The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is Photonic Theory possible?  (Read 24468 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #25 on: 13/04/2009 07:53:11 »
So is photonic theory true?

Originally it was called Luxon Theory, and the farthest back i can track the origin of the theory was by Newton in his book of optics;

Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another, and may not Bodies receive much of their Activity from the particles of Light which enter their Composition?
The changing of Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies, is very conformable to the Course of Nature, which seems delighted with Transmutations. [...] And among such various and strange transmutations, why may not Nature change Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies?

IsaacNewton - Optics 1704, Book Three, Part 1 Qu.30

Truely a man beyond his times.

I am of course, an aadvocator to the theory of Luxon-Only universe, and I don't mind posting the contention that photons where made to create rest matter.

Not only have we created matter from two photons, it is possible to see a unique nature where two of the ''same things'' or near identical objects can collesce to create stranger systems. Take other examples of other systems made up of other systems. It's not unheard of. We have glueballs, made up of gluon luxon particles. The positronium consists of an electron and a positron in momentum inside the particle itself.

The same goes for the picture of particles with rest mass. They consist of energy: photon energy to be precise. We know this, because of the matter-antimatter process of releasing their fundamental componants. Two gamma rays of energy. It was from this logic, which led me to the suspicion that for any matter to appear, it must not only appear with an antipartner, but the least energy it would require was the E^2. It seems that when two particles of photons can collide and create matter in a slice of spacetime, the energy becomes entangled, not the particles created themselves. This might be a strange perceptual way to look at entanglement, but the entanglement of energy is much more simplified than looking directly at the physical entity itelf, since the corporeality is by definition equal to the energy of the photon, not the mass in general.

Now, i had a suspicion that a single photon is not enough to convert into rest mass. You see, in Quantum Chromodynamics, quarks can come together, but actually have in their final state, less mass than what they originally constituted to the production of a proton, let's say. What's happened?

It turns out, that E=Mc^2 plays all the difference. The quarks actually give up energy to come together, and the excess energy is then converted into gluon energy, hence gluons are also Chromodynamical. Another example, at sufficiently high enough temperatures, which occur naturally inside the interior of stars, light nuclei ''fuse'' together to form heavier ones. The process happens in a series of four steps. Four H^1 nuclei fuss to form an H^4 nucleus, and the mass of the H^4 nucleus is slightly less than four times the mass of the H^1. It is consequently because of this, for an amount of energy is released according to E=Mc^2.

We may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.

The Nuetrino problem

I noticed Vern did cite the problem of the Nuetrino. I offer a solution which can proove that nuetrino's can be the by-product of a ''product'' made of photon energy. The decay of tritium through nucleosynthesized processes can possibly create nuetrino's. We know that trituim is made of very basic objects which are made up of rest energy, and therefore, photon energy as well. Could it be that nuetrino's are create as a by-product of matter that can also reduce back to that matter, which is made of photons and interact with electric fields? (1) From this we can see that we can make nuetrino's from photons, but these photons for conceptuality is nothing but different forms of trapped light.


Neutrino's could be the by-product of matter that is the by-product of photons. Is the neutrino a tachyon?

We have all heard of the hypothetical particles called tachyons. They have a rest mass M that also has an imaginary value (M^2<0). It turns out that E=Mg, the observable mass-energy of these light weight particles, becomes ''real'' and ''positive''. If a particle was able to defy the light-speed barrier so that v was greater than c, (v>c) , then both g and E would become imaginary quantities, because would be larger than 1 and (1- ^2) would be negative.

We can by theory create neutrinos from the decay of tritium. The basic underlining rule is through the relativistic relation between energy and momentum ... and we find out that it is mass squared that works out the neutrino mass from tritium decay... but this mass squared can be seen in light of either a positive result or a negative result, and if it is a tachyon, containing a very light weight amount of imaginary matter of about , there is the big problem that nothing fruitful will arise out of this... because the theorists do not believe its qualities would be observable or known.

