the traveling photons are letting behind their mass, no. I'm wondering that the photon is but a shape, given to energy by and from the void.
The speed in witch this configuration is "constantly" attempt, our C...
C than being, as consequence, a speed for the energy, but only a state for the void...
Light moves at C, for C, is the very speed in witch space can "attempt" to quantify photonic energy...
Photons must collide one with the other, in order to offer to themselves a point of reference,
doing so conserve their own mass into a virtual center, that would be the atom...

C for energy = a speed
C from space= a state
Dark Matter = The lost mass of the now future photon happening on the past
Time = Distance (one has energy that has a speed that is finite. One has a medium that causes a infinite state that provide that speed.
Although, the final product Light, does has a limited constant speed provided by both energy and space.
Energy grants it the limitation on its vector, space grants it the constant for energy to grant that very limitation...
In order to something to spin faster than the imposed limitation itself, something must get bigger...
As smaller something gets more strong and rested it may become, exception for the quanta of the photon...

In a simplistic version, if true that photon, is a hybrid state of energy, that for this very reason shares on itself, both:
The C state of space, and the mass of a particle.
I'm suggesting that the impossible shape of the photon is also doing the inverse,
photon is giving his own mass at any given instant of C, to space.
And that by doing so it is exchanging it for C of space.
Both happening at the same time, at any giving instant at C...

Photon by absorbing C of space to itself, results in light...
Space by absorbing the mass of the photon to itself, resulting in Dark Matter(effects/cause)

In fact all that consideration are aiming the past, the previous frame in witch we are observing it.
In reality I believe that Matter is only existing in the past, this including us, the "Real" frame,
the "now" where this events may be taking place, are not aware or related with our reality, the photonic energy on the now,
causing light and dark matter, do not acknowledge it's own pass...
The impossibility on the wave particle configuration, seems to be forever "trapped" on a isolated instant "now",
one that keeps not repeating itself trough space time, but maintaining itself trough space time happening at C...

Photons themselves are simple energy "frozen" in a frame without the experience of time or mass...
Photons are not real to us, they do not belong to our frame of existence and they never will, light does, it's mass does...

Light may be as well at C, and constant, but photons are instantaneous, for they do not experience time, thus distances on it...

I'm suggesting that:
Photons are on themselves the gravitational waves, photons exists as gravity on the now, not crossing trough time, but instead not experiencing any existence of time/distances...
Light is but the past trajectory of the future photon...
Dark matter, the mass of the now future photon that is happening on the past...
Sort of mass existing only on the past of energy.
C being the maximum state of the speed in witch past(mass) is occurring...

Photons should be mass less, for they are being self propelled by their own exterior mass happening on the past of their trajectory...
Dark matter being the "lost" mass of gravity happening on a past frame of C as the energy is still accelerating towards the future...

Photons do have mass only on their past, this being dark matter.
Photons do not experience time, their are forever frozen on their own frame of existence (future/now).
Mass of anything is given to energy(as matter) only when the photons find a center of mass to orbit(atom),
only than photonic mass would be converted from dark matter mass into matter...

That if one is able to produce a planet on the void, a point of reference, on that very moment the energy on that planet would be quantify by time, and will receive mass from inside out the atom, mass of the photons would be transferred to this virtual center...

Dark matter is simple the mass of anything that is accelerating towards the future of XYZ, any of the three dimensions would always be considered as future, determinate by the virtual center, on the case of a galaxy, BH...
If quantification of any energy was to become instantaneous, there would be no dark matter, for there would be no effects, for instantaneous C, would than require no existence of pass and no expectation of future, thus no existence of time... Photons may do experience this frame of existence, as frozen energy outside of time...
Light would be a event occurring at C, but only a gosth the photons themselves have instantaneously and constantly reached the destination, as gravitational waves... Reason why light operates on a straight line, light responds only to the dilatation, only to the past for it is occurring on it...
My guess is that light is happening everywhere on this darkness, and that this gin-clear space we observe is light beyond the red shift, transparent...

