Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Vern on 11/01/2009 19:40:04
-
More Here (http://photontheory.com/newuniverse.html)
Imagine a universe made of electric and magnetic forces alone. We will show how Maxwell's account of nature operating within this universe can produce all else including gravity and the nuclear forces. In this imaginary universe all the rules of nature are just as we observe them in our own universe. A person placed in this new universe could not determine whether they were in this imaginary universe or our own.
Care to discuss, anyone?
Case One: Matter can change into photons. An electron and a positron will annihilate each other when they collide. Two photons come out of the collision. Each photon has the energy of one of the particles. This would necessarily happen if the electron and positron were made of photons. Necessarily means that if this did not happen, it would falsify the concept; Karl Popper can be happy since the concept is falsifiable. Alternatively, we have to assume the two particles hide themselves by some unknown method and generate energy equal to their mass in accord with E = mcc for some unknown reason. The later is philosophically flawed. It violates Occam's Razor.
Another quote from the link.
Case Six: Time slows for a moving object. Time dilation is a natural consequence of the photon construct of nature. The repetition rate of patterns in Atoms must slow when atoms move. This is because the overall distance a photon must move to remain in the pattern is greater when the containing object is moving. Since the photon is already moving at the speed of light and can't move any faster, it uses more time to complete the pattern. The repetition rate of these patterns is the final arbiter of time in all things. So time slows for a moving object. And knowing this, we can also know that the effect of the slowing of time is accumulative for the moving object. We can solve the so called "twin paradox" simply by knowing which twin moved the greater distance relative to the special fixed frame of reference in space. No matter that our instruments can't determine that fixed frame, it still must exist. Instruments can't detect it because all instruments are effected by movement just exactly as they would necessarily be effected if they were made of photons.
And Another
Case Nine: The electron has no solid core. All attempts to measure a size for an electron that is smaller than its classic electron diameter have shown that there is nothing there. This indicates that an electron only exists at its electromagnetic diameter. This would naturally and necessarily be the case if the electron were a one-photon particle. There is no philosophically sound alternative.
And Another:
Case Twelve: The Uncertainty Phenomena (http://photontheory.com/uncertain.html) is a natural consequence of the photon construct of matter as explained by the target of the link. It is caused by the natural tendency of resonance in photons. Resonance is dependent upon the phase relationship between an absorbing target and approaching photon. The approaching photon will bypass an out-of-phase target for an in-phase target even when the in-phase target is some distance away. And since a photon is only potential energy, any sensing of it must convert at least some of the potential energy to actual energy. This changes the photon as is observed in Uncertainty Phenomena. This is naturally and necessarily exactly what must happen in a photon construct for the universe.
-
Here is some evidence (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html) that the universe is comprised of photons alone. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, we would like to record it.
-
Now I'm getting really paranoid and don't know whether to click it or not...
-
Now I'm getting really paranoid and don't know whether to click it or not...
Go ahead and click[:)] This is light hearted stuff; you would think that one could easily find something in that falsifies that concept since it is so very restrictive. But it is not so easy. I've been trying to find it for many years now.
-
Here's evidence against (http://photontheory.com/EvidenceAgainst.html). The only thing we could come up with is that it is very difficult to make a neutrino by bending a photon into a charged pattern. The idea is that when the path of a photon is bent so much the forward part curls around to the back in the length of one wave length, a charged particle is formed.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fvern.gif&hash=c22996c1b3c68c693722af86eb9eafb9)
-
Here is some speculation (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) about how a photon-only universe might be put together.
-
Vernon, your idea is interesting.
But I have problems with seeing gravity as electro magnetic.
" Drop tests, with electromagnetic falling bodies
We examined in this experiment a possible coupling between the gravity field and the electromagnetic field. Experiments hereto were performed in 1993 by KELLY. He measured the falling time of equatorial plate, on which permanent magnets and reeling were fastened by different means. KELLY claimed, to have measured to a range of 60% longer time period, if, with the permanent magnets on the equatorial plate, a electromagnetic DC-field was produced.