So neutrino's could be a phenomena arising from matter that does come from a direct flux of photon energy. This is a possible solution to show that in general, neutrino's are not independant of the electric field by ultimate origin, so the problem vanishes.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #26 on: 13/04/2009 12:56:48 »
Quote from: Ethos
Interesting posibility.............How would we go about justifing this position?
We would need to somehow find that gamma radiation in beta decay is an amount equal to the missing mass. When a neutron decays, we find a proton and an electron in the by-products. The difference between proton and neutron mass is about 2.5 electron masses. The emitted electron and proton have kinetic energy but never enough to account for the 1.5 electrons worth of missing mass. So we would need to find gamma radiation in the amount of the missing mass.
« Last Edit: 13/04/2009 13:50:21 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #27 on: 13/04/2009 13:21:31 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
We may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.
I'm not sure that we expect that many photons need to come together to create an electron and positron. Using many photons in the reaction increases the probability that two photons of sufficient energy may interact. I suspect that only two photons of the correct energy and phase relationship would be required. :)

The neutrino is a problem because we can't build one out of a photon curled into a circle. It would have to be a composite of an even number of shells in order to be neutral. I can find no combination of shells for a neutrino that would follow the same rules that produce the electron, proton, and neutron.
« Last Edit: 13/04/2009 13:48:57 by Vern »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #28 on: 13/04/2009 13:55:21 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
We may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.
I'm not sure that we expect that many photons need to come together to create an electron and positron. Using many photons in the reaction increases the probability that two photons of sufficient energy may interact. I suspect that only two photons of the correct energy and phase relationship would be required. :)

The neutrino is a problem because we can't build one out of a photon curled into a circle. It would have to be a composite of an even number of shells in order to be neutral. I can find no combination of shells for a neutrino that would follow the same rules that produce the electron, proton, and neutron.

Hi friend,

What was meant by this passage, was simply conversational factors. Whilst i am absolutely 100% that a lower expactency value of energy is simply \lambda E^2, (as you rightly agree with), there must be, in some cases where many photons come together and mangle not only the creation of an electron and a positron, but could release a new type of decay of a third particle, let's say, between the interaction of three photons. To understand what i mean, this was why i stated this:

''It turns out, that E=Mc^2 plays all the difference. The quarks actually give up energy to come together, and the excess energy is then converted into gluon energy, hence gluons are also Chromodynamical. Another example, at sufficiently high enough temperatures, which occur naturally inside the interior of stars, light nuclei ''fuse'' together to form heavier ones. The process happens in a series of four steps. Four H^1 nuclei fuss to form an H^4 nucleus, and the mass of the H^4 nucleus is slightly less than four times the mass of the H^1. It is consequently because of this, for an amount of energy is released according to E=Mc^2.''

So in effect, we could expect a bombardment of many photons giving up their energy to flux into a more solid type of energy, whilst other synthesis processes could be involved in a loss of energy to other matter.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #29 on: 13/04/2009 13:59:25 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
We may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.
I'm not sure that we expect that many photons need to come together to create an electron and positron. Using many photons in the reaction increases the probability that two photons of sufficient energy may interact. I suspect that only two photons of the correct energy and phase relationship would be required. :)

The neutrino is a problem because we can't build one out of a photon curled into a circle. It would have to be a composite of an even number of shells in order to be neutral. I can find no combination of shells for a neutrino that would follow the same rules that produce the electron, proton, and neutron.

You know, the idea behind this part is very interesting. I would need to time to accumilate it. I am already lumming over it right now, but i promise to give some kind of answer, even if it satisfies your problem or not, i promise i will provide some answer, one that will stay as scientifically correct as possible, because it seems i misunderstood your paradox, which made me give the information i gave previously and erreneously to your case.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #30 on: 13/04/2009 14:15:17 »
Since you propose to dwell upon it, let me state the problem a little more completely.

I know that there is some equation, not yet derived, that can equate the Fine Structure Constant to a bend radius in the path of a photon. This equation will show that the force on the outside of a circle equal to the electron's wave length is equal to the electric charge of an electron. The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron. The amount of force for the strong nuclear interaction will be found in these greater forces.

Now, this same equation would need to apply to a neutrino. I can see no way that it could apply to a neutrino.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #31 on: 13/04/2009 14:25:35 »
Since you propose to dwell upon it, let me state the problem a little more completely.

