-
The Speed of Light:
E=mc2 is a popular, powerful formula that needs a deterministic explanation. How is mass simply converted to energy and vice versa. Postulate that there is no conversion. The energy is simply trapped and localized. Understanding how energy can be trapped in a location begins to describe the connection between the fundamental laws of the universe.
Photons are energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. All energy from gammas rays to radio waves are simply photons of different wavelengths. If we could break down these waves in a single quanta or unit, you would have a single photon.
The first major assumption of Space Compression Spring Theory is that space has structure and photons are traveling compressions of space.
Picture space as a super phase structure that could be modeled as a three dimensional web of points connected by infinitely small springs. Basically a spring matrix of hypercubes. Space is compressible (and decompressible). Photons travel through space in the form of energy. A photon traveling through space has a compression in the front and a decompression trailing similar to a longitudinal wave on a spring, but will have physical effects three dimensionally on the space around it.
Picture the photon as a car with a front and back seat. The positive charge would be pointing out the top of the sunroof over the front seats. A negative charge would be pointing out the bottom of the rear axle underneath the back seats. A positive magnetic field would extend out from the front passenger side door and a negative magnetic field would extend out the rear driver’s side door. The compression area is the front seats and the decompression occurs in the back seats.
The speed of photons has been measured as a constant in nature, but space compressions will have an effect on the propagation speed because this speed is based on the properties of the medium the photon propagates through - space. I have derived velocity formulas that show the speed of a photon is slower in decompressed space and faster in compressed space. The difference in speed provides a mechanism for the photons to get trapped in orbit around each other. If the photon has enough energy (or compression) it will create a velocity gradient enough to slow down the "tires" of another photon while the "roof" of the photon at a faster speed turns the complete photon. Basically this a gradient in the index of refraction of space causing the two photons to continuosly refract around each other.
Photons trapped in orbit around each other are the fundamental building blocks of matter.
Now to finally address the rhetorical question - I propose that time is constant but the velocity of light changes. This is the mechanism by which time appears to "slow down" in a gravity well - or space decompression area. The matter consisting of photons in orbit will experience time dilation because the speed of their photons is slower in decompressed space and the orbit cycles take longer.
In addition, matter traveling through space at a high velocity will also experience time dilation because the velocity component of the combined orbital system will be subtracted from the radial orbital component so the orbital cycles will take longer.
Time is constant, we just perceive that time slows down because the photons we are made of travel slower.
This makes the perception of the speed of light the same for any observer.
-
A lot of that may be right, but it is not new. You need to think more about the nature of light though as it does not fit with a compression wave - it's a transverse wave, meaning that it waves from side to side. (It can also wave from side to side in two directions at the same time, leading to circular polarisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization).)
-
My theory is based on the fact that photons are not transverse waves, they are longitudinal with the closest thing in nature being seismic waves (particularly Rayleigh waves). Space Compression Spring Theory is a deterministic theory explaining the mechanism behind electrical charge and magnetic fields. There reason why electromagnetic waves are labeled transverse waves is because the mechanisms are not understood.
Here how the mechanism works:
To have enough energy to compress space most likely requires a photon stack (multiple photons in superposition) but simplified to a single photon, the model is as follows:
(https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=7357&c=ACCT89456&h=7ff4926d4a3fea96f5e1)
Magnetic fields are the result of the vortex created by the compression and decompression areas (similar to the Coriolis effect). The photon creates a positive torque effect on the space in one direction across the "front seat" of the photon and a negative torque effect in the other direction across the "back seat" of the photon.
The electric fields are the result of space transition areas of compression and decompression. Think of the positive electric field as space decompressing, or a transition area from a compressive state to a decompressive state. The negative electric charge is the opposite. As the compression travels through space the point at which the velocity of the vortex edge is closest to space at rest is the direction of the electrical charge.
-
Circular polarization is simply the effect of two linearly polarized photons with orthogonal (90 degrees to each other) electric fields in superposition but at a different phase (one lagging behind the other). This is what appears to be circulating fields:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(waves)#Polarization_state
-
Space Compression Spring Theory really starts to make sense when you begin to model particles.
The next major assumption of the theory is that all Leptons are made from 2 body photon orbital systems and Hadrons are made from three body photon orbital systems.