Light from galaxy A towards galaxy B arrives at galaxy A displaying red shift, but different galaxies moving at different speeds cause different red shift observations..
Darkness out here does not need to be the absence of light but the state of light beyond the red shift... Photons that are instantaneously happening from A to Z, but with so much time in between that the light on the past of galaxy Z, will "never" be able to reach galaxy A, photons/gravity does in no time, but light wont be able to "find" with galaxy A...
The occurrence of photons stimulate space to release energy wherever light is happening, gravity should be giving energy for everything, the presence of energy for it's turn is originating mass on the giving location...
Mass being the past(and only on the past) as the dilatation on space time itself...

Dark Matter= The "proportional mass" of light, happening only on the past of it.
C being the self propagation of light trough time, by the existence of it's own mass on it's past...

Light is than not real on our present, we can visualize it, observe it, but the reality seems to be that light is a past image, a previous product adrifiting at C due the the existence of gravity...
The speed of light as equal as gravity, fro light is not fast by having speed, light as "seeming" to be fast for gravity is happening at C, light is but a previous frame that is borrowing gravity to move trough time...

Our whole biological and scientific concepts about time and velocity have being based on the speed of light, this even before we start thinking about that...
Gravity should be instantaneous, C of light but a limitation on it's occurrence...
Gravity by being instantaneous is faster than the speed of light, the difference in between gravity state and the speed of light, resulting in distances, and the very limitation on the speed of light from A to B at "only" C, the existence of time...
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/10/2018 22:31:05: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/04/2015 02:09:52
you may have to wait a very long time before one of its photons hit one of your retinas.
That's OK.
It's a static universe- so it has been here forever.
There has been plenty of time for the photon to get here from any of the infinite number of stars along any line of sight.
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 13/10/2018 23:35:39: Not if space is infinite! It is the average energy density that counts. Olber's paradox implies energy creation from nothing. Photons are discrete and they are emitted and absorbed.

It doesn't mean the Universe is not finite though... ;)
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/10/2018 01:16:39: Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22
..................Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory. Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything. For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy? ..........
I havent yet read all of the comments but i mostly agree & here is the way i think about fields & matter & gravity.

Electric-magnetic-charge fields are made of photaenos which are a part of every photon. Photons are made of (1) a central helix, & (2) lots of photaenos (tentacles that emanate from the helix). The helix propagates at c along the axis, & the propagation involves the annihilation of aether. Aether is some sort of sub-quantum fluid, sub-quantum because it has no mass or energy (at least no ordinary energy). Photaenos propagate at c outwards from the helix, & are formed by a vibration or vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation).

EMC fields are not made of photons, they are made of parts of photons (the photaeno parts).

Gravitational fields are due to the acceleration of aether flowing into mass to replace the aether annihilated in all mass. Gravitational fields are therefore due to the macro bulk flow of aether, whereas all other fields (EMC fields) are due to the micro vibration of aether or due to a vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation). The aether inflow into say Earth might have the same speed as Earth's escape velocity, ie 11.2 kmps. However gravity has a speed of at least 20 billion c (VanFlandern), ie changes in gravity (gravitational pulses) propagate at at least 20 billion c.

The free photon is the primary quantum particle. If a photon bites its own tail & forms a loop it becomes a confined-photon (Williamson), which gives us our elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc). All matter (confined photons) has mass, & all free photons have mass.
There are no virtual particles, there are no gravitons, no Higgs etc.

A neutrino is not a particle, Ranzan says that a neutrino is made of two helical photons sharing the same axis (the fields negate). Hencely a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon, & the destruction of a neutrino must produce a pair of photons
Title: Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 14/10/2018 03:36:05: Here is my spinfoam model for a unified field and quantum gravity. It works! At least for gravity. All the previous discussions are not in total agreement with my latest findings... How about a new theory with a number of necessary constants reduced by a factor of 3 or even 4? No G, e, ε₀, μ₀ and many more big surprises because it works.

Please! Read very carefully my article if you want to comment any further and don't post your own theories.

I will not answer to people who just don't want to understand and wants to post their ideas. This is a serious discussion for a serious theory.

Last version edited on October 24th.

N.B.: The only elementary charged particle that is stable is the electron-positron...