I know that there is some equation, not yet derived, that can equate the Fine Structure Constant to a bend radius in the path of a photon. This equation will show that the force on the outside of a circle equal to the electron's wave length is equal to the electric charge of an electron. The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron. The amount of force for the strong nuclear interaction will be found in these greater forces.

Now, this same equation would need to apply to a neutrino. I can see no way that it could apply to a neutrino.

Mm... I will try and work out some kind of mathematical basis, but if i can't, are you open to the idea the neutrino is massless? I know it's been mathematically shown to have a mass, but it truely is surprising how many times physics have claimed something, only to find a non-corresponding factor?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #32 on: 13/04/2009 14:37:32 »
Since you propose to dwell upon it, let me state the problem a little more completely.

I know that there is some equation, not yet derived, that can equate the Fine Structure Constant to a bend radius in the path of a photon. This equation will show that the force on the outside of a circle equal to the electron's wave length is equal to the electric charge of an electron. The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron. The amount of force for the strong nuclear interaction will be found in these greater forces.

Now, this same equation would need to apply to a neutrino. I can see no way that it could apply to a neutrino.

Since you propose to dwell upon it, let me state the problem a little more completely.

I know that there is some equation, not yet derived, that can equate the Fine Structure Constant to a bend radius in the path of a photon. This equation will show that the force on the outside of a circle equal to the electron's wave length is equal to the electric charge of an electron. The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron. The amount of force for the strong nuclear interaction will be found in these greater forces.

Now, this same equation would need to apply to a neutrino. I can see no way that it could apply to a neutrino.

Hi, vern.... brain is going crazy here, but i ask admirably: You said

''The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron.''

But what if the electron is really not the smallest unit of mass, because of dimensional factors that of nature of contraction? Such as the Lorentz-Spin contraction, and then given the speed it moves linearly through spacetime may give the electron a structure larger than the next known largest particle... i think it's the muon... my memory serves me bad here. However, if your contentions are correct, then your hypothesis should make absolutely logical sense, because the standard model states the electron as the smallest unit of matter known.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #33 on: 13/04/2009 14:40:49 »
Yes; the neutrino can be massless and not pose a problem for the photonic theory. But then, it would simply be a gamma-ray photon. It can masquerade as a particle by being spin polarized. If the spin completed in an even number of wave lengths, it might propagate as a neutral particle and not react easily with matter.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #34 on: 13/04/2009 14:46:41 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
But what if the electron is really not the smallest unit of mass, because of dimensional factors that of nature of contraction? Such as the Lorentz-Spin contraction, and then given the speed it moves linearly through spacetime may give the electron a structure larger than the next known largest particle... i think it's the muon... my memory serves me bad here. However, if your contentions are correct, then your hypothesis should make absolutely logical sense, because the standard model states the electron as the smallest unit of matter known.
In the photonic scheme, the electron would be the smallest unit of mass. It would be one quantum of energy occupying a shell the circumference of an electron's wave length. This would make the electron the largest of the elementary particles.

The size of the electron was not experimentally determined because the energy probes were always too great. The energy would need to be on the order of 1 MeV or less to avoid punching right through the electron.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #35 on: 13/04/2009 15:03:17 »
Yes; the neutrino can be massless and not pose a problem for the photonic theory. But then, it would simply be a gamma-ray photon. It can masquerade as a particle by being spin polarized. If the spin completed in an even number of wave lengths, it might propagate as a neutral particle and not react easily with matter.

''masquerade as a particle by being spin polarized''

Did you notice how close this was to my theory that the photon can flux into matter (almost as if it is ''fluttering'' in the field with a slower speed defined as a ratio of rest mass? It seems that for a massless boson such as a nuetrino to exist could have a mass that it actually a perturbation of the gravitational field (thus matter being an innate property of the field itself) but only when momentum is concieved?