Starting with the most common lepton, the electron, it is modeled as 2 photons in orbit or multiple photons in superposition:
(https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=7358&c=ACCT89456&h=394b37833fd47d62e1c1)
Photon A charge, -1/2, (Positive belly 100%)
Photon B charge, -1/2, (Positive belly 100%)
Net charge -1
Positive charged sides of photons are in synchronous orbit
You can see how having the "sunroof" of the photon on the inside of the orbital system, the effect of the positive charge is buried and only the negative effect is felt in space. Also notice how the magnetic fields are lined up to explain the magnetic moment. Electrons can have a right hand spin or left hand spin and oscillates at the speed of light if it is at rest. Electrons with a linear velocity component will oscillate at just under the speed of light because the total overall velocity of the photon is conserved.
-
Likewise a Positron would be similar to an electron, but the negative sides of the photon are now pointing to the center and the positive charges are on the outside of the system.
Positron model – 2 photons in orbit or multiple photons in superposition
(https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=7359&c=ACCT89456&h=30848a1287c3f947d0ef)
Photon A charge, +1/2, (Negative belly 100%)
Photon B charge, +1/2, (Negative belly 100%)
Net charge +1
Opposite charged sides of photons are in synchronous orbit
In this model the "tires" are on the inside of the system with the "sunroof" on the outside. As with electrons, positrons can have right hand and left hand rotations. The interesting thing is scientists have already planned to create electrons and positrons from laser interaction:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/18/matter-light-photons-electrons-positrons
How else can you explain the mechanism behind the creating of these particles by "coliding photons". What is actually happening is there is enough energy in an area of space to cause the right amount of photons to superposition and orbit each other.
-
Derivation of time dilation in a lepton orbital system:
Photon tangential velocity in an orbital system at rest vt= c0 and linear velocity vl = 0
where c0 = the speed of light in a vacuum
An lepton photon orbital system with a linear velocity will have two velocity components where the total velocity is conserved at c0:
vt2 + vl2 = c02
Solving for tangential velocity:
vt = √(c02-vl2)
Change in time to make one orbital cycle of a system at rest:
dt = 2π r/c0
Where r = the radius of the orbit
Assuming the same distance must be traveled an equivalent orbital cycle, the change in time realized when an orbital system is in motion is:
dt' = 2π r/vt
Substituting for the equation for tangential velocity:
dt' = 2π r/√(c02-vl2)
Looking at the ratio of the change in time realized to the change in time of the original frame of reference:
dt'/dt = (2π r/√(c02-vl2))/(2π r/c0) = c0/√(c02-vl2)
Dividing numerator and denominator by c0:
dt'/dt = 1/√(1-vl2/c02)
Which is identical to the Lorentz factor. The time dilation effect in Spring Theory due to velocity is equivalent to Special Relativity.
-
E=mc2 is a popular, powerful formula that needs a deterministic explanation.
What on Earth is a deterministic explanation?
How is mass simply converted to energy and vice versa.
It isn't. I.e. mass cannot be converted into energy and energy cannot be converted into mass. For a detailed explanation of why you can read the following article on the subject at:
Does nature convert mass into energy? by Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys., 75(4), Apr. (2007)
Download from: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/baierlein.pdf
Postulate that there is no conversion.
Okay, but I don't need to.
The energy is simply trapped and localized.
Energy cannot be trapped because it's not a physical quantity. It's merely a parameter in a bookkeeping system.
Understanding how energy can be trapped in a location begins to describe the connection between the fundamental laws of the universe.
Energy isn't what's being trapped. It's what the energy is describing that's being trapped.
Photons are energy in the form of electromagnetic waves.
Photons are not energy. Photons have energy. There's a big difference. It'd be wise to listen to Alan Guth on this point. Watch him explain it at my companies website at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/DSC_0004.MOV
All energy from gammas rays to radio waves are simply photons of different wavelengths. If we could break down these waves in a single quanta or unit, you would have a single photon.
What is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that if it was possible then you could make a single quanta of EM energy then it'd be a single photon? Sure. That'd be true, by definition!
The first major assumption of Space Compression Spring Theory is that space has structure and photons are traveling compressions of space.
Which contradicts Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. What evidence do you have that Maxwell's theory is wrong?
