# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Why abandon cause and effect?  (Read 19454 times)

#### Ethos

• Guest
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #25 on: 06/11/2009 01:39:26 »
We await the great influx of wisdom that you may insert into this discussion.
Absolutely,.......the anticipation is killing me!!!!

#### Nizzle

• Hero Member
• Posts: 964
• Thanked: 1 times
• Extropian by choice!
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #26 on: 06/11/2009 08:53:08 »
I guess we'll have to wait until he's out of his Private Ryan mood and in his Will Hunting mood

#### Return of Matt Damon

• Guest
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #27 on: 06/11/2009 13:30:03 »
Right,     Albert said something like, you do not understand something until you explain it to your grandmothers; well I think it should be; you do not understand something until you explain it to M*** D****, so I think I have a legitimate reason for being on this forum.

So; no sorry Vern, I don't have a clue what your on about, so you know what that means (as above).

But anyway, changing subject, I was watching that show flash-forward, and he talked about that double slit experiment; so I Googled it, and found a cartoon called Dr Quantum that explained it, on youtube, so obviously I am now an expert on it.

Have they tried it with four slit's and one observer on one of the slits, like below.

[]    [] = ( Observer )

[]    []

So would you get a pattern like,

A)  I    I
I I I I I I

Or like,

B)  I    I
I    I

Thanks M*** D****,
« Last Edit: 06/11/2009 18:14:37 by M**t D***n »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #28 on: 06/11/2009 14:15:40 »
The slit experiment is done with any number of slits. In all cases the results are consistent with the photon as I described it above. Just so you don't have to search; a photon consists of a positive half cycle and a negative half cycle of electric and magnetic amplitude change. There is a point of electric and magnetic saturation at the centre of each half cycle. The electric and magnetic fields drive the points through space. Photons only interact at their points. The fields go through all slits. Any time you mess with the fields you change the trajectory of the points.

Points of saturation in photons respond to the fields of all other photons. But since the fields diminish in amplitude as the square of distance, they are too weak to interact directly. The fields of all photons contribute to the saturation points and so help determine the trajectory of the point of saturation. This is the mechanism of gravity.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2009 14:22:34 by Vern »

#### Return of Matt Damon

• Guest
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #29 on: 06/11/2009 15:50:09 »
So you say it's (B) then, sorry to drift away from your topic, I will make my own post's in the future.

Thanks

M**** D****

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #30 on: 06/11/2009 16:06:26 »
I couldn't make a prediction based upon your text drawing. Basically what would happen in a multiple slit experiment is that each slit would affect the interference pattern. The spatially extended fields would go through all slits and each would contribute to the trajectory of the points of interaction.

#### litespeed

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 419
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #31 on: 06/11/2009 16:31:03 »
Regading photon frequency. Add a photon to a closed box and you increase the mass of the box/photon system. 1) Can we measure this mass and 2) does a gammaray photon add more mass then a radiofrequence photon?

#### litespeed

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 419
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #32 on: 06/11/2009 16:39:57 »
This is the first time I have read photon lensing is twice what can be accounted for by mass.  However, didn't Einstein accurately predict the lensing effect of mass?

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #33 on: 06/11/2009 17:21:22 »
It would be difficult to measure the mass increase a single photon contributes to a system; however, it must contribute for any theory to be consistent. This is true for QM theory, Newton's classic notion, and the photon universe scheme.

Yes; Einstein did predict that light would be bent twice as much as gravity alone can account for. Eddington measured it. I puzzled over this for some time. I needed some force other than resonance to show how a photon might be trapped into a repeating pattern. It occurred to me that the predictions of the General theory of relativity do not predict that space-time is distorted. That was Einstein's assumption. The predicted distortions could just as easily be in the material objects, as Lorentz assumed.

I started my photon-only investigation with a given postulate that Einstein attributed to Maxwell. Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. Given that and faced with the anomaly of light bending twice as much as it should in a gravity field, I looked for something in the photon itself that could provide the extra bending. Two questions were immediately answered. What is the source of the electric and magnetic field, and what causes the extra bending.

The answer is that the bent path of a photon must produce asymmetry in its driving forces. This is the source (cause) of electric charge. Electric charge is the source (cause) of the extra bending?

Here's a Wiki about the extra bending.

Henry Cavendish in 1784 (in an unpublished manuscript) and Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801 (published in 1804) had pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will bend around a massive object.[2] The same value as Soldner's was calculated by Einstein in 1911 based on the equivalence principle alone. However, Einstein noted in 1915 in the process of completing general relativity, that his (and thus Soldner's) 1911-result is only half of the correct value. So Einstein was the first to calculate the correct value for light bending.[3]
« Last Edit: 07/11/2009 17:38:37 by Vern »

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #34 on: 10/11/2009 02:25:54 »
Even though i am an advocator of luxon theory, i must admit your interpretation is becoming my guilty pleasure. I particularily like the idea that a bent photon has the presence of a charge... But i ask vern, what charge?

