Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Vern on 31/10/2009 15:18:46
-
Most things in nature are connected by a sequence of events that we recognize as cause and effect. For at least a century now, we have abandoned that concept in the physical sciences. We seem to have abandoned the concept of cause and effect so that we can have a wide latitude in our guesses about nature. Since we are not constrained by the need for cause and effect our guesses can be as weird as we like. Maybe it is time to question this abandonment of cause and effect.
Lets review some of the basic things we know about nature and see if we might assign causes for the effects that we notice. When we do this we might get a better insight into how nature works. We might even discover that great principle that John Wheeler talked about. He said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."
First lets think about Planck's Constant and how come the quantum.
-
Planck's Constant:
Since the quantum is so pervasive in nature we might start by considering how come the quantum. We know it all started with Max Planck's observation that the amount of energy-time of each photon is a constant value. Consider that a photon is comprised only of electric and magnetic change. The total amount of this change over time is a constant. The electric and magnetic amplitude reached by the change is also a constant. We know this because amplitude is not needed to solve the equation. If the electric and magnetic amplitude reached by a photon could vary, that variation would be a factor in the energy-time of a photon. It is not a factor. So it is not needed in the equation that describes Planck's constant. E = hv contains only Planck's constant and the rate of change of the electric and magnetic fields that comprise a photon.
Now we have two constants. One, Planck's constant, is energy-time. The other, unnamed, is peak electric and magnetic amplitude; these are physical properties of space. Physical properties can be real causes. These unnamed physical properties of space, then, are the cause of Planck's constant. Planck's constant is the effect; the cause is the physical properties of space determined by the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of space. This is very important. We will show that these properties of space are also the cause of gravity.
So the cause of Planck's constant is a property of empty space that only allows a certain maximum amplitude of electric and magnetic force. We know from observation that all photons reach this maximum amplitude of potential force. We say potential because a photon can do no work and remain a photon.
-
Quantum Phenomena:
How come the quantum then is because empty space has limits on the amount of electric and magnetic amplitude it can support. These limits cause Planck's constant. These limits therefore cause the quantum nature of the universe. We have not invented anything new for this realization. We just noticed the obvious cause for a well known effect. But we only noticed it because we looked for a cause for the quantum effect.
So far as anyone knows, these limits only apply to photons. There is no reason we know about that other things would be quantized. So, Planck length, Planck time, etc, are meaningless even though we may assign a value to them. We can not apply this obvious cause for the quantum nature of the universe to other unrelated effects. So those other things must remain undetermined, and maybe nonexistent.
So the cause of all quantum phenomena is the same properties of empty space that cause Planck's constant. These properties of empty space force all photons to propagate with a fixed electric and magnetic amplitude.
-
Uncertainty:
Now we get to another well known effect, the uncertainty phenomena. There seems to be a built-in uncertainty governing nature. This uncertainty does not permit us to know both the momentum of an object and its position simultaneously. We can know either with great accuracy, but the better we know one the less we know the other. We can trace the cause of this uncertainty back to our inability to predict exactly where a photon or an electron will hit a target.
We know a photon is comprised of electric and magnetic change, and nothing else. Electric and magnetic change has the ability to induce change in other objects in their path. The induced change is also a change, which itself can induce change; so there is a back force. This back force can change the path of a photon that is interacting to induce change. The dynamics of this causes photons to affect a target at a slightly off-center location relative to a photon's path. An incoming photon does a little dance with electrons in the target and dynamically affects those that resonate with it. We can not know the dynamics of all the atoms near a photon's impact point. So we must be uncertain about the point's exact location. This off-center impact is the cause of uncertainty phenomena.
-
Relativity phenomena:
Relativity phenomena is the natural result of the construct of matter. We know that most of matter is composed of constituents that must always move at the invariant speed of light. Because of this, movement must distort matter. Even with QM theory, that construct produces relativity phenomena in flat space time. However, to get the arithmetic to correctly predict observations, all of matter must be involved. The arithmetic does not work if there is something of matter that does not move at light speed at its most elemental level. But it only works in flat space-time. Relativity phenomena develops naturally only in flat space-time. It needs a special inertial frame that is at rest in space. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation occupies that special inertial frame.
The shape and the time experience of matter must distort in order to move. The shape distorts by contracting in the direction of movement. This is because the constituent particles must move at the speed of light relative to the fixed frame. They must bunch up to stay together. The time experience of matter must slow when matter moves because photons that comprise atomic components must travel a greater distance to complete the patterns they occupy within the matter. The repetition rate of atomic patterns is the arbiter of time. So the time experience of matter in motion must slow.
It is no coincidence that our measurements of the speed of light are exactly the same in any inertial frame. That is a consequence of the construct of matter. It can not be otherwise when we consider that matter is itself made of light. It is a simple consequence of the arithmetic. The Lorentz transforms describe how matter must distort based upon its construct. So we know that relativity phenomena is real. The cause of relativity phenomena is that the most elemental constituents of all physical reality must always move at the invariant speed of light.
Gravity: Give me a couple of minutes to work on this. [:)]
-
Gravity:
The most elemental thing we know that both responds to gravity and produces gravity is the photon. All massive objects consist mostly of photons, even in QM theory. So maybe it is the photons that provide all gravitational phenomena. This must be so for any photon-only theory because that is all there is to any physical reality. So lets examine the make up of a photon and look for a gravity-responsive and gravity-creating mechanism.
A photon consists of two points of electric and magnetic saturation. Surrounding the points are fields that extend spatially outward. The fields diminish in amplitude as the square of distance. At a very short distance away from the photon's central path, the fields are too weak to interact with matter. So the fields are invisible to matter and matter is invisible to the fields. The fields are free to permeate through matter just as if the matter was not there.
These diminished photon fields permeate the universe. A photon moving through the fields senses the minute electric and magnetic amplitude of the fields. The amplitude of the diminished fields contribute toward the constant amplitude of the photon. The central points of photons reach their constant amplitude with the help of the diminished fields. They thus reach their constant amplitude at an offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields. The result of this is that the path of the photon is slightly bent toward the direction of increasing field strength of the diminished fields.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2FphotBT.jpg&hash=5019734af14f46b7bd56bf653fe5b93e)
-
Matter:
We know that a photon trapped in a mirrored box contributes to the overall mass of the box-photon system. So we can know with considerable certainty that a photon trapped in a local area by any means will appear as mass. We know also that a photon is comprised of fields of changing electric and magnetic amplitude. The changing fields are symmetrical with a positive half cycle and a negative half cycle that exactly balance. Because the fields balance, a photon appears neutral. But this can only be true when a photon moves in a straight line.
When the path of a photon is bent the fields can not be symmetrical. The area outside the bend is greater than the area inside the bend. The electric and magnetic fields that drive the photon through space can not be symmetrical in the bend. This asymmetry presents itself as electric charge. This electric charge has an additional action that bends the path of a photon more. The amount of the additional bending of the path is equal to the original bending. The result is a bend radius of twice the amount. So starlight paths bent by the sun's gravity are bent twice as much as the sun's gravity alone can account for.
There is a direct relationship between the bend radius of the photon's path and the amplitude of the residual electric charge. The tighter the bend, the greater the residual electric charge. This electric charge acts as positive feedback that tightens the bend radius of a photon's path. In addition to this positive feedback, there is another force that can act to help trap a photon in a local pattern.