-
What on Earth is a deterministic explanation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(philosophy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(philosophy))
It isn't. I.e. mass cannot be converted into energy and energy cannot be converted into mass. For a detailed explanation of why you can read the following article on the subject at:
Does nature convert mass into energy? by Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys., 75(4), Apr. (2007)
Download from: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/baierlein.pdf
You are assuming a photon is a particle. Space Compression Spring Theory is based on space having structure (spring like) and photons are longitudinal waves of energy traveling through this medium. How do you explain wave/particle duality? Spring Theory can explain it.
Photons are not energy. Photons have energy. There's a big difference. It'd be wise to listen to Alan Guth on this point. Watch him explain it at my companies website at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/DSC_0004.MOV
Disagree.
What is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that if it was possible then you could make a single quanta of EM energy then it'd be a single photon? Sure. That'd be true, by definition!
This was an explanation laying the foundation for understanding EM waves. Agreed
Which contradicts Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. What evidence do you have that Maxwell's theory is wrong?
There is plenty of evidence that Maxwell's theory is wrong when you get to very strong fields and extreme close proximity. Maxwell's equations are approximations - not exact. Maxwell's theory does not allow for single photons either.
-
Space Compression Spring Theory predicts that when a particle decays into two photons traveling in opposite directions, the photons are not on the same linear opposite path. My theory predicts an parallel offset equal to the diameter of the photon orbit.
Anyone have an idea on how to measure this?
-
Space Compression Spring Theory predicts that when a particle decays into two photons traveling in opposite directions, the photons are not on the same linear opposite path. My theory predicts an parallel offset equal to the diameter of the photon orbit.
What is a photon orbit in a particle decay scenario?
-
What is a photon orbit in a particle decay scenario?
The weapon used by gauchos to catch game consists of two or three bolas (balls) held together by a string or strings. Centrifugal force stretches the string(s) because the balls have angular momentum relative to one another.
Whatever force holds a pair of photons in orbit can be thought of as the string between a pair of bolas. If the string snaps, the two bolas fly apart, relative to one another, along lines which are tangent to their previous circular orbit; they are parallel, but not collinear; the two parallel paths are separated by the diameter of their previous orbit. The center of mass of the pair continues to move at its previous speed in a straight line, while the individual bolas keep their velocity relative to that moving center of mass.
What makes photon pairs different from bolas is that the individual photons lack proper mass. Only the photon pair can have proper mass. You can derive the proper mass of the pair by adding the individual energies and multiply by the speed of light squared.
Adding momentum to the pair is like boosting the forward moving photon more than the rearward moving photon (in a given coordinate system). If you add momentum to one side only, you get motion of the pair. (If I could persuade my brain's math coprossessor to come out of retirement, I'd derive E = mc2 from this model.)
I'm glad to see that others are now talking about orbiting photons. This is the first time I've seen others discussing my orbiting photon concept, other than to say it can't happen. As far as I know, this part of my model was totally unique until now. I'd like to know if anyone else had this idea before I thought of it; I think that was about 8 years ago.
For the speed of light to vary, you must discard the definitions of time, distance and speed, since the meter and second are defined by the constant speed of light. We used to measure the speed of light in relation to the circumference and rotational speed of planet Earth. Now, we measure everything else in relation to the speed of light. Measuring something whose value is fixed by definition is like measuring the number one. "Hmmm, this number one seems to be bigger than that number one. The number one must be variable."
Photons can have any amount of energy, not just the specific quanta of energy that must be exchanged when electrons jump between orbitals. Yes; photons originate with specific energies, and a particle can only absorb specific energies, but the expansion of space gradually reduces the amount of energy that arrives in a distant reference frame; and this does not happen in quantum jumps. There is no smallest quantum of energy.
Any, yes; it is proper to say a photon has energy and momentum; not that it is energy or momentum. What it is is a disturbance of the aether; it takes a certain amount of energy to create that disturbance.
-
The following is an early attempt at explaining my theory in 2009. Lots of mistakes. Did not have a proper electron model.
I originally called it One Theory or Space Knot Theory.
-
One Theory
A simple explanation to the most complicated questions in physics
Prelude:
Explaining all the forces of nature in one unification theory is another small step to increase the human awareness of our universe. No matter how large or how incredible a discovery may be, we are still at the infancy stages of our human understanding. We must strive to continue that search for knowledge and the next great breakthrough. Innovations of any size or importance are, can and will be made by the one who simply has the will to do so. Using intuition from within and considering possibilities that stray from convention; we create the innovations we need to progress and advance as a civilization. This exploration will result in the conclusion that all is connected in the universe.
