# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?  (Read 108080 times)

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #100 on: 23/02/2011 00:01:46 »
Thanks William for your encouragement...

Phractality : F=ma should work at the event horizon if the black hole keeps only the equivalent of the rest mass of a particle. Relativistic energy is mainly created by the gravitational field and is reciprocal for both the black hole and the particle and it vanishes in an almost perfect inelastic collision at the event horizon. You should start your own discussion so we can have more details about your theory. It is very interesting...

I use "m" for energy to mass equivalence, not for rest mass of the photon... Sorry for being misleading.

m in mc^2 is the generated mass by the charge rotating at the speed of light...
« Last Edit: 27/06/2016 00:28:16 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #101 on: 23/02/2011 01:18:23 »
ArkAngel,

The way "relativistic mass" was taught when I was in university (1967), was like this: If the particle has relativistic velocity in a particular reference frame, it would have its unchanged rest mass plus relativistic mass in that frame. The relativistic mass was the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy. I believe that the modern explanation is that the particle has only one mass in a given reference frame, and that is the result of applying the Lorentz transformation to the rest mass and velocity. So the modern term for mass is the sum of rest mass and relativistic mass. The term "relativistic mass" is no longer used. I am trying to use the modern terminology. Obviously, I could be wrong, since I haven't sat in a university classroom for several decades.

I don't know much about black holes, and I don't know why f = ma should work there. The point I was making is this: For a constant force acting on a given particle, the acceleration decreases because of the increased mass, and also because the force is generating additional mass. According to f = ma, the change of momentum should be dp = mdv. In fact, the change of momentum is dp = mdv + vdm. This presents no problem if you use the formula, f = dp/dt, which works for both rest mass and for photons. A photon has no rest mass because it cannot rest, but it does have both inertial and gravitational mass in Euclidean space. I am not competent at using general relativity, but those who are tend to swear that a photon has no mass...period, exclamation! To say otherwise is heresy.

I have posted a summary of my Fractal Foam Model of Universes for discussion on this forum.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 02:44:24 by Phractality »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #102 on: 23/02/2011 02:11:38 »
I totally agree with you except that Einstein said that any energy momentum will produce a spacetime curvature.

Photons travel in the basic curvature of space. My event horizon is the basic curvature of space. The kinetic (relativistic) energy momentum due to the gravitational field is perpendicular to the curvature of space and it is reciprocal...

Rest mass is a scalar and relativistic mass is vectorial, that is why we should differentiate them. They both produce a gravitational field, one absolute, the other relative... But they both can be unified in a vectorial field (and their gravitational effects as a tensor).

Einstein was a real genius, he thought about it a 100 years ago, at a time where communications were mostly talking and exchange of letters!!!
« Last Edit: 25/02/2011 16:27:38 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #103 on: 23/02/2011 03:41:00 »
ArkAngel,

The confusion is over the different kinds of space. Euclidean space is not warped by gravity, and light bends around a black hole. Inside the event horizon, the light is trapped and goes around in loops. In Minkowski space-time, the path of light is the definition of a straight line. So those loops are actually straight lines in Minkowski space-time. The politically correct party line is that the warp of space-time causes gravity. I believe in the heresy that gravity plus the redefinition of a straight line is the cause of the warp.

I have to chuckle when I hear people talking about light bending because of the warp. That is a mixture of terminologies from the two types of space. In general relativity, light does not bend around a black hole. Instead, light may intersect on one side of the black hole, follow two straight lines on opposite side of the black hole and intersect again on the other side without bending. Also, the internal angles of a triangle around the black hole add up to more than 180°.

I think Einstein said mass, not momentum, is responsible for the warp of space-time. I believe energy in the form of light also contributes. As I said before, light has both inertial and gravitational mass in Euclidean space. The gravity of a star bends the path of the photon with a force equal to the rate of change of the photon's momentum. For momentum to be conserved, there must be an equal and opposite force attracting the star to the photon. I also believe that the gravitational mass of a moving particle is the mass that you derive from the Lorentz transformation of the rest mass.

You should get the same result by applying the Lorentz transformation to each of the orbiting shear waves that constitute the particle. The momentum of the particle is the sum of momenta of the orbiting shear waves. From m = f/a, f = dp/dt and a = dv/dt, we get m = (dp/dt)/(dv/dt) = dp/dv. So you have to apply the Lorentz transformation to the momentum, p, for the increment, dv. And that should demonstrate that the momentum of the particle is the sum of momenta of the orbiting shear waves. The math is complicated by the fact that the orbits precess. I am somewhat daunted by the math; we can't all be experts at everything, you know.

I don't quite get your meaning about relativistic mass being a vector. As for inertial mass, I suppose you mean that a force applied to a particle in a given reference frame will produce different amounts of acceleration depending on the angle between the force vector and the velocity vector. However, I was under the impression that "force" is not in the lexicon of general relativity. I don't know what force is in Minkowski space-time.