The experiments of Kelly were reproduced at the IGF on the basis of his constructions. Kelly’s measuring results could not be reproduced. "
There are some other experiments there involving electro magnetism there too.
http://www.gravitation.org/institute_of_gravity_research/Experiments/experiments.html
As well as http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
That's only one paper to read, but the questions stated seems valid to me?
And you will need to be able to explain how gravity can act 'instantly'.
(That is, at least faster than light:)
-
Hi yor_on; thanks for the references; I'll study them and do more investigation. If gravity does operate instantaneously it causes problems with the photon-only universe scheme just as the existence of a neutrino particle is problematic.
-
It seems to me that you would need some sort of gravitational ' electromagnetic field' connecting all spacetime for it to work?
Like some sort of supra leading 'magnetic field' that will keep 'things' like Suns and Earths in 'place' not caring for any aberration:)
That might work, but if it would be electro-magnetic it seems to me that we should see effects of it in biological material etc.
-
Gravity according to Filbert Wagman (http://photontheory.com/filbertgrav.html)
The whole thing about Quantum Phenomena, the absolute cause of it, and there ain't nothing else that does cause it, is that the heart and soul of a photon is the littlest point they is and that point is electromagnetically saturated. It is a magnet as strong as a magnet can possibly be and it is an electric charge as strong as electric can possibly get. And since a single photon consists of two half cycles, each half cycle has its own point.
You had to know that so you can know how gravity works. You see, that same Quantum Phenomena is what causes gravity. The way it does cause it is that, the saturated point of a photon reaches saturation as it moves through the diminished small effect of the charge fields of all other photons in the universe. That makes the point get to saturation amplitude closer toward the strongest effect of the combined fields.
So, actually, gravity is really just Quantum Phenomena. The root of it is the saturation amplitude of photons. They ain't but just so much amplitude space can support for the electric and magnetic charges of a photon. If you think on it awhile you will see that Planck's constant takes up half of that available amplitude, and gravity takes up the other half. That's how you get gravity out of light. That's how Quantum Phenomena makes gravity happen.
Please excuse the backwoods twist of Filbert Wagman; it is his style. But if you can get through that it explains the electromagnetic gravity scheme.
-
Well, it's possible:)
You need to find a verifiable experiment to be done for it though.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/scientists_find_evidence_for_artifical_gravity_10282.html
-
although they seem to be referring to two phenomena at the same time.
Gravitation and the spinning superconductors magnetic field.
that 'gravitation' is produced by spinning objects is well known (frame dragging).
But it's interesting all the same.
-
One way out of the problem could be to assume the photon's surrounding fields exist outward forever diminished by distance with no delay involved. The fields could be called virtual photons to keep from straining present thinking.
-
Well, I was wondering about that:)
How many photons would one need to 'saturate' spacetime?
It would be easier perhaps to see photons as 'probabilities' existing everywhere, until observation, that is.
Then you could see that as a analogue to your 'virtual photons' and also as a field existing at all times (except when observed:).
Very strange:)
But so are virtual particles.
And they seem to exist...
------
OK (Awh:)
Virtual photons was it::))
Nevermind Nomatter my new middlename...
Sort of.
-
It would be easier perhaps to see photons as 'probabilities' existing everywhere, until observation, that is.
Then you could see that as a analogue to your 'virtual photons' and also as a field existing at all times (except when observed:).
It might be that we could couple probability theory (QM) to photon-only theory by describing a photon that way. But my mind hurts just thinking about it [:)]
Edit: This link seems to confirm (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077353/) my original thinking about the speed of the propagation of the effects of gravity.
-
Well, you're not alone:)
It do give 'empty space' some truly mystical properties.
When traveling through it we would be traveling in / through / in a sharp angle to / the probability of ??? a 'photon sea' and also containing an 'hidden energy'?
Or would they be the same under those circumstances??