Resonance is a very powerful force in electromagnetic phenomena. A photon can resonate with itself when a complete loop forms in one wavelength. Then we have two forces at work to trap the photon in the pattern. We have the positive feedback of the electric charge and the photon's own self resonance. At just the right frequency, a stable electron or positron may be formed.
So the cause of matter is positive feedback and photon self resonance. The feedback comes from the bent path. The self resonance happens when a complete loop forms in one wavelength.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fprotneut.jpg&hash=44559e8f12e138218870272c7a941880)
-
Nuclear Dynamics:
Consider that a proton is comprised of three photon shells in accordance with the Square-Of-The-Shells rule below. Shell 2 is positively charged on the outside and negatively charged on the inside. In accordance with the rule, the charge of the electron is taken as unity. The electric charge amplitude of the proton's shells follow the rule. The charge amplitude on a neutron's outer shell is then about 2.54992 times the value of the electrons charge amplitude. Even though the charge amplitude at the surface is greater than the electric charge amplitude at an electron's surface, the amplitude is exactly the same as that of an electron when sensed from any distance greater than an electron's radius. This is because the sensed amplitude diminishes with the square of distance; the charge at the shell surface increases as the square of distance. So the charge amplitude at the surface of shell 3 is about 42.27723 as great as that of an electron. Again, any sense of this amplitude at any distance greater than an electrons radius will show its value as exactly equal to that of an electron.
So we have four forces in play when two protons merge. The value of the forces add up to the value of the strong nuclear interaction taken in terms of electron charges. Protons may merge when excited enough for the outer shells 2 to push past each other. The inner two proton shells, shell 3 and shell 4 are then trapped inside of shells 2.
The dynamics of this entrapment are obvious, and fit observations exactly. When forcing a trapped proton out of its trap, the forces at first increase. Opposite charges repel as the two shells 3 approach closer to the entrapping shells 2. The forces will also increase when the two protons are compressed, again, exactly matching observations.
So, the obvious cause of atomic nuclear dynamics is the electric charges on shells 2 and shells 3 of the proton.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fpr05.png&hash=c6a7f870055cad8eb38772d9cd544e8b)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fmevs.jpg&hash=f8666195b5b4d739f2527429c6cf40a1)
-
Vern:
I was unclear that photons bouncing back and forth can lose energy (probably wave length) and and contribute to increasing mass withing the closed system. That is a nice piece of mince-meat pie to digest.
However, although QM is spectacularly successful at predicting statistical outcomes, they are an entire failure as to what causes these out comes. For this reason I am very interested in the various Plank units. I have even seen the big bang reduced to Plank time 0, Plank 1, etc.
My observation is there was no singularity at Plank time zero. Plank time zero was null. But Plank Time One, however, shows the universe in birth. I have even read that universal expansion (inflation) over the first few plank time units, were relatively much larger then the entire universal expansion since that time.
Further, the failure of QM to come up with much in the way of cause and effect leads me to consider it a sort of shadow Kabuki Theater. The Wizard behind the Great Oz curtain. OK. If an electron or other subatomic paricle behave in a predictable but statistical significan way, disapears, appears, jumps to another place? Well Duh, are there not other dimensions or physics activity that cause these things to happen but our outside our normal observational capacities?
This is where I really really like to get metphisical. For many people in physics, String Theory is the new Flat Earh brigade according to a whole lot of knowledgeable individuals. Recent theories on String Theory (as epemeral as candy cotton) seen to have alighted one either 9 or 11 dimensions.
However, I am old enough to recongnize cults when I see one. At this very moment the superstious cutl of Global Warming is comming appart at the seams like a water logged hard ball. My suggestion to science. Get to work on these many string theory type hypostheses, and leave GW to the Freshman and Sophmores who have not much of a future.
-
I was unclear that photons bouncing back and forth can lose energy (probably wave length) and and contribute to increasing mass withing the closed system. That is a nice piece of mince-meat pie to digest.
The photons need not lose energy. When contained in a local area photons are mass. Photon's don't have mass; photons are mass. Mass is nothing more than electromagnetic change.
But we can only consider a photon as mass when it is trapped in a local area. Our system of consideration must contain the photon. As Lightarrow likes to point out, directional change must happen so that momentum can cancel.
-
The electric and magnetic fields that drive the photon through space can not be symmetrical in the bend. This asymmetry presents itself as electric charge. This electric charge has an additional action that bends the path of a photon more. The amount of the additional bending of the path is equal to the original bending. The result is a bend radius of twice the amount.
This is quite interesting Vern. If I may, I'd like to suggest that charge may be akin to the gyroscopic effect. Given that, the rotational momentum of a gyroscope resists a change in it's attitude, can one surmise that charge is the effect that this change adds to the mix? If this is true, then charge is equivalent to this change in axial momentum.
-
I'm not sure how charge is related to axial momentum. There is room for discovery there. My suspicion is that charge develops from the asymmetry of the electric and magnetic fields resulting from the bent path of a photon. We know the fields can not be symmetric in the bend. And we know that any asymmetry must show up as a residual charge.
Any equation we can develop that will neutralize the charges when the fields are symmetrical will fail when the fields are not symmetrical.
-
Most things in nature are connected by a sequence of events that we recognize as cause and effect. For at least a century now, we have abandoned that concept in the physical sciences. We seem to have abandoned the concept of cause and effect so that we can have a wide latitude in our guesses about nature. Since we are not constrained by the need for cause and effect our guesses can be as weird as we like. Maybe it is time to question this abandonment of cause and effect.
Lets review some of the basic things we know about nature and see if we might assign causes for the effects that we notice. When we do this we might get a better insight into how nature works. We might even discover that great principle that John Wheeler talked about. He said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."
First lets think about Planck's Constant and how come the quantum.
Hi vern.
You said ''abandoned the concept of cause and effect so that we can have a wide latitude in our guesses about nature''
And reading on its seems that you believe that cause and effect is just something we can have or we don't by choice, but in quantum mechanics, down to the behaviour of tiny particles, cause and effect naturally breaks down in the presence of exotic objects, such as virtual particles, even hypothetical tachyons. There are many parameters of physics which suggest there needs to be a non-causal structure to many incidents within quantum theory such as entanglement. I'm afraid quantum theory would not work if it did not allow for non-causal-related events.
-
That is my point. Is it cause and effect that breaks down or is it the theory that breaks down because it refutes cause and effect? Virtual particles may just be a crutch. Without them, Quantum Theory would predict relativity phenomena in flat space-time.
Edit: Even in quantum theory, gluons move at the invariant speed of light. So the stuff that gluons hold together would be distorted by movement. However, the arithmetic only works to correctly predict observations if all the constituents of matter move at the speed of light.
Cause and effect can survive quite well without Quantum theory. However, Quantum theory can not survive if we demand that it adhere to the reality of cause and effect. So you are correct; quantum theory would not work.
-
Cause and effect can survive quite well without Quantum theory. However, Quantum theory can not survive if we demand that it adhere to the reality of cause and effect. So you are correct; quantum theory would not work.