-
One Laws:
Let’s get to the point - the premise of this exploration:
There is no matter in the universe.
Matter is an idea we use to define what we perceive. A convention extremely popular and useful because by labeling an unknown we begin to try to explain and understand it. We take what we see at the macro level and apply it to the micro or quantum level.
This leads to our first postulate:
I. Space is what makes up all in the universe (or at least our area of the universe). Space is actually something substantial, not just emptiness. It is a medium which can transmit energy through wave motion. This may be a jump of intuition but picture our
block of the universe as a block of an easily compressible medium. Maybe this is the closest description of true matter. Space has substance, shape, is compressible and is seamlessly connected in one membrane.
Ok, so this means:
II. Space has substance and shape.
III. Space is compressible.
IV. Space is connected.
Now we can describe gravity. Picture space as strands of an interconnected web. Now squeeze together a portion of the web. The web compression pulls on the areas around it, stretching the web a great deal close to the compression and less the farther
away you get from the compression. The gravitational force we perceive in the universe is simply the effect of compressions of space interacting with the space around it. So how is space compressed? Since we have a medium, we have a way for energy to
travel. I’m not going to explain how the strands of space were plucked to make the energy we perceive, but understand fundamentally how the energy interacts with space. And before we proceed we have to define energy; specifically electromagnetic
energy:
V. Photons are wave packets of compressed space traveling in the medium of space
(in our case, at the speed of light).
This means that photons, or traveling compressions of space, interact with the space around it. Photons, like a sound wave in air, have a compression area, probably near the center and spherical in shape, and a decompression area at the perimeter. Our first
instinct would be to model the photon as a sphere, but I envision it to look something more like a smoke ring.
Now how does this come together to look like matter? Let’s start with the electron. Quantum physics describes electrons absorbing a photon to change the electron to a higher energy state. The electron emits a photon to change to a lower energy state (or orbit). Intuitively this can lead to the assumption that electrons are made up of photons.
So the next postulate:
VI. Photons are the building blocks of the atom.
This means electrons, protons and neutrons are made up of photons or clusters of photons. Now, how photons can create what we perceive as matter? If we have enough energy in one area or space, or a dense turbulence of space, I theorize that a gradient can occur in the form of a standing wave to sustain a three dimensional trap of the photons. Since a standing wave requires at least two nodes in two dimensions, this leads to the following in a three dimensional universe:
VII. A standing wave of space requires at least two or three photons.
A three photon standing wave is probably pretty stable but has velocity and has an extremely small perceivable mass. I would say the fewer number of photons in a standing wave the higher the velocity. It’s probably pretty tough to create conditions where three photons traveling the speed of light are trapped and manipulated into a standing wave. This explains why we have not observed electrons being created and destroyed without a whole lot of energy present, and why we consider them a fundamental particle, leading us to:
VII. Electrons are made up of at least one standing wave of space.
What we perceive as matter is simply trapped energy creating a compressed area of space!
-
Fundamental Particles - Knots
The other ingredient to the standing wave is a spin. Imagine that an electron consists of at least two photons with a spin in a standing wave formation. This means if we picture an electron in orbit around a nucleus, it could be photons trapped in a standing wave of bent space rotating and spinning back on its path as it travels around the nucleus. These photons are still traveling at the speed of light, but because it is trapped in a bent spatial area of a standing wave, the relative speed of the knot (I will use this term for a sustained standing wave of space) is less than the speed of light. The calculated speed on an electron is variable, and can be related to the amount of energy it contains. This theory also explains how electrons can absorb photons to cause them to jump to another orbit (or energy state). By accumulating more energy and more compressed space, this causes the electron density/spin/velocity to change and jump to a higher orbit. If the photon is not the right size or energy level, nothing happens. If it is the right amount to add to the standing wave or spin, it is absorbed to cause the change in energy state.
If we look at the spin of an electron, we have two possibilities, right hand or left hand (based on the direction of travel). Protons are also made up of photons also, but at a more complex level than electrons. A proton consists of two up quarks and one down quark. Quarks always occur in
multiples which substantiates the idea that this is a form of standing wave. Three quarks together are needed to make a stable knot. Quarks are most likely large clusters of photons and electrons and could be modeled as a standing wave within a standing wave within a standing wave. The combination of these quarks end up with a different net and possible slower rotation than a stand alone electron. The complete proton knot contains more compressed space than the electron which explains the difference in mass (or should I say density of space).