Yep, the headache:)
-
Did you see my Edit: I found this site that reports the results of the 2003 experiment.
This link seems to confirm (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077353/) my original thinking about the speed of the propagation of the effects of gravity.
-
Did you see my Edit: I found this site that reports the results of the 2003 experiment.
This link seems to confirm (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077353/) my original thinking about the speed of the propagation of the effects of gravity.
Yes, I think that the propagation follows 'c' too.
But I see it also as a 'jello field':)
Like invisible 'strands/net/jello' connecting space, created by the presence of matter.
And depending on where you are, matter/acceleration-wise, it will present you with a different 'time' to every 'frame'.
Like a invisible mosaic giving us a 'whole' due to space's ability to give us those three dimensions.
To me matter is a macroscopic phenomena creating both space and (the arrow we see in) 'time'.
To me that makes sense.
And what we call motion and acceleration is a subset of what comes into play when matter has 'coagulated'.
So according to my idea (very vauge one though:) you first have a 'singularity', meaning something not explainable, not by me any way:)
From that you will have quantum phenomena without an arrow (time).
That may allow for an 'inflation'?
But when 'matter' starts to 'coagulate', times arrow comes into play with what we call 'space' creating '3D' and 'distance', as a function of matter. And with distance we have motion as well as acceleration.
Seen that way gravity is a subset of matter creation, similar to a field, but due to the macroscopic properties of matter. And we see it as a 'whole' spacetime, as it is a 'whole' when finished::))
And photons will then be what still is here, the visible (quantum) description of what 'is' on a macroscopic level.
And momentum will then not be 'matter' but a predecessor to it.
So to me what we have macroscopically compared to what exists quantum-wise is either a subset or, if one like, somewhat like a fractal, opening for a richer 'symmetry'.
And we are what 'binds' it together when experiencing it?
It doesn't really explain anything, does it:)
Well, maybe my state of mind:)
So in a way we seem to see the same phenomena, ah, perhaps?
But you go out from a primary wave patterned explanation, using electro magnetism as a common nominator if I understand you rightly?
I see it as a geometrical phenomena firstly.
And don't really know where it gets its 'energy' from.
Maybe that's why string theory is so fascinating?
With its one dimensional strings ::))
-
I haven't seen nature described as you describe it; but nothing wrong with that; what ever makes you comfortable [:)] I like to think about things as cause and effect; that's what makes me comfortable.
Bending the path of a photon causes the electromagnetic field. The Fine Structure Constant is the ratio of the charge amplitude to the bend radius.
Bend the path into a complete circle at the right frequency produces an electron. Bend 3 photons like such that each successive circle produces mass that is the square of the next shell out and you make (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fvern.gif&hash=c22996c1b3c68c693722af86eb9eafb9) a proton. The middle shell is smaller then one dot at this scale.
-
Don't take it to seriously, what i wrote Vern.
It's very approximative and I will definitely change my mind an awful lot of times on this one.
And I don't think it collide with your ideas.
As the energy creating it easily could be seen as waves.
Although photons to me have a 'real' duality, both as waves and and as particles.
But you said that you saw them as having 'paths' if i got it right?
How then do you see their 'particle like' structure.
'Gravity' was a result of the photons saturation/interactions with other photons, right?
Do you have an idea of how matter might 'appear' from photons too?
-
Don't take it to seriously, what i wrote Vern.
It's very approximative and I will definitely change my mind an awful lot of times on this one.
And I don't think it collide with your ideas.
As the energy creating it easily could be seen as waves.
Although photons to me have a 'real' duality, both as waves and and as particles.
But you said that you saw them as having 'paths' if i got it right?
How then do you see their 'particle like' structure.
'Gravity' was a result of the photons saturation/interactions with other photons, right?
Do you have an idea of how matter might 'appear' from photons too?
To me the duality of a photon results from it being a saturated point of maximum electromagnetic amplitude surrounded by electromagnetic fields that diminish with distance away from the points. At first I thought the saturated points would appear as particles and the surrounding fields would appear as waves. It would not be either a particle or a wave. It would be both all the time.