I often suspect that when science has no answer for a particular reaction, they just throw up their hands and submit to the proposition that it just happened without a cause. I don't buy this lazy approach to understanding reality. If and when we finally understand Quantum intersactions properly, I'm convinced we will also find there are causes behind every action. Even though the cause may be hidden deep within the complexity and so faint that we have yet to detect it with our present technology, I am convinced that a cause rests at the heart of every action.
-
I agree that cause and effect is very important. To me it is the best test of reality. Quantum theory abandons it because quantum theory doesn't work when we insist upon cause and effect. It may not be coincidence that every instance where quantum theory predicts non-causal events, there is no experimental evidence that supports it.
Edit: In fact; I predict that anyone who demands that cause and effect represent reality, then start with relativity phenomena, will conclude just as Lorentz and Poincare did. They will conclude that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. Relativity phenomena alone produces astronomical probability odds in favour. (Einstein writes that it was Maxwell that introduced the bolded idea. But we know that all physicists of the early 20th century considered the notion. No one has ever offered any evidence that it does not represent reality.)
-
Hi Vern,
The more I read about your photon-only theory, the more you have me convinced. But since I'm a physics layman, you'll have to clarify some things for me in the process of me fully accepting your theories [:)]
I understand how matter comes to exist in your theory, and it requires bent photon paths that bend more through positive feedback until they reach a circular path if their frequency is just right etc.
But is there a 'force' that can unbend paths? Or is a photon with a bent path determined to never 'fly' straight anymore?
-
The feedback force that helps keep a photon's path bent is only half the amount that would be required to sustain the bent path. So the normal tendency of any photon experiencing a change in its trajectory is to immediately straighten its path and continue in a straight line. We see this in particle accelerators. The zoo of unstable particles that immediately decay to energy indicates this.
If we put any faith at all in probability theory, we have to conclude that it is almost certain that our universe is a photon-only universe. However, my speculations about the details are just speculations. I hope they are consistent. But I may not have it exactly right. There is plenty room for alternative ideas.
As for unbending the paths; as I stated, the normal tendency is to unbend; however, when trapped in a stable pattern as in an electron, an equal force is needed to unwind it. A positron will do it. When in close proximity an electron and a positron both become radiation again.
-
So there is a critical degree of bending required for a photon to enter to positive feedback loop?
And once a photon passes this critical degree, it will either close it's path to a circular wave and become a particle, if the frequency is right, or do what exactly if the frequency is not ok??? Fly straight again and continue to exist as a photon?
The problem I'm having here is understanding in what happens to the photon when it's bent enough to enter the positive feedback phase, but does not have the right frequency to become matter...
PS: interesting would be to predict the frequency required and then test it somehow
-
So there is a critical degree of bending required for a photon to enter to positive feedback loop?
Yes; bending always produces the force but only one exact frequency is stable. The square-of-the-shells rule above has the numbers. Here's the source code (http://photontheory.com/mevs.c) for the calculator.
And once a photon passes this critical degree, it will either close it's path to a circular wave and become a particle, if the frequency is right, or do what exactly if the frequency is not ok??? Fly straight again and continue to exist as a photon?
When it closes its path to complete a stable pattern (or even a semi-stable pattern) it is observed as a particle. If the frequency is not right, it immediately straightens its path and is radiation again.
The problem I'm having here is understanding in what happens to the photon when it's bent enough to enter the positive feedback phase, but does not have the right frequency to become matter...
The positive feedback phase is always there and is proportional to the bend radius. If the frequency is too high it can still form a particle with some radiation left over; the left-over radiation continues on as straight line radiation.
PS: interesting would be to predict the frequency required and then test it somehow
The square of the shells rule does predict the frequency; it is the wave length of radiation equivalent to the mass of an electron. The rule also predicts the mass and the charge amplitude of hadron components. (protons and neutrons.)
Particle accelerator experiments do confirm this; however, we can't exclude competing theories. They are also confirmed by the experiments. Quantum theory is so pervasive that physicists are very reluctant to consider anything else.
Edit: However, the photon-only hypothesis explains the zoo of unstable particles that Quantum theorists puzzle over. [;D]
-
Hi Vern,
The more I read about your photon-only theory, the more you have me convinced.
I too have become a believer Vern.
I mentioned the following idea before but I will offer it again hoping that it may spark some more thought on the subject;
I also believe that the orbital configuration of the photon is responsible for the creation of matter as it is currently defined. However, I have always found it difficult to understand this mysterious thing called charge. I have nothing but speculation to offer for the following assumption but I now find it compelling to understand charge as the radial momentum of this orbital configuration. This thought has only come to me as a result of the Photon Only theory presented by Vern and I have him to thank for it.
Because charge is a force locally contained within a particle, I believe it is a result of the radial momentum induced by the photon in this orbital path.
Following is a question that someone will have to help me with.
Is it also possible that the photon's path, when bent from it's usual straight line path, also induces a charge? If so, then the bending of this path is responsible for the charge and has more to do with the character of space itself and less to do with the energy or matter involved in the process.
-
Is it also possible that the photon's path, when bent from it's usual straight line path, also induces a charge? If so, then the bending of this path is responsible for the charge and has more to do with the character of space itself and less to do with the energy or matter involved in the process.
Yes; this is my contention. The experimental evidence of this is starlight bent in a gravitational field. It bends twice as much as gravity can account for. I suspect it is the charge induced by the bend that does it.
There may be more direct experimental evidence. Photons trapped in high Q cavities behave like electrons. They exhibit electrical charge and inertia. A physicist at UMBC mentioned this in a presentation there. I almost fell out of my seat. But when the annals were published, there was no mention of charge or inertia.
Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory: A conference held in honor of John A Wheeler. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; April 7th 1995.
-
Yes, Mr. Damon; did you knock?? If you accidentally submitted the post you can click the modify link at the upper right and add to your post. [:)]
Edit: Oops; I guess he deleted the post.
-
(No, the words M**t D***n are banned from this forum.
Thanks,)
M**t D***n
-
We await the great influx of wisdom that you may insert into this discussion. [;D]
-
We await the great influx of wisdom that you may insert into this discussion. [;D]
Absolutely,.......the anticipation is killing me!!!!
-
I guess we'll have to wait until he's out of his Private Ryan mood and in his Will Hunting mood [:P]
-
Right, Albert said something like, you do not understand something until you explain it to your grandmothers; well I think it should be; you do not understand something until you explain it to M*** D****, so I think I have a legitimate reason for being on this forum.
So; no sorry Vern, I don't have a clue what your on about, so you know what that means (as above).
But anyway, changing subject, I was watching that show flash-forward, and he talked about that double slit experiment; so I Googled it, and found a cartoon called Dr Quantum that explained it, on youtube, so obviously I am now an expert on it.
Have they tried it with four slit's and one observer on one of the slits, like below.