My conclusion, so far, is that it is possible to have a nuetrino move through space with mass, but when stationary, (if that is even possible for matter), would then exhibit its pure energy state, as much like you theorized? I mean, we both know this is speculation so far, but so far in general, i've proven that charge and the planck time are closely related (even more so than the original derivations of Planck), but what is even more interesting is your thesis or idea if you like, on the neutrino not having a mass. This could all be, in short, inexorably dependable.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #36 on: 13/04/2009 16:11:41 »
I like the idea that the neutrino might be a spin polarized gamma ray photon. The angular momentum would derive from the spin of the outer photon shell of a neutron. The spin would decrease the probability that its phase relationship would coincide with that of matter. This would make it less likely to react.

Yes; this is all purely speculative. It's fun to speculate; sometimes it leads to some good solid ideas.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #37 on: 13/04/2009 23:49:25 »
I like the idea that the neutrino might be a spin polarized gamma ray photon. The angular momentum would derive from the spin of the outer photon shell of a neutron. The spin would decrease the probability that its phase relationship would coincide with that of matter. This would make it less likely to react.

Yes; this is all purely speculative. It's fun to speculate; sometimes it leads to some good solid ideas.

Indeed.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #38 on: 19/04/2009 18:11:56 »
An example of pure speculation leading to something that may have more wide ranging implications is the contemplation of how gravity might affect gravity in the formation of a black hole. Since time is part of the equation for gravitational acceleration and time is dilated in strong gravitational fields, gravitational acceleration must also be reduced in strong gravitational fields.

Then this fact might be useful in understanding the anomaly we see in some galaxies where the outer stars move too fast. The effect described above would cause a gravitational depression toward the centre of massive galaxies. There would be a halo effect where more gravity than expected would concentrate in the outer reaches of the galaxy.

I started this thread to explore the notion.
« Last Edit: 19/04/2009 19:15:51 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #39 on: 01/05/2009 14:15:59 »
Quote
If this registers at all......even in vestige ...i would like to continue to expound on my postulate(s). Refer to picture illustration attached
It was difficult for me to find self-consistent reasoning in your post.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #40 on: 01/05/2009 20:39:23 »
Maybe I should just say I don't understand what you are posting about. And after reading a paragraph several times without getting its meaning, I give up and skip the rest of the post.

Edit: For lurkers who can't make any sense out of this post, it refers to a post that seems to have been deleted by the poster. :) It is just as well. I couldn't make any sense of it.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2009 23:44:18 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #41 on: 06/06/2009 13:48:23 »
Quote from: Ethos
Interesting posibility.............How would we go about justifing this position?
It would have to be a mathematical construct, I suspect. I can't think of any way to create such a gamma ray photon. But I suspect it would be spin polarized and the spin would restrict its interactions.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #42 on: 06/06/2009 20:52:27 »

A neutrino particle, if it exists, would be fatal to the concept. This whole concept is based upon the premise that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. I have never seen a way to reduce a neutrino particle to an electromagnetic field.

According to my understanding, there have been several experiments that insist upon the neutrino's existence. However, above and beyound that issue, about your inquiry as to the electromagnetic character of the neutrino, I found this information that may be of interest to you: 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part4/section-3.html

Hopefully, this may hold some answers to help with your investigation.

As a side; I have always believed that the neutrino has rest mass. I've never been comfortable with the dismissal for the conservation of energy.

BTW, I still think your theory can work because I feel certain the neutrino has electromagnetic characteristics..........Ethos


  I have no problem with neutrinos in my neutron theory. However according to my neutron theory, the electron splits from a singularity in the Bohr orbit (single quark) to three quarks in the neutron. At the radius of 1.9077E-15, the electrical energy put into the three quarks is
  E = KQ/R = 0.754817MEV

The neutrino energy is only
  Neutrino energy = 0.78230-0.754817 MEV = 0.027484 MEV