However Dr. Robert Kemp (http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html) convinced me that it is the maxima of the rate of change of the fields that would seem to be particles. The saturated points would just mark the path of the photon. Dr Kemp insists that mass is nothing more than electromagnetic change and he cites the equation E = hv / cc as proof of that.
-
You write "the maxima of the rate of change of the fields"
Is there just one 'frequency' to that 'rate of change'?
I can see why it may make sense to split photons interaction into two 'parts'
If you want them to be responsible for both 'gravity' and 'matter'.
Another problem I have though is that if photons somehow create 'matter', how then do you treat motion.
We are made of 'matter' as a lot of other 'moving' things in spacetime.
Do you see it as photons constantly interact with us, or as some sort of 'standing wave' phenomena that uphold our 'material' structure in our three dimensional world?
Hope I made myself clear now:)
-
Another problem I have though is that if photons somehow create 'matter', how then do you treat motion.
Photons don't "somehow" create matter. Photons create matter by being trapped in a resonant pattern; you could call it a standing wave except it is not bouncing back and forth; it is resonating in a circle one wave length in circumference.
Motion is simply a group of such patterns moving through space. The photons still exist in the patterns and are all moving as fast as they can go; the speed of light. Movement then must distort a massive object. This is the cause of relativity phenomena.
-
Ok Vern.
You said "Motion is simply a group of such patterns moving through space."
How do they get trapped in that 'resonant pattern'?
It's like there are several different motions, all at the same time.
You have the photons 'resonant pattern' moving, then, on a macroscopic plane, you have the motion of that said object.
So you have photons creating matter as well as gravity.
And you have spacetime wherein this takes place?
Or am I looking at it wrongly?
-
Ok Vern.
You said "Motion is simply a group of such patterns moving through space."
How do they get trapped in that 'resonant pattern'?
It's like there are several different motions, all at the same time.
You have the photons 'resonant pattern' moving, then, on a macroscopic plane, you have the motion of that said object.
So you have photons creating matter as well as gravity.
And you have spacetime wherein this takes place?
Or am I looking at it wrongly?
I went back through how I arrived at my present view of nature. Here it is (http://photontheory.com/MyOwn.html) in the order that I was afflicted by it [:)] The answer to all your questions are in there. The very first thing is the cause of electromagnetic charge. It results from bending the path of a photon etc. etc.
-
Ok, I will read up on it some more:)
But I'm still curious to if you differ between our (3D space and time) and photons/gravity/matter?
-
Ok, I will read up on it some more:)
But I'm still curious to if you differ between our (3D space and time) and photons/gravity/matter?
Nope; I'm a 3D space and time guy; three dimensions of space and one of time. But my space and time are fixed in the classic sense. There is a special frame of reference; it probably is the frame of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.
-
Quote from the evidence (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html) that the universe is made of photons alone.
Case Six: Time slows for a moving object. Time dilation is a natural consequence of the photon construct of nature. The repetition rate of patterns in Atoms must slow when atoms move. This is because the overall distance a photon must move to remain in the pattern is greater when the containing object is moving. Since the photon is already moving at the speed of light and can't move any faster, it uses more time to complete the pattern. The repetition rate of these patterns is the final arbiter of time in all things. So time slows for a moving object. And knowing this, we can also know that the effect of the slowing of time is accumulative for the moving object. We can solve the so called "twin paradox" simply by knowing which twin moved the greater distance relative to the special fixed frame of reference in space. No matter that our instruments can't determine that fixed frame, it still must exist. Instruments can't detect it because all instruments are effected by movement just exactly as they would necessarily be effected if they were made of photons.
-
Vern can you implementation ground broken experiment for the mainstreams about tired quantum to produce red-shifted Sun’s spectrum. It needs few thousand dollars. You can call your friends to help you. I see you have good knowledge in physics.