[] [] = ( Observer )
[] []
So would you get a pattern like,
A) I I
I I I I I I
Or like,
B) I I
I I
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg249.imageshack.us%2Fimg249%2F6915%2Fslit.png&hash=4c25ee6a59df85126cac628f7818ace3)
Thanks M*** D****,
-
The slit experiment is done with any number of slits. In all cases the results are consistent with the photon as I described it above. Just so you don't have to search; a photon consists of a positive half cycle and a negative half cycle of electric and magnetic amplitude change. There is a point of electric and magnetic saturation at the centre of each half cycle. The electric and magnetic fields drive the points through space. Photons only interact at their points. The fields go through all slits. Any time you mess with the fields you change the trajectory of the points.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fphoton-01.jpg&hash=fdb8df20e4b0531ffc4c59573374c8c0)(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fphoton-02.jpg&hash=9190207849a1552df38f03b4da4df766)
Points of saturation in photons respond to the fields of all other photons. But since the fields diminish in amplitude as the square of distance, they are too weak to interact directly. The fields of all photons contribute to the saturation points and so help determine the trajectory of the point of saturation. This is the mechanism of gravity. [:)]
-
So you say it's (B) then, sorry to drift away from your topic, I will make my own post's in the future.
Thanks
M**** D****
-
I couldn't make a prediction based upon your text drawing. [:)] Basically what would happen in a multiple slit experiment is that each slit would affect the interference pattern. The spatially extended fields would go through all slits and each would contribute to the trajectory of the points of interaction.
-
Regading photon frequency. Add a photon to a closed box and you increase the mass of the box/photon system. 1) Can we measure this mass and 2) does a gammaray photon add more mass then a radiofrequence photon?
-
This is the first time I have read photon lensing is twice what can be accounted for by mass. However, didn't Einstein accurately predict the lensing effect of mass?
-
It would be difficult to measure the mass increase a single photon contributes to a system; however, it must contribute for any theory to be consistent. This is true for QM theory, Newton's classic notion, and the photon universe scheme.
Yes; Einstein did predict that light would be bent twice as much as gravity alone can account for. Eddington measured it. I puzzled over this for some time. I needed some force other than resonance to show how a photon might be trapped into a repeating pattern. It occurred to me that the predictions of the General theory of relativity do not predict that space-time is distorted. That was Einstein's assumption. The predicted distortions could just as easily be in the material objects, as Lorentz assumed.
I started my photon-only investigation with a given postulate that Einstein attributed to Maxwell. Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. Given that and faced with the anomaly of light bending twice as much as it should in a gravity field, I looked for something in the photon itself that could provide the extra bending. Two questions were immediately answered. What is the source of the electric and magnetic field, and what causes the extra bending.
The answer is that the bent path of a photon must produce asymmetry in its driving forces. This is the source (cause) of electric charge. Electric charge is the source (cause) of the extra bending?
Here's a Wiki about the extra bending. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
Henry Cavendish in 1784 (in an unpublished manuscript) and Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801 (published in 1804) had pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will bend around a massive object.[2] The same value as Soldner's was calculated by Einstein in 1911 based on the equivalence principle alone. However, Einstein noted in 1915 in the process of completing general relativity, that his (and thus Soldner's) 1911-result is only half of the correct value. So Einstein was the first to calculate the correct value for light bending.[3]
-
Even though i am an advocator of luxon theory, i must admit your interpretation is becoming my guilty pleasure. I particularily like the idea that a bent photon has the presence of a charge... But i ask vern, what charge?
-
The bent path of a photon must produce electric charge. But we must quickly admit that there must also be a magnetic force to match. I suspect that it is the electric charge that produces the positive feedback, but others insist that the magnetic force must also participate in the feedback.
I see the resulting entrapment pattern as a circle; others see it as a torus. The problem I see with the torus is that the electric charge does not naturally produce the same polarity throughout the pattern. In a circle the same polarity must occupy the outside of the bend all the way around.
Even when I try and model both the electric and magnetic forces contributing to the positive feedback, so that the bend is half way between the electric and magnetic planes, I still see a circle forming. But those who see a torus have much better credentials than I, so I pay attention to their speculations.
-
The bent path of a photon must produce electric charge.
How so?
but others insist that the magnetic force must also participate in the feedback.
I can understand why people would evoke that idea.
I see the resulting entrapment pattern as a circle; others see it as a torus.
So we are cetainly appealing for some kind of geometry to this. Concerning a mathematical comprehension of your theory would require a gravitational parameter for circular-like moving objects, which has a value of r^3w^2. Qustion though is what is it moving relative to?
Even when I try and model both the electric and magnetic forces contributing to the positive feedback,
What do you mean when you say, ''positive feedback..''? What is the feedback?
Cheers
I'd love to see some math to it.
-
The bent path of a photon must produce electric charge.
How so?
This presupposes that a photon is comprised of one cycle of electric and magnetic change. The changing fields drive saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude through space. When the path of the saturated points is bent, the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the points can not be symmetrical. This asymmetry is seen as electric charge.
Even when I try and model both the electric and magnetic forces contributing to the positive feedback,
What do you mean when you say, ''positive feedback..''? What is the feedback?
Positive feedback is a force that acts to increase an action and is itself a result of the action. In the case of the bent path of a photon it acts to bend the path more in the same direction. The numbers are in the square-of-the-shells rule. [:)]
It is a calculator program in C (http://photontheory.com/mevs.c). It calculates and predicts the value of the strong nuclear interaction.
-
Ah, i think for the first time i am beginning to understand this part:
The changing fields drive saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude through space. When the path of the saturated points is bent, the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the points can not be symmetrical.
Interesting theory.
-
I have taken your advice seriously. You questioned how ''magically'' a photon transmutates into matter.. At first, i will admit i did not see it as necesserily a problem, howsoever, i have come to realize the mechanism has become shortlived in my last explanation to photon-transformation into matter, relying alone on the field-strength of the gravitational potentional \Phi.
Remember when i said your theory was becoming my guilty pleasure, i've secretely been working on boundaries in the form of equations in order to satisfy that little contention you have concerning the charge of a photon being present when a curved geodesic is involved.
In all antipathy, math is truely the incomparable aspect of measurement with that of the natural workings, but as we all hopefully know, it helps make a schematic of any fundamental interaction, even if it is in the abstractual nature of mathematics. My math is extremely difficult: Its been a while since i studied gauge symmeries and how GEM-related equations work. but essentially, there are many important values which cannot be refuted when you argue your imperative hypothesis.
Respectfully as i understand, you argue the existence of a charge for the photon. Being scientifically-deductive, this would require also a mass, since mass and charge are deeply related, and also noting we normally do not associate an intrinsic charge (of whatever form) to the photon itself. However, to have an electromagnetic charge, requires that your photons must have an intrinsic measure of matter on the scale of around 10^-51 kilograms, which is very small. However, if this is all true, then the permittivity of electromagnetism given as \epsilon_0 is in fact not lone, and must interconnect with the gravitational permittivity given here as \epsilon_g. The two cannot be removed if the photon has a charge, since its a mathematical fact they cannot exist alone.
Permittivity has a relation to charge itself, (in fact, a few scientists might argue the two are interdependant) - it is itself a physical quantity which more or less describes how an electric force and dialectric manipulations operate in a medium, and so the permittivity of free space for an electric charge is expressed as \epsilon_0 and so in respect of the existence of this physical value, there needs to be a respective graviational permittivity too \epsilon_g. It also means that as much as the rules go for electric permittivity, it rules the same for the gravitational form so that acts as a measure of an instantaneous interaction or coupling to its respective field (that be i.e. electromagnetism or graviational).
IN RESPOENSE to your theory the equations which would describe your model will most certainly include the permittivity of both aspects. Saturation of the points is achieved by a complex ensemble of quantum interactions, which in this description uses retarded and advanced quantum waves, as would be found in a Transactional Interpretional Model of quantum interactions.