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #35 on: 10/11/2009 02:40:29 »
The bent path of a photon must produce electric charge. But we must quickly admit that there must also be a magnetic force to match. I suspect that it is the electric charge that produces the positive feedback, but others insist that the magnetic force must also  participate in the feedback.

I see the resulting entrapment pattern as a circle; others see it as a torus. The problem I see with the torus is that the electric charge does not naturally produce the same polarity throughout the pattern. In a circle the same polarity must occupy the outside of the bend all the way around.

Even when I try and model both the electric and magnetic forces contributing to the positive feedback, so that the bend is half way between the electric and magnetic planes, I still see a circle forming. But those who see a torus have much better credentials than I, so I pay attention to their speculations.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #36 on: 10/11/2009 02:48:05 »
The bent path of a photon must produce electric charge.

How so?

but others insist that the magnetic force must also  participate in the feedback.

I can understand why people would evoke that idea.

I see the resulting entrapment pattern as a circle; others see it as a torus.

So we are cetainly appealing for some kind of geometry to this. Concerning a mathematical comprehension of your theory would require a gravitational parameter for circular-like moving objects, which has a value of r^3w^2. Qustion though is what is it moving relative to?

Even when I try and model both the electric and magnetic forces contributing to the positive feedback,

What do you mean when you say, ''positive feedback..''? What is the feedback?

Cheers

I'd love to see some math to it.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #37 on: 10/11/2009 02:57:50 »
Quote
The bent path of a photon must produce electric charge.

How so?
This presupposes that a photon is comprised of one cycle of electric and magnetic change. The changing fields drive saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude through space. When the path of the saturated points is bent, the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the points can not be symmetrical. This asymmetry is seen as electric charge.

Quote
Even when I try and model both the electric and magnetic forces contributing to the positive feedback,

What do you mean when you say, ''positive feedback..''? What is the feedback?

Positive feedback is a force that acts to increase an action and is itself a result of the action. In the case of the bent path of a photon it acts to bend the path more in the same direction. The numbers are in the square-of-the-shells rule.
It is a calculator program in C. It calculates and predicts the value of the strong nuclear interaction.
« Last Edit: 13/11/2009 02:01:26 by Vern »

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #38 on: 10/11/2009 02:59:41 »
Ah, i think for the first time i am beginning to understand this part:

The changing fields drive saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude through space. When the path of the saturated points is bent, the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the points can not be symmetrical.

Interesting theory.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #39 on: 12/11/2009 00:18:52 »

I have taken your advice seriously. You questioned how ''magically'' a photon transmutates into matter.. At first, i will admit i did not see it as necesserily a problem, howsoever, i have come to realize the mechanism has become shortlived in my last explanation to photon-transformation into matter, relying alone on the field-strength of the gravitational potentional \Phi.

Remember when i said your theory was becoming my guilty pleasure, i've secretely been working on boundaries in the form of equations in order to satisfy that little contention you have concerning the charge of a photon being present when a curved geodesic is involved.

In all antipathy, math is truely the incomparable aspect of measurement with that of the natural workings, but as we all hopefully know, it helps make a schematic of any fundamental interaction, even if it is in the abstractual nature of mathematics. My math is extremely difficult: Its been a while since i studied gauge symmeries and how GEM-related equations work. but essentially, there are many important values which cannot be refuted when you argue your imperative hypothesis.

Respectfully as i understand, you argue the existence of a charge for the photon. Being scientifically-deductive, this would require also a mass, since mass and charge are deeply related, and also noting we normally do not associate an intrinsic charge (of whatever form) to the photon itself. However, to have an electromagnetic charge, requires that your photons must have an intrinsic measure of matter on the scale of around 10^-51 kilograms, which is very small. However, if this is all true, then the permittivity of electromagnetism given as \epsilon_0 is in fact not lone, and must interconnect with the gravitational permittivity given here as \epsilon_g. The two cannot be removed if the photon has a charge, since its a mathematical fact they cannot exist alone.

Permittivity has a relation to charge itself, (in fact, a few scientists might argue the two are interdependant) - it is itself a physical quantity which more or less describes how an electric force and dialectric manipulations operate in a medium, and so the permittivity of free space for an electric charge is expressed as \epsilon_0 and so in respect of the existence of this physical value, there needs to be a respective graviational permittivity too \epsilon_g. It also means that as much as the rules go for electric permittivity, it rules the same for the gravitational form so that acts as a measure of an instantaneous interaction or coupling to its respective field (that be i.e. electromagnetism or graviational).