Neutrons are made up of one up quark and two down quarks. A neutron can be created by a proton capturing and electron. It can also decay to a proton and electron. So this transformation starts with one up quark and two down quarks, and then ends up with two up quarks and one down quark and an electron. Since neutrons are made up of a proton and an electron, this would be a balanced, more stable knot, and explains why it
has no charge or net spin. Quarks are described as having a 2/3 or -1/3 charge (or spin). As these combine, always in threes, we can conclude these are the major nodes of the standing wave of what appears to be particles. The three quarks can be attributed to a three axis dimension space. We can look at the building together of quarks as possible harmonics of the knot. The first harmonic could be less stable knots, such particle observations in quantum experiments. The second, third and so on could be more stable creating what we perceive as nucleus building blocks.
-
Unifying the Forces
Most descriptions of these forces include the transfer of a force particle: the photon (electromagnetic), the gluon (strong nuclear), the boson (weak nuclear), and the graviton (gravitational). Since we are postulation that all particles are made up of a combination of photons, we can say if there is particle interaction, then it includes photons or knots of photons. In most cases we can explain the interactions as simply the interaction of space.
1. Electromagnetic force (the force that holds the electron in orbit around the nucleus and the interaction of charged particles): If we picture the electron as a spinning vortex of compressed space, we can explain why electrons repel each other. Intuitively, two rotating vortex’s of space will tend to repel each other as they come near. As dissimilar vortex's approach, they will tend to coalesce or attract each other. A proton consists of a more dense cluster of compressed space but a slower net vortex rotation. The larger compression of space offsets the slower vortex effect to make the proton net charge the exact opposite of an electron. The attraction of these vortexes make the electron orbit the nucleus that contains the proton. This spinning vortex effect of
knots explains magnetic forces.
2. Strong Nuclear Forces (force that holds quarks together to from protons, and neutrons): By modeling the quarks as a standing wave, we can explain the interaction of the quarks as interlaced waves. Since the Protons tend to repel each other significantly,
the great deal of compressed space and exchange of photons internally is much stronger than the repel effect of the vortex. The gluon particle responsible for this is simply the exchanging of photon knots between the quarks. Multinode standing wave bends space around itself to create stability, so it requires a great deal of energy to separate these knots. The strong nuclear forces are essentially the stability of the waves.
3. Weak Nuclear Forces (most notably realized in weak decay or the conversion of a nuetron to a proton and electron): This is actually not a conversion but a break down of the knot. The key to this interaction involves the change of a quark flavor: a down quark is converted to an up quark and an electron. The separation of the electron does not necessarily change the quark, it just removes a harmonic of the standing wave so a different quark flavor is observed.
4. Gravity (attraction between two masses): Imagine the fabric of space as a web connected in a three dimensional weave. As knots are actually compressions of space, we can see how the amount of decompressed space is greatest the closer you are to the knot.
This means there is a close attraction or vacuum effect very close to the knots. As we get farther away from the knots and from the electron, the decompression of space formed by the knot is reduced more and more and the cumulative effect of the
whole “atom” can pull on everything around it. The more compression, the more perceivable mass, therefore the more perceivable effect of gravity. Particles with mass do not bend space, it’s perception is a result of space already
compressed and warped in on itself.
-
Simple Answers:
1. Gravity waves: Einstein predicted gravity waves based on his theory of relativity, but these still have not been officially discovered. He was right! These are are all around us, in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Yes, photons are Einstein’s gravity waves.
2. How was our part of the universe formed? The big bang theory can be accommodated by this theory by looking at it as a cycle. Consider an area of space where an enormous amount of black holes have drawn together. These would from together one
super black hole. This would be a super compression of space, getting more and more dense. At the quantum level knots collect together (the protection provided by the electron shell is missing) where eventually you have a great number of knots near each
other possibly creating a very large nucleus. Eventually the space here is stretched so thin from all of the compression, an unstable release would occur – something that might be described as the big bang. The big bang is the point of the a cycle of black hole after convergence and right before the explosion creating a spring board effect on space.