It has been a while since i have used calculus like this, so any dimensional inconsistencies will be appreciated to be pointed out.
Be back soon once i write the theorem which i've worked on the last three days.
-
Force due to gravity can be expressed as a particle with a mass M² moving in a field is given as: F_g=-▼φM_g (1) so:
(F_gvt)²=-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g v²t² (2)
This equation was the first form i considered. It is respectfully using the gravitational charge relationships given (1), just altered slightly to involve an energy due to gravity since equation (2) reduces to E_g. One normally interpretes this as an energy due to a gravitationally-related inertia, hence the possible existence of a small amount of matter for a photon to allow such a charge in your assumptions.
To note, there are a few relations which will help decode eq. (2):
M²=ћ(c/G) (3)
and this take a large value as it is rearranged:
ћc=GM² (4)
As has been interpreted (ref:1), the value ћ=GM²/c is very small and can be seen as a quantized gravitational charge. It is also wise to note for the record that β=v/c and that in relativity, we have the form to consider pc=E(v/c), so you can check the dimensions yourself. Also we will encounter what are called super-complex numbers, which have values which renormalize positively i²=+1, where respectively you can mathematically treat terms like i=k=j as found in quarternion relationships. The super-complex symbol is usually present as a box with a cross inside of it, but for the sake of my incomplete knowledge on how to represent this in latex symbolism, i will represent it as ξ so that i²=ξ=+1.
The equation which describes such a connection for a photon with a considerably small mass and almost negligable charge can be represented by this exausting equation;
The equation which takes into respect permittivity of both gravitational and electric (-magneto) relationships where the energy and force terms found in equation (2) are also taken into consideration:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξε_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (5)
where A=e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξε_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (6) and since we are dealing with four respective interactions given by the vortex description of k=DψDψ* then the value of k is indeed a squared value. k is given as:
k=(t1<t2)ψ*(t2>t1)ψ*/∫A dt
for one description of a wave interaction. The math itself has retarded and advanced forms, so psi description of ψ* can be classed as an incoming field, whereas ψ can be interpreted as an outgoing field. Naturally, these should obide by normlization so that two quantum psi waves can multiply and create one positive value, which is an amplitude prediction of quantum statistics given as: ∫|ψ|²=+1.
The use of ξ is to represent the ''positive attraction'' (experimentally-proven for gravity and for certain interactions of non-like charges) between the two permittivity constants. It also contains an element of ''likelihood'' so the value of <A> is given as an ''expectational value'', becoming a state vector when defined accordingly. Because all terms on the right hand side remain positive is the same mathematical reason why the left is given as an absolute value |a|=+a. The symbol k is in fact a coupling constant dependant on the rate of A. If A is strong, the exponent of e^iA is itself dependant on the rate of A so the increased factor of A increases the repitious vibrational pattern. The value of d^4 is in fact just a four dimensional configuration with a small value calculating the action within a volume of space we usually associate with the coordinate (x). You could expand the equation to show this four-dimensional configuration under a wave description, but to keep this as simple as possible ffor myself and the reader, it will be confined by the description of d^4.
In equation (5), a photon with a charge due to the presence of a curvature takes into respect the imposed conditions of both ε_0 and ε_g which remain a positive value under the influence of its super-complex coefficients. The presence of the trig-function of β=v/c has an importance when considering particles which travel at light speed.
To finalize, equation (5) yields the contention that a photon has a non-zero but small mass with a corresponding small charge, within the presence of the permittivity of the system in free space. According to the equation itself, a photon cannot magically transform into matter, but rather the matter increases when the intrinsic kinetic energy increases, or due to the strength of (A) mass can increase to have the appearance of a slow restricted inertial body.
-
I suspect that you can not get to the photon construct within Quantum theory. A photon has no apparent charge because the electric and magnetic charges that comprise it are equally balanced. Your description does not match the vision of a photon that I see. I'm not sure whether it is because I have not communicated the vision well, or you need to modify it to fit a view you can accept.
The photon I describe is not my own invention. It is the way photons were depicted before Quantum theory came along and reduced the photon to a wave function. The photon I see is the same as is described by Maxwell's equations. It is comprised of electric and magnetic amplitude potential. It is charge neutral, but comprised entirely of charge. It has zero mass, but it is mass when it is confined in a local area.
I suspect that you can not get the vision unless you can somehow avoid trying to mix Quantum theory with Reality theory. Hey; that's an idea!I think I'll start calling the photon-only universe scheme Reality Theory. [;D]
-
I suspect that you can not get to the photon construct within Quantum theory. A photon has no apparent charge because the electric and magnetic charges that comprise it are equally balanced. Your description does not match the vision of a photon that I see. I'm not sure whether it is because I have not communicated the vision well, or you need to modify it to fit a view you can accept.
The photon I describe is not my own invention. It is the way photons were depicted before Quantum theory came along and reduced the photon to a wave function. The photon I see is the same as is described by Maxwell's equations. It is comprised of electric and magnetic amplitude potential. It is charge neutral, but comprised entirely of charge. It has zero mass, but it is mass when it is confined in a local area.
I suspect that you can not get the vision unless you can somehow avoid trying to mix Quantum theory with Reality theory. Hey; that's an idea!I think I'll start calling the photon-only universe scheme Reality Theory. [;D]
Then i will attempt to modify a quantum explanation as to why they may not be balanced. In theory, the balance is true but there may be some mathematical trick to unbalance this. I'll work on it.
And i like the name ;)
-
We can build Reality Theory as we go. It should incorporate as much Quantum theory as possible, but still maintain strict adherence to cause and effect. That doesn't mean we must discover the cause for every effect, it just means that we know there is a cause, we may just not know exactly what it is.
As in the original photon-only universe theory, we can base Reality Theory on just two postulates:
(1)Space-time is flat and non varying in the classic sense.
(2)The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
When I apply cause and effect while adhering to those postulates, I get Reality Theory [;D]
-
I need to ask a question.
Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξε_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (1)
is balanced, because it takes into respect the electromagnetic permittivity added with that of the gravitational permittivity with a Langrangian term for M². More interestingly enough, M²ψ is similar to the Klein-Gorden relationship. Here are some interesting reationships:
M²ψ=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ
which results in plane wave solutions. By substitution, you can reconfigurate eq.(1) into:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ]+½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ])
Which is very attractive as a wave equation.
We could manipulate the equation even more to have nuetral components after taking ino account, from a Klein-Gorden relationship, where for manipulative convenience we can rewrite the plane wave solutions in quantized form as:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0((∂²-M²)ψ*-(∂²-M²)]+½[ξε_g((∂²-M²)ψ*-(∂²-M²)ψ*])
This is suppose, would cancel them out, or at least, this is my interpretation of the equation.
-
We can build Reality Theory as we go. It should incorporate as much Quantum theory as possible, but still maintain strict adherence to cause and effect. That doesn't mean we must discover the cause for every effect, it just means that we know there is a cause, we may just not know exactly what it is.
As in the original photon-only universe theory, we can base Reality Theory on just two postulates:
(1)Space-time is flat and non varying in the classic sense.
(2)The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
When I apply cause and effect while adhering to those postulates, I get Reality Theory [;D]
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
-
Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:
Forces should balance resulting in the appearance of neutral charge in a photon. When the path of the photon is bent, the balance is interrupted, the field areas can not be symmetrical in the bend, charge is the result.