IN RESPOENSE to your theory the equations which would describe your model will most certainly include the permittivity of both aspects. Saturation of the points is achieved by a complex ensemble of quantum interactions, which in this description uses retarded and advanced quantum waves, as would be found in a Transactional Interpretional Model of quantum interactions.

It has been a while since i have used calculus like this, so any dimensional inconsistencies will be appreciated to be pointed out.

Be back soon once i write the theorem which i've worked on the last three days.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #40 on: 12/11/2009 01:37:37 »
Force due to gravity can be expressed as a particle  with a mass M² moving in a field is given as: F_g=-▼φM_g (1) so:

(F_gvt)²=-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g v²t² (2)

This equation was the first form i considered. It is respectfully using the gravitational charge relationships given (1), just altered slightly to involve an energy due to gravity since equation (2) reduces to E_g. One normally interpretes this as an energy due to a gravitationally-related inertia, hence the possible existence of a small amount of matter for a photon to allow such a charge in your assumptions.

To note, there are a few relations which will help decode eq. (2):

M²=ћ(c/G) (3)

and this take a large value as it is rearranged:

ћc=GM² (4)

As has been interpreted (ref:1), the value ћ=GM²/c is very small and can be seen as a quantized gravitational charge. It is also wise to note for the record that β=v/c and that in relativity, we have the form to consider pc=E(v/c), so you can check the dimensions yourself. Also we will encounter what are called super-complex numbers, which have values which renormalize positively i²=+1, where respectively you can mathematically treat terms like i=k=j as found in quarternion relationships. The super-complex symbol is usually present as a box with a cross inside of it, but for the sake of my incomplete knowledge on how to represent this in latex symbolism, i will represent it as ξ so that i²=ξ=+1.

The equation which describes such a connection for a photon with a considerably small mass and almost negligable charge can be represented by this exausting equation;

The equation which takes into respect permittivity of both gravitational and electric (-magneto) relationships where the energy and force terms found in equation (2) are also taken into consideration:

|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξε_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (5)

where A=e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξε_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (6) and since we are dealing with four respective interactions given by the vortex description of k=DψDψ* then the value of k is indeed a squared value. k is given as:

k=(t1<t2)ψ*(t2>t1)ψ*/∫A dt

for one description of a wave interaction. The math itself has retarded and advanced forms, so psi description of ψ* can be classed as an incoming field, whereas ψ can be interpreted as an outgoing field. Naturally, these should obide by normlization so that two quantum psi waves can multiply and create one positive value, which is an amplitude prediction of quantum statistics given as: ∫|ψ|²=+1.

The use of ξ is to represent the ''positive attraction'' (experimentally-proven for gravity and for certain interactions of non-like charges) between the two permittivity constants. It also contains an element of ''likelihood'' so the value of <A> is given as an ''expectational value'', becoming a state vector when defined accordingly. Because all terms on the right hand side remain positive is the same mathematical reason why the left is given as an absolute value |a|=+a. The symbol k is in fact a coupling constant dependant on the rate of A. If A is strong, the exponent of e^iA is itself dependant on the rate of A so the increased factor of A increases the repitious vibrational pattern. The value of d^4 is in fact just a four dimensional configuration with a small value calculating the action within a volume of space we usually associate with the coordinate (x). You could expand the equation to show this four-dimensional configuration under a wave description, but to keep this as simple as possible ffor myself and the reader, it will be confined by the description of d^4.

In equation (5), a photon with a charge due to the presence of a curvature takes into respect the imposed conditions of both ε_0 and ε_g which remain a positive value under the influence of its super-complex coefficients. The presence of the trig-function of β=v/c has an importance when considering particles which travel at light speed.

To finalize, equation (5) yields the contention that a photon has a non-zero but small mass with a corresponding small charge, within the presence of the permittivity of the system in free space. According to the equation itself, a photon cannot magically transform into matter, but rather the matter increases when the intrinsic kinetic energy increases, or due to the strength of (A) mass can increase to have the appearance of a slow restricted inertial body.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #41 on: 12/11/2009 14:04:18 »
I suspect that you can not get to the photon construct within Quantum theory. A photon has no apparent charge because the electric and magnetic charges that comprise it are equally balanced. Your description does not match the vision of a photon that I see. I'm not sure whether it is because I have not communicated the vision well, or you need to modify it to fit a view you can accept.

The photon I describe is not my own invention. It is the way photons were depicted before Quantum theory came along and reduced the photon to a wave function. The photon I see is the same as is described by Maxwell's equations. It is comprised of electric and magnetic amplitude potential. It is charge neutral, but comprised entirely of charge. It has zero mass, but it is mass when it is confined in a local area.