3. How is what we perceive as matter formed: Just the way a tornado or hurricane or forms from the right combination of pressures winds temperatures and moisture, we can have the right photon storm create a stable structure. If you have enough space turbulence during a big bang explosion you can create the right conditions to form a gradient and therefor a stable standing wave of space.
4. Dark matter: If we look at space having substance, then we can explain that dark matter is actually space itself. The difference is spacial pressure also explains why the force is so weak.
5. Expansion of the universe: If we look at space as compressible, then we can consider our area of the universe in a compression area. This means on the very far fringes, space is less compressed, causing an expansion effect. This explains why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other. This also explains why the acceleration is slowing down - the compression area is decompressing.
6. Relativity: As a knot travels faster can it create a deeper well or pull more space in is the motion of the space what pulls space in or maybe moving is liking a twisting effect of space where you create a deeper well.
7. Antimatter: The super black hole most likely has a rotation. This rotation will most likely determine the natural rotation of electrons vs protons, causing matter vs antimatter. Maybe it is the reverse of the previous knot types. It would certainly be interesting if the big bang that made up our neck of the universe was born from a coalescing mass of black holes made up of anti-matter knots.
8. Faster than light travel: Since all things are connected in space, we can possibly have information exchange faster than light. The changing effects of knots on surrounding space may be instantaneous.
9. Dual wave/particle nature of light and electrons: Since these are now modeled as wave with compressed space, it is clear that a dual nature would be observed.
10. E=mc2: Matter is not converted to energy, it is simply energy trapped in a knot of
space and released when the knot is separated.
-
Conclusion
The many theories out there that try to explain the forces in nature. On a BBC broadcast in December 2008, Dame Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell made a nice analogy relating to quantum physics to history. She said something to the effect that when the earth was modelled as the center of the universe, planets orbits were modeled as epicylces to explain this. Then when copernicus changed the way we look at earth as the center, the orbits were simplified with fewer epicycles. Now the epicycles are removed with an elipital orbit explanation. What we have in physics now is epicycle on epicyle explaining the quantum phyisics laws. We just need someone to look at it at a different viewpoint much like Copernicus.
This is where we come in, Maybe string theory has some relevance as we look deeper into the structure of space, but for the time being, lets say those strings are tied into knots.
-
The Speed of Light:
E=mc2 is a popular, powerful formula that needs a deterministic explanation. How is mass simply converted to energy and vice versa. Postulate that there is no conversion. The energy is simply trapped and localized. Understanding how energy can be trapped in a location begins to describe the connection between the fundamental laws of the universe.
Photons are energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. All energy from gammas rays to radio waves are simply photons of different wavelengths. If we could break down these waves in a single quanta or unit, you would have a single photon.
The first major assumption of Space Compression Spring Theory is that space has structure and photons are traveling compressions of space.
Picture space as a super phase structure that could be modeled as a three dimensional web of points connected by infinitely small springs. Basically a spring matrix of hypercubes. Space is compressible (and decompressible). Photons travel through space in the form of energy. A photon traveling through space has a compression in the front and a decompression trailing similar to a longitudinal wave on a spring, but will have physical effects three dimensionally on the space around it.
Picture the photon as a car with a front and back seat. The positive charge would be pointing out the top of the sunroof over the front seats. A negative charge would be pointing out the bottom of the rear axle underneath the back seats. A positive magnetic field would extend out from the front passenger side door and a negative magnetic field would extend out the rear driver’s side door. The compression area is the front seats and the decompression occurs in the back seats.
The speed of photons has been measured as a constant in nature, but space compressions will have an effect on the propagation speed because this speed is based on the properties of the medium the photon propagates through - space. I have derived velocity formulas that show the speed of a photon is slower in decompressed space and faster in compressed space. The difference in speed provides a mechanism for the photons to get trapped in orbit around each other. If the photon has enough energy (or compression) it will create a velocity gradient enough to slow down the "tires" of another photon while the "roof" of the photon at a faster speed turns the complete photon. Basically this a gradient in the index of refraction of space causing the two photons to continuosly refract around each other.
Photons trapped in orbit around each other are the fundamental building blocks of matter.
Now to finally address the rhetorical question - I propose that time is constant but the velocity of light changes. This is the mechanism by which time appears to "slow down" in a gravity well - or space decompression area. The matter consisting of photons in orbit will experience time dilation because the speed of their photons is slower in decompressed space and the orbit cycles take longer.