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
We have an easy out on this one. There could have been no big bang within Reality Theory. The natural rules of nature apply, we can not suspend them to allow for a creation event.
-
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
Could we proceed with this without assuming the need for a Big Bang? It is possible that the so-called, "Big Bang", is only an invention that attempts to explain expansion when there are other explanations for the observed red shift.
-
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
Could we proceed with this without assuming the need for a Big Bang? It is possible that the so-called, "Big Bang", is only an invention that attempts to explain expansion when there are other explanations for the observed red shift.
Verns answer, seems to apply directly to your question.
Vern's answer is only a possibility on the effect that there has been no such quantization period in the universe where spacetime literally expanded. On this note, Verns theory will have to evidently require that the electromagnetic singularity he speaks of must be removed, because electromagnetic singularities are usually associated with some infinitely dense point, but as Vern punctually-noted, he does not want a big bang.
-
Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:
Forces should balance resulting in the appearance of neutral charge in a photon. When the path of the photon is bent, the balance is interrupted, the field areas can not be symmetrical in the bend, charge is the result.
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
We have an easy out on this one. There could have been no big bang within Reality Theory. The natural rules of nature apply, we can not suspend them to allow for a creation event.
But Vern, what is a neutral charge? - it seems indestinguishable to a system which has no charge at all...?
-
Verns answer, seems to apply directly to your question.
Quite right.............he seems to have beaten me to the punch in his last post.
-
I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all. A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.
No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.
-
I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all. A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.
No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.
I suggest that when the straight line path of the photon is influenced by a gravitational field, it not only responds with a resultant charge, it takes on the property of mass. Mass and charge go hand in hand. Like the gyroscope, the photon wave resists a change in it's trajectory and when this wave is forced to deviate, it responds by taking on the character of mass with charge.
-
I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all. A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.
No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.
I suggest that when the straight line path of the photon is influenced by a gravitational field, it not only responds with a resultant charge, it takes on the property of mass. Mass and charge go hand in hand. Like the gyroscope, the photon wave resists a change in it's trajectory and when this wave is forced to deviate, it responds by taking on the character of mass with charge.
This is almost certainly what the main equation i made in the work implies.
-
I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all. A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.
No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]+½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ]) (A)
take a look at the exponential function of (A) in the equation. It has the electromagnetic and gravitational permittivity. These where invited to make sense of the need of your theories use of some charge being present.
If we replace both the permittivity of the electromagnetic constant ε_g with the supercomplex coefficient ξ removed since it causes a positive value, (and we want these to be nuetral) with a nuetral charge component, we could for arguements sake, mathematically-express it as: μ_{g,0} for a gravitational charge (1) and one for its electromagnetic form of μ_{e,0}.
These expressions are not too difficult to understand. You can think of the subscript contained with the squibbly brackets as components of both charge and a value of zero, which is a nuetral vector component. μ1,μ2_{g,e,0} so this expression yields both states in nuetral-charge states. So replacing the supercomplex number coupled with the permitivvity constants as ξ1,ξ1_{ε_g,ε_0}, then we have modelled the vibrational patterns to suit your theory hopefully.
So, replacing the functions of ξ1,ξ1_{ε_g,ε_0} with μ1,μ2_{g,e,0}, we would arrive at an equation which i hope you will agree too... if not, as they say, if you first don't succeed, try and try again. :)
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i∫d^4 x(½[μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]+½[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ])
(1) - remember, the gravitational charge must also by symmetry to have a neutral charge if indeed such a charge is distinguishable from no charge at all, this is a new reason why its essential to add it.
-
If I may be allowed to interject a few thoughts here, I would like to consider the aspect of the wave.
For a long time, I have had trouble understanding the character of charge, but after reviewing the forgoing commentary, I think the concept has taken root in my imagination. Now that the essence of charge has become somewhat understandable to me, I would like to proceed on to the obvious.
How can we developement a reality based understanding of the wave? We know that the wave can not be discribed as a collection of infinitely small particles moving like water on the ocean surface. So what exactly is the electromagnetic wave?
We know that the photon wave can, when disturbed from it's preferred path, give rise to the charged particle. From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into 'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass.
How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?
-
If I may be allowed to interject a few thoughts here, I would like to consider the aspect of the wave.
For a long time, I have had trouble understanding the character of charge, but after reviewing the forgoing commentary, I think the concept has taken root in my imagination. Now that the essence of charge has become somewhat understandable to me, I would like to proceed on to the obvious. (1)
How can we developement a reality based understanding of the wave? We know that the wave can not be discribed as a collection of infinitely small particles moving like water on the ocean surface. So what exactly is the electromagnetic wave? (2)
We know that the photon wave can, when disturbed from it's preferred path, give rise to the charged particle. (3)
From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into 'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass. (4)
How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?
(1) I'll take that as a compliment.
Thanks.
(2) - An elctromagnetic wave, is really a photon in a quantum wave function.It spreads out over space in many possible locations, but only in a virtual sense. If that's what you meant?
(3) - Only theoretically. This is verns hypothesis, and i'm just attempting to make a mahematical model to help describe it. It's by no means universally-accepted though :)
..
.... unfortunately :(
(4) - Absolutely. There From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into 'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the
organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass
Certainly, there is a local phenomena going on. The instrinsic change (or flux) from energy to matter seems to be an instrinsic internal change, but that
doesn't exclude the presence of a gravitational force field that can act as a mechanism for such a flux. It's always been a pet theory of mine to
not accept Higgs Mechanism, but resort to an easier approach using the gravitational field but vern made me realize that in many ways that mechanism was too
magically-inhanced by imaginary terms of course, just because the gravitational fields mechanism was a certain degree of energy did not suggest a reason to
why such a flux would usually happen. I decided it required verns hypothesis that curvature for photons implied a presence of a charge, both of graviational form
and of EM-form... but what i do not agree with is that the charge is constant - meaning constant in the sense it is present all the time, whether it changes
in quantity over time or not. I prefer the contention that charge only appears when there is an acting strong gravitational field associated to the photons
movement in a curved distorted spacetime warp; then as soon as it breaks free, that is if it breaks free, the charge will dissipate, meaning that gravitons
so not couple to the instrinsic properties of a photon when not in a curved geodesic.
This means that the two main equation i have presented:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]+½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) ;a
and
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i∫d^4 x(½[μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]+½[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) ;b
Are two equations with two different charge solutions. Vern's hypothetical neutral decription of photon charge in a respective gravitational field and its associated
charge, and one which solves for the charge-related to the permittivity which is non-nuetral, in fact, its positive.. to attain the negative, just simply remove the
supercomplex coefficient; it's irrational as an equation however, that is equation (a;) to be non-positively attracted, since it would eliminate the connectivity of
both the electromagnetic and gravitational field interactions. Instead of terms:(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) and (½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) being
added they would instead be subtracted, eliminating the Langrangian relation and also the vibrational pattern in |(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>| where F²_g v²t² is not a gravitational
energy and the expectancy or strength of expectancy of A=(e^i∫d^4 x(½[μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]-½[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) is no longer valid unless its seen
as an oscillatory system, which still accounts to nothing in the end of any integration.
