The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is Photonic Theory possible?  (Read 24477 times)

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #50 on: 08/06/2009 20:57:50 »
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


  What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields
(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that  there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.
  In a similar manner the proton is held together by three force vectors which balance to zero at the Plank radius. It is just a simple photonic/ electric force which holds the proton together. there is no need for anything fancy. Pure simple vectors do the job.

  As far as the electron being a photon, I agree. It is an electro-photon or a charged photon. It will form a circular wave around the proton. It is not a simple ball of energy.

  I do not agree with you on the double slit explanation. One could argue that the electron fields interact with the slits to produce  resonant fields in other electrons and these will cause the interference patterns.

  However I like the quantum explanation ever since I split the electron into three equal parts for the neutron.
  Therefore from this theory, the neutron is really a different hydrogen atom. Instead of one electron spinning around the Bohr orbit we have three mini-electrons spinning around the neutron orbit. Think about that!
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #51 on: 08/06/2009 21:08:45 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields
(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that  there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.
Yes; the photon is propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields. The propelling mechanism is the changing amplitude of the fields. The photon interacts at points because its construct is two saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude. The greatest potential for reaction is at the points, but it can react at an offset depending upon the phase dynamics of its reaction partner.



« Last Edit: 08/06/2009 21:11:59 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #52 on: 08/06/2009 21:18:01 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
However I like the quantum explanation ever since I split the electron into three equal parts for the neutron.
  Therefore from this theory, the neutron is really a different hydrogen atom. Instead of one electron spinning around the Bohr orbit we have three mini-electrons spinning around the neutron orbit. Think about that!
It is interesting but it can't work according to the model I developed. I have the electron comprised of a single photon locked in a circle. The circumference is equal to the wave length of the comprising photon. This makes the electron physically larger than protons and neutrons. Several protons and neutrons could fit inside the electron shell.

Here is a neutron inside an electron; it is to scale.


Here is a proton inside an electron; it is to scale also.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2009 21:21:20 by Vern »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #53 on: 08/06/2009 21:24:50 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields
(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that  there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.
Yes; the photon is propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields. The propelling mechanism is the changing amplitude of the fields. The photon interacts at points because its construct is two saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude. The greatest potential for reaction is at the points, but it can react at an offset depending upon the phase dynamics of its reaction partner.





Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving. The electrical self propulsion idea only came to me the last few months. Then I saw that the photon was an electrical motor device. so we have a standard electrical motor which moves through space-time. It is a one plane gyroscope.
  Mass then is a three plane gyroscope. Can you make a three plane picture? Then you will have a basic particle! (That will be rough to do but perhaps you can do it.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #54 on: 08/06/2009 21:30:35 »
Do you mean put it in three dimensions? Yes; I could do it; it might take awhile.

Here is the source code for the neutron model
Here is the class library for the source code
You also need the SDL class library for Linux. Compile with g++ neutrons.cpp -l SDL

« Last Edit: 08/06/2009 21:33:55 by Vern »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #55 on: 08/06/2009 23:07:21 »
Do you mean put it in three dimensions? Yes; I could do it; it might take awhile.

Here is the source code for the neutron model
Here is the class library for the source code
You also need the SDL class library for Linux. Compile with g++ neutrons.cpp -l SDL



 Yes three dimensions but your pictures look three dimensional. So if you could approximate a regular three dimensional drawing on 2 dimensional board.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #56 on: 08/06/2009 23:47:26 »
What I would really like to make is a model of space. It is empty nothingness but with the properties of permittivity and permeability. Those two properties allow electric and magnetic fields to propagate. I would like to place a disturbance in that space and watch it propagate. This would be a model of all of nature comprised only of empty space and its two properties. I envision each point in space sensing its immediately adjacent point and responding in accord with it. The outcome must model the electromagnetic field, but must do so without any added input. It must simply be each point sampling its neighbour and providing a fixed response to its neighbour's action.