In addition, matter traveling through space at a high velocity will also experience time dilation because the velocity component of the combined orbital system will be subtracted from the radial orbital component so the orbital cycles will take longer.
Time is constant, we just perceive that time slows down because the photons we are made of travel slower.
This makes the perception of the speed of light the same for any observer.
Spring Theory .. You are a THINKER whether right or wrong. Speed of Light IS variable. I believe Time is variable also .. created by the mass and spin of galaxies .. each galaxy having its own time, but with one common NOW denominator throughout that allows for non-locality.
-
What is a photon orbit in a particle decay scenario?
The weapon used by gauchos to catch game consists of two or three bolas (balls) held together by a string or strings. Centrifugal force stretches the string(s) because the balls have angular momentum relative to one another.
Whatever force holds a pair of photons in orbit can be thought of as the string between a pair of bolas. If the string snaps, the two bolas fly apart, relative to one another, along lines which are tangent to their previous circular orbit; they are parallel, but not collinear; the two parallel paths are separated by the diameter of their previous orbit. The center of mass of the pair continues to move at its previous speed in a straight line, while the individual bolas keep their velocity relative to that moving center of mass.
What makes photon pairs different from bolas is that the individual photons lack proper mass. Only the photon pair can have proper mass. You can derive the proper mass of the pair by adding the individual energies and multiply by the speed of light squared.
Adding momentum to the pair is like boosting the forward moving photon more than the rearward moving photon (in a given coordinate system). If you add momentum to one side only, you get motion of the pair. (If I could persuade my brain's math coprossessor to come out of retirement, I'd derive E = mc2 from this model.)
I'm glad to see that others are now talking about orbiting photons. This is the first time I've seen others discussing my orbiting photon concept, other than to say it can't happen. As far as I know, this part of my model was totally unique until now. I'd like to know if anyone else had this idea before I thought of it; I think that was about 8 years ago.
For the speed of light to vary, you must discard the definitions of time, distance and speed, since the meter and second are defined by the constant speed of light. We used to measure the speed of light in relation to the circumference and rotational speed of planet Earth. Now, we measure everything else in relation to the speed of light. Measuring something whose value is fixed by definition is like measuring the number one. "Hmmm, this number one seems to be bigger than that number one. The number one must be variable."
Photons can have any amount of energy, not just the specific quanta of energy that must be exchanged when electrons jump between orbitals. Yes; photons originate with specific energies, and a particle can only absorb specific energies, but the expansion of space gradually reduces the amount of energy that arrives in a distant reference frame; and this does not happen in quantum jumps. There is no smallest quantum of energy.
Any, yes; it is proper to say a photon has energy and momentum; not that it is energy or momentum. What it is is a disturbance of the aether; it takes a certain amount of energy to create that disturbance.
Great explanation on the reason for the offset when a particle decays into two photons.
-
Can we see the derivation of the path of an orbit given this theory?
-
My theory is based on the fact that photons are not transverse waves, they are longitudinal with the closest thing in nature being seismic waves (particularly Rayleigh waves).
Which experiment do you base your claim on?
I've seen many experiments clearly show that electromagnetic wave is transversal by showing linear polarization.
-
My theory is based on the fact that photons are not transverse waves, they are longitudinal with the closest thing in nature being seismic waves (particularly Rayleigh waves).
Which experiment do you base your claim on?
I've seen many experiments clearly show that electromagnetic wave is transversal by showing linear polarization.
I'm trying to explain the mechanism to make the longitudinal waves appear transverse. By my theory, the measurements in experiments show dual traverse wave electrical and magnetic characteristics, but the physical mechanism the explains this is a longitudinal wave traveling in "space matter".
-
I havent read through everything here yet, but I do like it. Theres alot to take in, so I'll do it in bite sized pieces, or I could start making my coffee stronger. But I've read enough to be satisfied, you have build up a literacy model in your mind which is consistent with many aspects of nature. So whether you're right or wrong, thats still a commendable effort. And even if you do turn up some problems within youre theory, there is no-doubt you are approaching real truths. I think the best evidence of things is found in the associations and interactions between various phenomena, and describing those in a self consistency, and that seams to be a focus of your considerations. I think you have good instincts, and nicely done.
-
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot. Many dont like it when somebody plays around with sacred constants. Constancy of light for example. But in my opinion second guessing everything is a time honored tradition of those who eventually overturned and improved on conventions. And besides, rationalizing these dynamics and learning them for oneself, is far more effective within considerations of veriabilities and their variable consequences. In this respect, whether light is variable or a constant is not the point, but rather, consideration of the puzzles in this way teaches flexibility of thought. And is effective for teasing out the nature of associations between things. The difference between you, and a person who allowed their rationale to be corralled by convention without asking questions, is you will have learnt the underlying reasonings, having questioned the reasonings.
Its a puzzle. You grab a piece and jam it anywhere and everywhere, and even try to force a fit if you like. And even if a thing doesnt work, knowing why it doesnt work can be as illuminating as if it did work. Holding puzzle pieces sacred to convention only limits a persons chances of learning something new.
-
I havent read through everything here yet, but I do like it. Theres alot to take in, so I'll do it in bite sized pieces, or I could start making my coffee stronger. But I've read enough to be satisfied, you have build up a literacy model in your mind which is consistent with many aspects of nature. So whether you're right or wrong, thats still a commendable effort. And even if you do turn up some problems within youre theory, there is no-doubt you are approaching real truths. I think the best evidence of things is found in the associations and interactions between various phenomena, and describing those in a self consistency, and that seams to be a focus of your considerations. I think you have good instincts, and nicely done.
I appreciate it. It's allot to digest, but the pieces are starting to come together. It's refreshing to hear from an open objective mind.
-
Another interesting model is the Neutrino:
(https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=7364&c=ACCT89456&h=d2be79bf412689a398c7)
Photon A charge, +1/2, (Negative belly 100%)
Photon B charge, -1/2, (Positive belly 100%)
Net charge 0
Opposite charged sides of photons are in synchronous orbit
In this case the magnetic fields and electrical fields of the orbiting photons alternate. The alternating fields explain why there is so little interaction between of other "particles" as there is a net charge of zero. The model also explains why the neutrino is its own anti particle. Spin is the only difference.
-
The formula for the speed of light is:v = c/n
Where:
v = velocity of light
c = speed of light in a vacuum with minimal space compression
n = the compression of space where a value of 1.0 is no compression/decompression
Note that n is similar to an index of refraction, so as spaced is compressed or decompressed, the speed of light changes. For space compression, the value of n < 1.0 and for decompression, the value of n > 1.0.
Here is a graphical representation of how a photon affects the space around it with hypothetical n values:
(https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=8313&c=ACCT89456&h=836557b9cd7a2577eddd)
In decompressed space, the speed of light is less than c and in compressed space, the speed of light is greater than c.
If the photon has a small enough wave length, it can compress space enough so it can trap another photon in orbit. If the two photons are the same wavelength, they will trap each other and remain in a stable orbit.
This is what creates matter.
-
To create a photon pair, the space compression has to be so that the velocity on the inside of the photon has to be proportionally slower than the velocity on the outside of the photon:
(https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=8316&c=ACCT89456&h=d8efecd0164990e0890a)
Assuming the distance between the photons is the wavelength, the time it takes the inside of the photon, point a, to orbit must equal the time it takes point b to orbit.
Calculating the velocities for each:va = π ½λ/t
vb = π 3/2λ/t
This results in:vb/va = (π 3/2λ/t)/(π ½λ/t)
Canceling like terms leaves:vb/va = 3
or
vb = 3va
The velocity at point b due to space compression must be 3 times greater than the velocity at point a. In terms of space compression (n):
va = c/na
vb = c/nb
Substituting:3c/na = c/nb
And canceling like terms leaves:na = 3nb
Or the space compression at point a must be 3 times the compression at point b.
The interesting thing is this will happen at a specific wavelength based on the properties of space which explains the quantum nature of matter. If the wavelength of the photons are not correct, the "particle" will decay and the photons will spiral out of orbit propagating in opposite directions. Sound familiar?
-
Can we see the derivation of the path of an orbit given this theory?
Let me know if this answers your question.
-
Explanation of Dark Matter:
I wanted to shed light on another explanation of dark matter. Since the Neutrino model is almost identical to the electron and positron, it must have the same effective mass. That means its mass is significantly under rated. Of course, how do you measure something with no net charge or net magnetic field?
This would explain all the extra "matter" in the universe the we cannot see - all those Neutrinos.