I suspect that you can not get the vision unless you can somehow avoid trying to mix Quantum theory with Reality theory. Hey; that's an idea!I think I'll start calling the photon-only universe scheme Reality Theory.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2009 15:22:27 by Vern »

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #42 on: 12/11/2009 20:45:22 »
I suspect that you can not get to the photon construct within Quantum theory. A photon has no apparent charge because the electric and magnetic charges that comprise it are equally balanced. Your description does not match the vision of a photon that I see. I'm not sure whether it is because I have not communicated the vision well, or you need to modify it to fit a view you can accept.

The photon I describe is not my own invention. It is the way photons were depicted before Quantum theory came along and reduced the photon to a wave function. The photon I see is the same as is described by Maxwell's equations. It is comprised of electric and magnetic amplitude potential. It is charge neutral, but comprised entirely of charge. It has zero mass, but it is mass when it is confined in a local area.

I suspect that you can not get the vision unless you can somehow avoid trying to mix Quantum theory with Reality theory. Hey; that's an idea!I think I'll start calling the photon-only universe scheme Reality Theory.

Then i will attempt to modify a quantum explanation as to why they may not be balanced. In theory, the balance is true but there may be some mathematical trick to unbalance this. I'll work on it.

And i like the name ;)

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #43 on: 12/11/2009 21:40:58 »
We can build Reality Theory as we go. It should incorporate as much Quantum theory as possible, but still maintain strict adherence to cause and effect. That doesn't mean we must discover the cause for every effect, it just means that we know there is a cause, we may just not know exactly what it is.

As in the original photon-only universe theory, we can base Reality Theory on just two postulates:

(1)Space-time is flat and non varying in the classic sense.
(2)The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

When I apply cause and effect while adhering to those postulates, I get Reality Theory

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #44 on: 13/11/2009 01:59:37 »
I need to ask a question.

Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:

|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(M²ψ-M²ψ]+½[ξε_g(M²ψ*-M²ψ*]) (1)

is balanced, because it takes into respect the electromagnetic permittivity added with that of the gravitational permittivity with a Langrangian term for M². More interestingly enough, M²ψ is similar to the Klein-Gorden relationship. Here are some interesting reationships:

M²ψ=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ

which results in plane wave solutions. By substitution, you can reconfigurate eq.(1) into:

|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ]+½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼²ψ])

Which is very attractive as a wave equation.

We could manipulate the equation even more to have nuetral components after taking ino account, from a Klein-Gorden relationship, where for manipulative convenience we can rewrite the plane wave solutions in  quantized form as:

|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i ∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0((∂²-M²)ψ*-(∂²-M²)]+½[ξε_g((∂²-M²)ψ*-(∂²-M²)ψ*])

This is suppose, would cancel them out, or at least, this is my interpretation of the equation.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #45 on: 13/11/2009 02:01:51 »
We can build Reality Theory as we go. It should incorporate as much Quantum theory as possible, but still maintain strict adherence to cause and effect. That doesn't mean we must discover the cause for every effect, it just means that we know there is a cause, we may just not know exactly what it is.

As in the original photon-only universe theory, we can base Reality Theory on just two postulates:

(1)Space-time is flat and non varying in the classic sense.
(2)The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

When I apply cause and effect while adhering to those postulates, I get Reality Theory

To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #46 on: 13/11/2009 02:10:04 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:
Forces should balance resulting in the appearance of neutral charge in a photon. When the path of the photon is bent, the balance is interrupted, the field areas can not be symmetrical in the bend, charge is the result.

Quote
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
We have an easy out on this one. There could have been no big bang within Reality Theory. The natural rules of nature apply, we can not suspend them to allow for a creation event.

#### Ethos

• Guest
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #47 on: 13/11/2009 02:15:36 »
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
Could we proceed with this without assuming the need for a Big Bang? It is possible that the so-called, "Big Bang", is only an invention that attempts to explain expansion when there are other explanations for the observed red shift.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #48 on: 13/11/2009 02:24:55 »
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
Could we proceed with this without assuming the need for a Big Bang? It is possible that the so-called, "Big Bang", is only an invention that attempts to explain expansion when there are other explanations for the observed red shift.

Vern's answer is only a possibility on the effect that there has been no such quantization period in the universe where spacetime literally expanded. On this note, Verns theory will have to evidently require that the electromagnetic singularity he speaks of must be removed, because electromagnetic singularities are usually associated with some infinitely dense point, but as Vern punctually-noted, he does not want a big bang.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #49 on: 13/11/2009 02:28:13 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:
Forces should balance resulting in the appearance of neutral charge in a photon. When the path of the photon is bent, the balance is interrupted, the field areas can not be symmetrical in the bend, charge is the result.

Quote
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
We have an easy out on this one. There could have been no big bang within Reality Theory. The natural rules of nature apply, we can not suspend them to allow for a creation event.

But Vern, what is a neutral charge? - it seems indestinguishable to a system which has no charge at all...?

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #49 on: 13/11/2009 02:28:13 »