(5) - How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?
Well, my own personal view...
I'd say its the most primal form of information which has had one of the largest impacts in the construction of the universe. But it's still a particle afterall :)
-
But it's still a particle afterall :)
Yes, after all the distortions of it's primal state.
In another thread, Vern talks about the rise and fall of amplitudes associated with the wave and discribes this action as referenced to points in space. This notion of points in space relative to the wave is one I'm having trouble with. How can a homogenous wave, in it's pure state, have any particular points? I visualize a wave as the kinetic action on space that the release of energy induces to it. As the wave radiates forth from it's source, each blanketing pulse of energy does distinguish itself with crests and valleys of amplitude but, these crests and valleys are infinitely graduated in power and I can't rationalize any particular and definable points within singular bursts. However, where one blanketing burst meets another, one will find an area of intersecting amplitudes but I still don't visualize any particular points. That is unless, one suggests that along a line of intersecting waves, one must limit things to Planck lengths. In that case, each Planck length would have two points at each end of it's dimension. So maybe yes, I suppose one can talk in terms of points of amplitude.
-
ince one contention is that electromagnetic fluctuation experience a charge in the presence of following the curved geodesic of a spacetime warp, and then the charge dissipating when beginning to move in a straight line again would mean that the gravitational field is what causes the photon to posses some innate and instrinic charge, whether it be positive, nuetral or propulsive, which all the works equations have attempted to describe these possible states.
The last one on the agenda however, is no charge at all, as described when travelling in a straight line. This derivation was a little harder.
A=(e^i∫d^4 x(½[μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]+½[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) (1)
has no epsilon value. Epsilon is a small value, and when it's used in an equation like this:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξε_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (2)
It is itself a tensor so has a factor of √g' which is respectively negative. In mathematical terms, its the determinent of the metric tensor. Replacing this with the epsilon values we have:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξ√g'_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξ√g'_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (3)
But keeping in mind the supercomplex number (which by the way, hardly no scientist uses, but does respect it as an actual mathematical algebra), we could replace it by (i²), which of course equals the same value of positive +1. This makes the negative value of the metric tensor positive |√g'|.
rearranging the components of equation (1), where A equals the components of all that interesting stuff going on in the exponential function, we now add the D'albertian wave equation ∂²/∂t²-Δ with the mass-squared term and we have:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξ√g'_0((∂²/∂t²-Δ + M²)ψ-(∂²/∂t²-Δ + M²)ψ)]+½[ξ√g'_g((∂²/∂t²-Δ + M²)ψ*-(∂²/∂t²-Δ + M²)ψ*])
Where (∂²/∂t²-Δ + M²)ψ = 0
→ = g_μν∂^ν∂^μ
Which is perfectly a Klein-gorden solution. Since there is the contraint in the determinent metric tensor quality remaining positively-valued (an unusual approach) requires that any gravitational force will be a resultant vector quantity of compressed (or of pressure-related) forces dependant on a small area of d^4, with a position (x). If the positional change is very minute (AS IN small, ir infinitessimal movements), as the case must imply, then the equation finally can be written as:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 δ(x-x')(½[ξ√g'_0((∂²/∂δt²-Δ + M²)ψ-(∂²/∂δt²-Δ + M²)ψ)]+½[ξ√g'_g((∂²/∂δt²-Δ + M²)ψ*-(∂²/∂δt²-Δ + M²)ψ*])
The reason why when a small spatial composition is taken into account in a field, there is also a respective amount of small time. This are called the Planck Constraints, they are fundamentally-constant. This would mean we would be measuring the Langrangian Term of the particle in very small confinements.
This final equation, as i promised, is the last of the equations which can take into account a photon could have a zero-quantity of charge when not within the presence of a gravitational field. Though when subject to one, it could be argued it has to, as vern's theory goes.
-
But it's still a particle afterall :)
Yes, after all the distortions of it's primal state.
In another thread, Vern talks about the rise and fall of amplitudes associated with the wave and discribes this action as referenced to points in space. This notion of points in space relative to the wave is one I'm having trouble with. How can a homogenous wave, in it's pure state, have any particular points? I visualize a wave as the kinetic action on space that the release of energy induces to it. As the wave radiates forth from it's source, each blanketing pulse of energy does distinguish itself with crests and valleys of amplitude but, these crests and valleys are infinitely graduated in power and I can't rationalize any particular and definable points within singular bursts. However, where one blanketing burst meets another, one will find an area of intersecting amplitudes but I still don't visualize any particular points. That is unless, one suggests that along a line of intersecting waves, one must limit things to Planck lengths. In that case, each Planck length would have two points at each end of it's dimension. So maybe yes, I suppose one can talk in terms of points of amplitude.
Good questions, let me think about it for about 10 mins over coffee
-
In another thread, Vern talks about the rise and fall of amplitudes associated with the wave and discribes this action as referenced to points in space. - wow.... that's kind of cepy by the way... i just involved the importance of the position term in
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 δ(x-x')(½[ξ√g'_0((∂²/∂δt²-Δ + M²)ψ-(∂²/∂δt²-Δ + M²)ψ)]+½[ξ√g'_g((∂²/∂δt²-Δ + M²)ψ*-(∂²/∂δt²-Δ + M²)ψ*])
and the ''position term''has a very small value of δ(x-x') where x is the initial position and x' is the finale. Amplitudeal values, or polarizational points on a photon would actually oscillate between x and x', that is if charge also (and note this is important) that when mass has a change so does the magnetic force. In a wave solution, polarizations which have not
been determined actually exhibit both spin up and spin down states synonymously. You could argue easily that they ocillate between the two values, attentively assorting their possible possitions until something collapses their wave functions. Could these oscillations be achieved when two points in spacetime are considered under the equations given?
-
Vern
you require also a flat spacetime yes? - This part of relativity would need to be reformulated for photon movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci-flat_manifold
Where this math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_manifold would be required, but i am not sure how to use that math in the link. I don't recognize the workings.
-
You could argue easily that they ocillate between the two values, attentively assorting their possible possitions until something collapses their wave functions. Could these oscillations be achieved when two points in spacetime are considered under the equations given?
Are we now taking about Planck time also. Maybe these oscillations are occuring between one Plank length and at intervals of one Planck time. Sounds like the Buzz of existence to me. Maybe time, space, and duration are all digital and nowhere is there an analog to be found.....................?
-
Are we now taking about Planck time also. Maybe these oscillations are occuring between one Plank length and at intervals of one Planck time.
Exactly, but we are both talking about this as if its gospal. Its very speculative which is why i guess its in new theories. :)
-
I need to ask a question.
Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξε_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (1)
is balanced, because it takes into respect the electromagnetic permittivity added with that of the gravitational permittivity with a Langrangian term for M². More interestingly enough, M²ψ is similar to the Klein-Gorden relationship. Here are some interesting reationships:
M²ψ=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ
which results in plane wave solutions. By substitution, you can reconfigurate eq.(1) into:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ]+½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ])
Which is very attractive as a wave equation.
We could manipulate the equation even more to have nuetral components after taking ino account, from a Klein-Gorden relationship, where for manipulative convenience we can rewrite the plane wave solutions in quantized form as:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0((∂²-M²)ψ*-(∂²-M²)]+½[ξε_g((∂²-M²)ψ*-(∂²-M²)ψ*])
This is suppose, would cancel them out, or at least, this is my interpretation of the equation.