Quote
Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving.
The software actually produces animated schematics.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2009 23:53:36 by Vern »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #57 on: 09/06/2009 02:37:35 »
What I would really like to make is a model of space. It is empty nothingness but with the properties of permittivity and permeability. Those two properties allow electric and magnetic fields to propagate. I would like to place a disturbance in that space and watch it propagate. This would be a model of all of nature comprised only of empty space and its two properties. I envision each point in space sensing its immediately adjacent point and responding in accord with it. The outcome must model the electromagnetic field, but must do so without any added input. It must simply be each point sampling its neighbour and providing a fixed response to its neighbour's action.

Quote
Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving.
The software actually produces animated schematics.

Sounds good. I analyzed the  over unity results and posted it. Now I am tired. I think I will pack it in for today. I will watch some tv and fall asleep.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #58 on: 09/06/2009 02:55:53 »
I saw your post; it was a very good analysis; I'm glad that you took the time to study it. It pains me very much to have to give a negative review of someone's hypothesis. But we owe it to them to be truthful. Elsewhere they may find more hostility. I was attracted to this forum because it did not seem to elicit hostility toward alternative ideas.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #59 on: 09/06/2009 14:12:16 »
I saw your post; it was a very good analysis; I'm glad that you took the time to study it. It pains me very much to have to give a negative review of someone's hypothesis. But we owe it to them to be truthful. Elsewhere they may find more hostility. I was attracted to this forum because it did not seem to elicit hostility toward alternative ideas.

You can imagine how I feel as well. I do not like to hurt peoples feelings. My Aunt had a sewing design invention. She spent a lot of money on it but it was only a financial failure. Yet she enjoyed it.

  In many respects I am in the same boat as well. I spent 28 years on this effort and so far it is nill. I was a good design engineer until the big layoff in 1993. No work, no need for a good design engineer. so from 17.5 years to 55 years I had interesting design work. I wish I could get back but the requirements today are so computerized that I am out of date. Therefore I am back to my part-time handyman job. Yet I design little things for people and little tools for the jobs.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #60 on: 09/06/2009 17:41:10 »
We've travelled similar paths. I've been investigating the electromagnetic construct since 1986 when I retired from AT & T. I enjoy the high you get when a complicated set of rules come together and match up with observations. When I built my first neutron model and discovered from it the square-of-the-shells rule, I was walking on air for a week. :) It was a couple of years later that someone pointed out that the model's predictions of proton and neutron mass were off by .00948 MeV. That didn't bother me too much. I figured the difference could be due to binding dynamics.

« Last Edit: 09/06/2009 17:43:06 by Vern »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #61 on: 09/06/2009 23:04:48 »
We've travelled similar paths. I've been investigating the electromagnetic construct since 1986 when I retired from AT & T. I enjoy the high you get when a complicated set of rules come together and match up with observations. When I built my first neutron model and discovered from it the square-of-the-shells rule, I was walking on air for a week. :) It was a couple of years later that someone pointed out that the model's predictions of proton and neutron mass were off by .00948 MeV. That didn't bother me too much. I figured the difference could be due to binding dynamics.



 That seems like a very small difference. You will have to explain your square of the shells rule. Where is it posted?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #62 on: 10/06/2009 12:08:19 »
Square-of-the-shells rule: Take the mass of the neutron's outer shell as the difference between neutron and proton mass in units of electron masses. This is shell one. Each successive shell mass is then the square of that of the next shell out. Proton mass then is s2 + s3 + s4. Neutron mass is proton mass plus s1. This comes to within .00948 MeV to being exact.
Here is the source code in C
Here is the output of the compiled program.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 16:16:50 by Vern »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #63 on: 10/06/2009 14:22:43 »
 I see your name is Vernon Brown. That is strange.
  I went to Brooklyn Tech HS Class of 56 and used to eat lunch with a Vernon Brown.
Any relationship??

  PS I will study your data.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #64 on: 10/06/2009 16:15:32 »
No; that wasn't me. In 56 I was in Japan until December.

The neat thing about taking electron mass and electron charge as unity is that the charge magnitude of the strong nuclear interaction is s2 + s2 + s3 + s3. In order to get the correct dynamics, shells 3 and 4 need to be inside shells 2. Then like charges repel to hold the union. The like charges must get closer together on separation. This causes the increase in force that is seen as the cores separate.





« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 17:04:09 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #65 on: 03/10/2009 18:17:54 »
The graphics in the above post are models of two protons locked together by the force of electric charge originating at the circumference of shell 3 and shell 2 of the protons. When you consider that charge magnitude is inversely proportional to shell size and shell size is determined by the wave length of the trapped photon, the charge magnitudes add up to the value of the strong nuclear interaction. This is shown in the square-of-the-shells rule. 
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #66 on: 20/10/2009 13:52:14 »
Hey Vern,
A very interesting theory, and i find it much more likely than the 11 dimensions of M-theory and whatnot, but please answer me these:

How does your photonic theory explain that there seems to be more matter than antimatter in the universe?
Where does this inequality come from? Because for me it seems that matter is always created in the same amount as antimatter when photons collide.

If PT turns out to be real, does that mean we can give up traveling to other galaxies over reasonable amounts of time due to theoretically not possible? (No black holes means no wormholes either)

Oh, and me being a layman: with the photon being 2 saturated points, do you mean the wavefront of the electrical wave and the wavefront of the magnetic wave?


PS: If the LHC excludes the existence of a graviton or Higgs boson, you should contact the string theorists ;)



« Last Edit: 20/10/2009 14:29:03 by Nizzle »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #67 on: 20/10/2009 21:57:27 »
I have been dwelling upon the inequality of matter and antimatter the last few days. The thing I favour right now is that it is because protons are comprised of three things; I call them shells; if you like you can call them Quarks. These three components of protons are created in equal amounts. But it takes three of them to form a stable proton. Anything left over quickly decays back to radiation. The two to one ratio assures that whatever type of matter happens first by chance, it will dominate.

I think the mainstream physicists theorize that it may be due to CP violation. If they are right, CP violation works just as well with a photon-only construct for matter as for the magical particles that can transform to energy.

A single photon moving through space has a positive half-cycle and a negative half-cycle. The points of electric and magnetic saturation would be at midpoint of each half cycle. These points of saturation are sensitive to all radiation visible or no and reach saturation with an offset toward increasing field strength of the radiation. That is gravity. :)

This Wiki article explains CP violation.

Quote from: the link
In particle physics, CP violation is a violation of the postulated CP symmetry, the combination of C symmetry and P symmetry. CP symmetry states that the laws of physics should be the same if a particle were interchanged with its antiparticle (C symmetry, or charge conjugation symmetry), and left and right were swapped (P symmetry, or parity symmetry). The discovery of CP violation in 1964 in the decays of neutral kaons resulted in the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1980 for its discoverers James Cronin and Val Fitch.

It plays an important role both in the attempts of cosmology to explain the dominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe, and in the study of weak interactions in particle physics.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2009 23:06:29 by Vern »
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #68 on: 21/10/2009 09:09:15 »
That is gravity. :)

So Physics is unified :P.
What are those string theorists doing in fact? Except wasting tax payers money of course.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #69 on: 21/10/2009 11:45:36 »
I am not sure why mainstream physicists have dismissed the photon-only construct of the universe. We have known about that construct since Maxwell suggested it and Poincare wrote out equations now known as the Lorentz transformations, that describe how matter must distort when it moves in such a universe. To me it is the most simple and elegant way any deity, if one exists, would construct a universe. :)

Quote
What are those string theorists doing in fact? Except wasting tax payers money of course.
Maybe it is not such a waste; it is a good exercise in mathematics.


Edit: to add Henri Poincare citation.

Quote from: the link
Poincaré introduced the modern principle of relativity and was the first to present the Lorentz transformations in their modern symmetrical form. Poincaré discovered the remaining relativistic velocity transformations and recorded them in a letter to Lorentz in 1905. Thus he obtained perfect invariance of all of Maxwell's equations, an important step in the formulation of the theory of special relativity.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2009 13:08:15 by Vern »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #69 on: 21/10/2009 11:45:36 »

 

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