If you are agreeing please send me your CV, or shortly who are you. By E-mail only.
Good luck!
-
Vern can you implementation ground broken experiment for the mainstreams about tired quantum to produce red-shifted Sun’s spectrum. It needs few thousand dollars. You can call your friends to help you. I see you have good knowledge in physics.
If you are agreeing please send me your CV, or shortly who are you. By E-mail only.
Good luck!
I suspect that any experiment in support of tired light would be attacked and dismissed by the mainstream. We have generally concluded that the Big Bang is a creationist theory, and just as the mainstream does not attack religion, we do not attack the Big Bang religion (theory)
-
If you are agreeing please send me your CV, or shortly who are you. By E-mail only.
Good luck!
Just Google for Vernon and Linda Brown
We'll be right on top. For my photonic schemes, just Google for Brown Photonic Theory
And the web site link will be right on top.
-
It seems to me that you would need some sort of gravitational ' electromagnetic field' connecting all spacetime for it to work?
Like some sort of supra leading 'magnetic field' that will keep 'things' like Suns and Earths in 'place' not caring for any aberration:)
That might work, but if it would be electro-magnetic it seems to me that we should see effects of it in biological material etc.
Yes; it seems that there needs to be an all invasive field for gravity to work. In QED we call the field virtual particles. The particles can remain virtual only if they exist for such a short time that they can't be detected. I can understand the QED concept, but I don't really see the benefit of exchanging the field for virtual particles.
The field strength of a field might govern whether it reacts directly with local matter. If there is no direct reaction, it can be all invasive. Even though the field doesn't react directly, it can still contribute toward the saturation amplitude of photons moving through it.
-
Vern, i have a theory which can collaborate yours mathematically. Willing to see it?
-
Vern, i have a theory which can collaborate yours mathematically. Willing to see it?
Sure; I'm always interested in new theories, even wild hypothesis [:)]
-
Professor Willis Thompson (http://photontheory.com/willis.html) saw an early copy of my Photonic Theory of Everything (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) and wrote a paper about it. It is not surprising that it did not muster peer review at Nature. We suspected it would be another 200 years before science progressed through the present theories to get back to where they were in the early 1900's.
The following is Thompson's abstract from the link:
The main ideas of the paper are:
1) An electron is created when a gamma ray of very high frequency interacts with a similar ray under a minimum energy condition. The gamma ray is bent so strongly that it forms a stable resonating circle. An equation to find the diameter of the electron from its mass is derived from three other basic equations. The diameter of the electron is found to be several orders of magnitude larger than previously accepted.
2) In terms of electron mass taken equal to unity, by the Photon Theory, the total mass of the proton and that of the neutron are found to agree with past measurements; however, there are two new inner photon shells in each of the particles which have not been acknowledged or named.
3) The charge of an electron develops from asymmetry when the photon goes into resonance. There is recent experimental evidence of this. Single photons are now trapped in resonant cavities and found to exhibit electric charge.
4) The electromagnetic amplitude available at any one point in space is the maximum value equal to Planck's constant.
5) "Massive" objects are comprised only of photons. The mutual attraction of "masses" is explained.
6) Wave-particle duality is explained as the observation of maxima of waves, which previously have been assumed to be particles.
7) A red shift of certain spectrum lines is described by partial absorption of photons, contradicting the part of Quantum Mechanics, which states that only complete photons can be absorbed.
8) The universe is in a steady-state condition- where photons are being continuously changed into mass and vice versa. This opposes the expansion theory of the universe (the "big bang"). However, it is not the same as The Hoyle Steady-State Theory, wherein mass is created from nothing.
9) Ultimately, all mass and energy are effects of the time variant cause, photon action. This does not allow the existence of a massive neutrino. Neutrinos must be mass less.
10) The theory exhibits complementarity with Einstein's principle of special relativity except Postulate 2 (inertial frame of reference) and complementarity with Quantum Mechanics except for the item referred in (7) above.