  Therefore the neutrino is only a small amount of photonic energy.
  In my Quantum states of the Neutron theory, there are 104 stable neutron states of the split electron. Therefore the neutrons will absorb and radiate neutrino energy on the average of approximately 29percent of what has been calculated as the 0.78230MEV.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #43 on: 07/06/2009 19:04:14 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
I have no problem with neutrinos in my neutron theory. However according to my neutron theory, the electron splits from a singularity in the Bohr orbit (single quark) to three quarks in the neutron. At the radius of 1.9077E-15, the electrical energy put into the three quarks is
  E = KQ/R = 0.754817MEV
It took me a while on this one. I mistook your use of the word singularity to mean what we normally use it to mean in the scientific community. Now I see that you mean that the electron splits from a single quark. It is a difficult concept for me to grasp.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #44 on: 07/06/2009 20:39:09 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
I have no problem with neutrinos in my neutron theory. However according to my neutron theory, the electron splits from a singularity in the Bohr orbit (single quark) to three quarks in the neutron. At the radius of 1.9077E-15, the electrical energy put into the three quarks is
  E = KQ/R = 0.754817MEV
It took me a while on this one. I mistook your use of the word singularity to mean what we normally use it to mean in the scientific community. Now I see that you mean that the electron splits from a single quark. It is a difficult concept for me to grasp.

  The electron is a strange animal. In the double slit experiment we see that it splits into several parts. We see that it can travel anywhere. Thus each part of the electron can reach the speed of light like a photon. Thus the electron can be here right now and a million miles away a few seconds from now.

  The proton is basically a particle but the electron is more photon than a particle. Therefore it tends to be a single plane like the photon.
In the hydrogen atom it looks like a wave around the proton. The electron readily splits into three parts. Yet all three parts are basically the same.

   The mathematical problem we are faced with for the neutron is that the spin of the neutron is the same as the proton. Therefore when additional electrical energy is added to the electron to bring it into the proton, its spin becomes zero.
   How can we do this? The only way is for the electron to split into three parts. The vector sum of the angular momentums then equals zero. Problem solved. The other problem is that the magnetic moment of the split electron must equal (1.4 + 0.9)E-26 in order to produce a -0.9E-26 for the neutron.
   Unless you split the electron into three parts, you will not achieve zero angular momentum and a very tiny mangetic momentum vector for the electron in the neutron's orbit.
  Thus between the double slit experiment and the necessity for zero angular momentum and the proper magnetic moment, necessitated the electron to split into three parts within the neutron.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #45 on: 08/06/2009 13:00:32 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
The proton is basically a particle but the electron is more photon than a particle. Therefore it tends to be a single plane like the photon.
In the hydrogen atom it looks like a wave around the proton. The electron readily splits into three parts. Yet all three parts are basically the same.
I don't remember anything about the electron splitting into three parts. It basically destructs into a photon of .511 MeV, usually by collision with its counterpart, the positron.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #46 on: 08/06/2009 14:31:52 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
The proton is basically a particle but the electron is more photon than a particle. Therefore it tends to be a single plane like the photon.
In the hydrogen atom it looks like a wave around the proton. The electron readily splits into three parts. Yet all three parts are basically the same.
I don't remember anything about the electron splitting into three parts. It basically destructs into a photon of .511 MeV, usually by collision with its counterpart, the positron.

  The splitting is  part of my theory of the neutron. It also agrees with the results of the double slit experiment in which the electron appears to pass through both slits simultaneously and interfere with itself.
   If the electron readily splits into three parts in the neutron, then the angular momentum vectors would be zero. However the magnetic moment vectors would be different for the neutron as long as the three parts had small differences in charge.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #47 on: 08/06/2009 15:47:17 »
The double slit experiment is also consistent with the electron being comprised of a single photon resonating in a tight loop :)
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #48 on: 08/06/2009 17:15:11 »
The double slit experiment is also consistent with the electron being comprised of a single photon resonating in a tight loop :)

could you explain what you mean by that? I read the words but I cannot understand what you mean.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #49 on: 08/06/2009 18:56:33 »
I view the photon as two points of electromagnetic saturation surrounded by electric and magnetic fields. The fields occupy a spacial area and propel the photon through space. Interaction is most probable at the points and exponentially less probable away from the points. An electron is a photon trapped in a resonant pattern. The fields are still present and can interfere when some of the fields go through one slit and some of the fields go through the other.

This is a model of a neutron of this construct
« Last Edit: 08/06/2009 19:00:58 by Vern »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #49 on: 08/06/2009 18:56:33 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums