The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Photon Theory of Matter  (Read 20172 times)

Offline Homely Physicist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #50 on: 15/10/2009 19:41:58 »
Sorry to double-post, but I forgot to add my comment on your proposition that the matter/antimatter imbalance was due to 'just chance'. Some mechanism must have favoured the creation of matter over antimatter in the early universe, as pair-production from photons always creates both in equal quantities. Such an imbalance requires a symmetry break in the universe* and this would also mean that a universe consisting of an excess of antimatter would have very different properties to ours (not merely a 'mirror image').

*Please forgive this if it seems like a non-sequiter. It would take me several reams of text and several hours to show you how the standard model requires CP-violation to account for a pro-matter bias. There are several papers on arXiv which could do a better job than I  [:I]
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #51 on: 15/10/2009 20:06:23 »
As I said, I was just guessing trying to find some mechanism that would prevent continuous matter-antimatter annihilation. As you point out, the quark model does not seem to provide such a mechanism. Does it bother anybody that no charge value has ever been observed that was not an even multiple of electron charge. And we have figured out a way around not being able to observe quarks.

Murry Gell-Mann came up with the quark theory. I know it is very useful, however, it does not work with a photon-only universe. It is one of the gozillion :) things that are not possible within the very restrictive photon-only concept.

Quote from: the link
He formulated the quark model of hadronic resonances, and identified the SU(3) flavor symmetry of the light quarks, extending isospin to include strangeness, which he also discovered. He discovered the V-A theory of chiral neutrinos in collaboration with Richard Feynman. He created current algebra in the 1960s as a way of extracting predictions from quark models when the fundamental theory was still murky, which led to model-independent sum rules confirmed by experiment.


Edit: The reason Quark Theory doesn't work is that the charge of an electron must develop from a photon, since in a photon-only universe that is all that there is. So to develop the charge we must show that the bent path of a photon trapped in a pattern exhibits electric charge. But when we do that, there is no way the charge can measure different than the charge of an electron. A tighter bend produces greater charge, hence the nuclear interaction. However, when seen at any distance greater than an electrons radius, it looks exactly like the electron's charge.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2009 20:13:50 by Vern »
 

Offline Homely Physicist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #52 on: 15/10/2009 20:22:02 »
Does it bother anybody that no charge value has ever been observed that was not an even multiple of electron charge. And we have figured out a way around not being able to observe quarks.

Thankyou for clearing that up =)

I believe ions have been measured to have an odd multiple of the electron charge: e.g. sodium in salt has +1; chloride has -1 (I may have got them the wrong way around; please forgive me if I have, I'm more at home with physics!)
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #53 on: 15/10/2009 20:26:12 »
Edit: Yes; I know about CP symmetry. The standard model has some great stuff going for it.

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.

Quote from: the link
The Standard Model contains only two ways to break CP symmetry. The first of these, discussed above, is in the QCD Lagrangian, and has not been found experimentally; but one would expect this to lead to either no CP violation or a CP violation that is many, many orders of magnitude too large. The second of these, involving the weak force, has been experimentally verified, but can account for only a small portion of CP violation. It is predicted to be sufficient for a net mass of normal matter equivalent to only a single galaxy in the known universe.

Since the Standard Model does not accurately predict this discrepancy, it would seem that the current Standard Model has gaps (other than the obvious one of gravity and related matters) or physics is otherwise in error. Moreover, experiments to probe these CP-related gaps may require the practically impossible-to-obtain energies that may be necessary to probe the gravity-related gaps (see Planck mass).

« Last Edit: 16/10/2009 12:16:39 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #54 on: 15/10/2009 20:34:19 »
Quote
I believe ions have been measured to have an odd multiple of the electron charge: e.g. sodium in salt has +1; chloride has -1 (I may have got them the wrong way around; please forgive me if I have, I'm more at home with physics!)

Yes; you're right; I misspoke. I meant to say a multiple of electron charge, not even multiple. I was referring to the charge value of Quarks. You can't make a 1/3 2/3 charge if it must develop from the bent path of a photon.

Quote
I'm more at home with physics!)
;D ;D
« Last Edit: 15/10/2009 20:45:40 by Vern »
 

Offline Homely Physicist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #55 on: 15/10/2009 21:08:29 »
Your bent-path idea sounds intriguing. How does a bent photon beam give rise to the charge, mass and spin of the electron? Are you talking about bending the beam using an optical cable; a highly-wound spacetime manifold; or around a higher-dimensional curved space? What experiments have been done/could be done to confirm this hypothesis?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #56 on: 15/10/2009 21:46:54 »
Your bent-path idea sounds intriguing. How does a bent photon beam give rise to the charge, mass and spin of the electron? Are you talking about bending the beam using an optical cable; a highly-wound spacetime manifold; or around a higher-dimensional curved space? What experiments have been done/could be done to confirm this hypothesis?
The hypothesis has a single photon comprised of two half cycles of electric and magnetic change. Two gamma ray photons can interfere so that the path of each is bent in normal space; nothing extra is needed. No optical cable, no extra dimensions, just empty space. Charge develops from the circumference of the bend. The tighter the bend, the greater the charge.

The only published experiment I know about that confirmed the hypothesis was by Sir Author Eddington, way back in the day. 

Physicists at UMBC noticed electric charge developing from photons trapped in high Q cavities; they published in the Annals of NYAS. However, to my great disappointment, the electric charge they noticed was not mentioned in the published document. I only know about it because I was at the conference and discussed it with them. The publication was called "Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory: A conference held in honor of Professor John A. Wheeler."


Mass develops naturally; as we all know any time a photon is trapped in a local area; example a mirrored box; it contributes to the mass of the local area. Spin is the speed of light pattern of the trapped photon.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2009 21:54:33 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
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #57 on: 17/10/2009 15:29:34 »
Essentially, are all forms of matter but differential types of trapped energy in the form of photons?

It seems no accident of nature to not assume that photons are the origin of all matter, with the discovery of the antiparticle. A particle when it comes in contact with its antiparticle it can transform back into massless radiation. In fact, all types of antiparticle-particle collisons ultimately resort their intrinsic proponents back to photon energy.

If all matter where to be forms of photon energy, (or trapped light), then it would mean that in the very beginning, the universe did not begin in a quark-soup of ionized particles, but rather an electromagnetic appearance of the fundamental unit of energy; in fact, a massive cloud of these particles would have been a major gravitational influence very early on in the universe, and it wouldn't be until after the inflationary phase of the universe would their gravitational influence be dilluted within the framework of spacetime.

What are peoples thoughts on a photon-only universe?

I've enjoyed reading many of the thoughts posted in this thread.

I don't believe in a photonic universe (yet). If the universe once consisted only of photons, matter and anti-matter would have been created in equal quantities. This is not what we observe.

Furthermore, the photonic model will be isomorphic (and the mathematics horrendous) to our existing picture and would make no new predictions without further addendum. The best it could hope for is that the new photon language might provide a different window through which some physics problems might be more easily solvable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #58 on: 17/10/2009 16:11:17 »
Quote from: Homely Physicist
Furthermore, the photonic model will be isomorphic (and the mathematics horrendous) to our existing picture and would make no new predictions without further addendum. The best it could hope for is that the new photon language might provide a different window through which some physics problems might be more easily solvable.
I don't get your reasoning. The photonic model is much more restrictive than any of the accepted models. I don't see why the mathematics would be more difficult, but I'm not an expert in the maths. It is an old idea that has been around for over a hundred years. It has been dismissed by every generation of physicists, but the evidence for its reality is still valid. And there is no evidence that it is not valid.

Are you kidding about predictions??? It predicts that just about every currently accepted theory about physics and the cosmos is invalid.  You just can't get to current theories within the photonic concept.

Edit: As far as the difficulty with the mathematics, the Square-Of-The-Shells rule predicts the nuclear forces including the strange dynamics of the strong force with nothing more than high-school algebra. :)

Here's the source code for the calculator

« Last Edit: 17/10/2009 17:27:29 by Vern »
 

Offline Homely Physicist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #59 on: 01/11/2009 02:58:16 »
Apologies for not getting straight back to you, Vern; I'd almost forgotten about this site!

I'm probably misinterpreting your idea, but as far as I can see, it doesn't seem to explain anything better than our current pic-n-mix particle model. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I feel it is inelegant.

Suppose I used the mathematics of a photonic universe to describe atoms, energy, gravity....etc. Fair enough. But I haven't covered any new ground. I'm not explaining any more phenomena; nor am I making any new predictions. I'm just reinterpreting old statements into new. Perhaps this reinterpretation will make some problems easier; yet, many common phenomena will become hideously complex.

Again, I'm not saying it's wrong: by all means, go ahead and do the mapping. If you shed new light (ha ha...) on physics, then good luck. However, I'll still be sticking to the pic-n-mix model for the time being  :)  When the universe is older and all matter has decayed into photons (assuming, of course, that evidence for the decay of protons is found) then I'll use the photonic universe mathematics.
« Last Edit: 01/11/2009 03:20:08 by Homely Physicist »
 

Offline Homely Physicist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #60 on: 01/11/2009 03:14:15 »
ADDENDUM


Your data table is intriguing. However, I'm afraid the numbers you calculate are pretty much meaningless without errors to bound them. For example, if I had

k = 3 (some made up number of mine)

...does this mean

k = 3.0 0.1 [In which case I know the result pretty well], or

k = 3 8 [In which case I don't know the result well at all]?

Without errors, no-one can do a statistical test on the accuracy of your figures. Futhermore, even though your code is short, it can be tricky to follow (despite the well-constructed comments!). Is it possible for you to put up a mathematical paper justifying your reasoning, and including all external references you have consulted? It would be much appreciated!
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #61 on: 01/11/2009 03:51:45 »
There are bounding errors; I post them as binding forces. :) The thing I can't understand is how anyone with the capacity to understand the observations can conclude a different scenario than I have concluded. Probability theory alone can see at least 20 coincidences that must match to the exact decimal. If you multiply that out it comes to a staggering number in favour of a photon-only construct for nature.

I suppose I could construct mathematical derivations for the Lorentz Transforms, however that has already been done by mathematicians much more capable than I. I merely acknowledge that the transforms are correct. They do accurately describe the distortions that material objects must experience if they are composed in their entirety, of photons.

Here are some thoughts about the causes and effects in nature as I suspect it exists.
« Last Edit: 01/11/2009 04:08:45 by Vern »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #61 on: 01/11/2009 03:51:45 »

 

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