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ]+½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ])
I apologize. This equation was a complete muddle. It should have been:
|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(-∂t(ψ)-(-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ))]+½[ξε_g(-∂t(ψ)-(-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ))])
-
The points I refer to are the peak amplitude places in the sine curve that governs a photon's amplitude. A photon wave does not extend flat wise like a water wave. It moves as peaks, like a clown's hat. The area around the peaks drive the peaks through space. You can replace the words peaks with the word points of which I speak. When you consider that it is the surrounding fields that drive the points through space, and consider that interaction only happens in the path of peak amplitude, the slit experiments are all satisfied.
-
Vern
you require also a flat spacetime yes? - This part of relativity would need to be reformulated for photon movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci-flat_manifold
Where this math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_manifold would be required, but i am not sure how to use that math in the link. I don't recognize the workings.
Yes; flat space-time is required so that relativity phenomena is naturally predicted. I didn't invent this; it was known at the turn of the century. You've probably seen H. Ziegler's comment (http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein06.html#Ziegler) to Einstein and Max Planck. I've posted the link a few times.
I haven't studied manifolds since my speculations don't require them.
-
The points I refer to are the peak amplitude places in the sine curve that governs a photon's amplitude. A photon wave does not extend flat wise like a water wave. It moves as peaks, like a clown's hat. The area around the peaks drive the peaks through space. You can replace the words peaks with the word points of which I speak. When you consider that it is the surrounding fields that drive the points through space, and consider that interaction only happens in the path of peak amplitude, the slit experiments are all satisfied.
The Dirac Delta Function is a mathematical peak form.
-
The Dirac Delta Function is a mathematical peak form
Thanks, I did not know that.
-
I suggest that when the straight line path of the photon is influenced by a gravitational field, it not only responds with a resultant charge, it takes on the property of mass. Mass and charge go hand in hand. Like the gyroscope, the photon wave resists a change in it's trajectory and when this wave is forced to deviate, it responds by taking on the character of mass with charge.
I missed this on my first scan through the new posts. Yes; I agree. Any time the path of a photon is bent, there is charge and mass in the bend area. This explains the temporary tangles that produce the zoo of particles downstream of particle collisions in accelerators.
-
There can be no final classical theory. In fact, causal events must be removed and only applied to this scale of macorscopic interactions.
To solidify these inexorable points, we may as well just rid of the classical sense only if we can make conciousness a non-classical theory (difficult to explain so not right now :) ) - BUT IN A NTUSHELL; i totally agree with vern.
As i said some of his hypothesis are becoming a guilty pleasure, because at first i wasn't all too appealed by the complexities of magnetic and photon cycles.
-
The Dirac Delta Function is a mathematical peak form
Thanks, I did not know that.
You're welcome. It's just probability really. I can teach you if you like, its very simple.
-
I looked it up and I think I've got it now.
-
Cool.
-
Vern, correct me if i am wrong, but your thesis requires a zero-magnetic moment/charge?
-
I am thinking of applying a model for your theory where we an describe the abscent magnetic field equation/expression, we could describe the original GEM equations to describe only a flat metric spacetime whereas use curvature as a reason why tthe magnetic charge dissipates, due to the fact that (gravity may have some weird effect on magnetism).
An experiment can come out of this. I'm just not sure right now how it could be done. But one thg is for sure, we need the dissipation of the Mag.-charge, and it may have something to do with the weakness of the gravitatonal field itself, but this all just speculation the now.
-
Oh i might as well just get what it is on my mind.
My ultimate speculation is that gravitons ''gobble'' up magnetic monopoles'' and this acts as a mechanism to allow a photon to follow a curved geodesic on the basis it has an existent gravitationally-related electric charge.
The above could also answer why monopole particles seem so diluted. According to this wacky idea, they are so rare to find because the graviton-monopole activities decribed are exceedingly high.
-
I can visualize that. But my simplistic view is: why use an undiscovered magnetic monopole when nature screams out that it is a simple electromagnetic construct. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)
-
I can visualize that. But my simplistic view is: why use an undiscovered magnetic monopole when nature screams out that it is a simple electromagnetic construct.
(http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)
Whereas your theory is absolutely valid theoretically, the only inconsistency is that scientists beleive they have detected the monopole and i know how much you don't rely on those experiments, so its a difficult one to decide on.
-
I have never seen a report of an experiment that detected a magnetic monopole.
-
I have heard Doctor Wagner proclaim this. Can you take it up with him, since i am banned from sciforums?
-
I found this report (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm)
But it is not very convincing. I am not sure they reached the right conclusion from the scattering of neutrons that was their indicator. This is probably what Wagner referenced.
Magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles proposed by physicists that carry a single magnetic pole, either a magnetic north pole or south pole. In the material world this is quite exceptional because magnetic particles are usually observed as dipoles, north and south combined. However there are several theories that predict the existence of monopoles. Among others, in 1931 the physicist Paul Dirac was led by his calculations to the conclusion that magnetic monopoles can exist at the end of tubes – called Dirac strings – that carry magnetic field. Until now they have remained undetected.
-
I found this report (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm)
But it is not very convincing. I am not sure they reached the right conclusion from the scattering of neutrons that was their indicator. This is probably what Wagner referenced.
Magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles proposed by physicists that carry a single magnetic pole, either a magnetic north pole or south pole. In the material world this is quite exceptional because magnetic particles are usually observed as dipoles, north and south combined. However there are several theories that predict the existence of monopoles. Among others, in 1931 the physicist Paul Dirac was led by his calculations to the conclusion that magnetic monopoles can exist at the end of tubes – called Dirac strings – that carry magnetic field. Until now they have remained undetected.
Ahhh, let me mull over the information again. Reply soon friend.
-
In facto emondo,
I do believe Dirac said their presence was required.
-
Yes, it was part of a theory that Dirac proposed. But the more I look at the experiment, the more I see possibilities that the suspected monopoles could be dipole pairs with their opposing poles held together by outside forces.
-
You ok vern, haven't seen you around?
-
Yes, it was part of a theory that Dirac proposed. But the more I look at the experiment, the more I see possibilities that the suspected monopoles could be dipole pairs with their opposing poles held together by outside forces.
If i understand you correctly, that would require a lot of pressure.
-
Yes; I have been lurking reading the posts but not responding much.
The magnetic monopoles of the experiment were artificially created and held together. The observed monopoles could actually be duel dipoles. Two electron charges worth of pressure would be required to hold their like poles together,
If we try and contort a photon's path such that it presents its magnetic field toward the outside of a confining pattern we must conjure up some forces that we don't normally see.
-
Yes; I have been lurking reading the posts but not responding much.
The magnetic monopoles of the experiment were artificially created and held together. The observed monopoles could actually be duel dipoles. Two electron charges worth of pressure would be required to hold their like poles together,
If we try and contort a photon's path such that it presents its magnetic field toward the outside of a confining pattern we must conjure up some forces that we don't normally see.
This is what i was attempting in my equations.:)
-
It is interesting. If the pattern could be around the magnetic plane, it would be a magnetic monopole. A magnetic monopole of that nature would be an electric dipole, negative at one end and positive at the at the other.
But it does not seem to happen.