As for gravitational mass, I suppose you mean that a moving particle's gravity field is not spherically symmetrical. That is plausible to me when I think of the gravity field as having substance; it should be affected by length contraction and time dilation. However, I am not convinced that relativity can be applied that way to a gravity field. I believe all the forces propagate at a finite speed, namely the speed of dark energy pressure waves, which are at least 20 billion times faster than light. That being so, there must be a preferred reference frame in which gravity fields are spherically symmetrical, and in other reference frames, the Lorentz transformations apply. (But I am overstepping the bounds of my understanding, here. In other words, I am speculating wildly.)

I have fixed some of my links. I was putting the url in quotes, as required on a different forum.

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #104 on: 23/02/2011 04:13:28 »
Now i understand your claims. If you read entirely my theory you will see that i considered that light for itself travels in a straight line. The way you see it is of a relative importance, what is the most important is the consistency regarding experience. If photons are the true elementary energy quantum, it means Minkowski spacetime is more fundamental. But i try to separate time from space just to get a better view of it. Space and time are certainly "entangled" but do they have the same origin? I don't know... probably...

In my theory, everything is made of photons and photon's rotation forms particles and generates gravity. The only model it can logically produce for a black hole is a ring, if light always goes at the speed of light... Light always traveling at the speed of light is the main consistent experience for my theory...
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 13:19:55 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #105 on: 23/02/2011 05:07:44 »
How can we work together on a Tower to Heaven with me speaking Babylonian and you speaking Egyptian? I am modeling a particle as an pair of shear waves orbiting in tight circles, and for you, those same shear waves are following straight lines inside a sort of black hole. When space-time is warped to that extreme, how can there be a transformation formula to reconcile it with Euclidean space?

I shall try to look thru your eyes. It is difficult for me to envision an infinitely long straight line being confined inside the radius of an electron. Besides, the warp of Minkowski space-time is supposed to explain gravity, not the strong force. (Actually, I think it is another force stronger than the strong force; maybe it is the Higgs force. But for now, let's just say "strong force".) If the strong force causes shear waves to orbit in such a small space, then the warp must have more causes than just gravity. Perhaps a particle could be described as a tiny black hole. With the strong force warping space-time, it shouldn't take that much mass to form a black hole. Are we still talking about Minkowski space-time? I don't think Minkowski envisioned any force other than gravity associated with the warp of space-time.

I don't want to give the impression that Minkowski space-time is any less valid than Euclidean space. I think both are legitimate, and each has its uses. Einstein's GR formulas are written for Minkowski space-time, so they are not valid for Euclidean space. I believe it is possible to solve GR problems in Euclidean space by means of numerical analysis, applying the transformations of SR to small enough increments of space and time. The two approaches will not yield the same numbers, but they should agree on such things as whether two objects will collide or not. I'm no expert, but I suspect the numerical approach would require several orders of magnitude more computer time than Einstein's approach. The advantage of Euclidean space is that it paints a more intuitive picture of the underlying causes of forces and particles. My model would be incomprehensible in Minkowski space-time.

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #106 on: 23/02/2011 06:00:20 »
I don't say that gravity is the same as the strong force. I just say that gravity and electromagnetism are generated by the electric charges, though they are not the same. As for the strong force, i just say there is a possibility that it is purely magnetic. After all, all elementary particles having a nuclear field are supposed to have been created shortly after the BingBang. The energy density was so high that gravity was at that time an important factor.

I will read your theory more carefully and comment it later.

look for "magnetar" it might interest you.

And about Einstein saying that any energy momentum will produce a spacetime curvature, i heard it from Einstein himself on an audio file somewhere on this forum. He does not say that all energy momentum is in the curvature (for example, a simple photon or an exchange of nuclear energy for nucleons).

I must add that if you look at time as the bearer of gravity information and time is localized for a particle, Euclidean space might be the best solution but i need to think about it seriously... But it does not change my equations.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 08:16:01 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Magnus W

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 21
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #107 on: 25/02/2011 14:42:39 »
What I really like about this theory is that it seems to explain many things, although I´m not smart enought to follow it all it looks really interesting. Do you think there is any way to test this theory in the future by some experiment?

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #108 on: 25/02/2011 16:10:47 »
see this:

1- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/nature07245.html

More explanations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.1105v1.pdf

look page 6, right column: "Upper limits upon Ra/D are found directly via the radio
VLBI observations collected in Table 1. These are
shown in Fig. 5, with their 3–σ upper bounds (again
denoted by the hatched regions) together with the combined
infrared limit. The recent 1.3mm detection is the
strongest, and excludes Ra/D > 27 μas at the 3–σ level."

My prediction is half Schwarzchild radius ~26 μas

page 7, right column: "As a consequence, we
cannot yet say that Sgr A* is described by a GR black
hole despite being able to conclude that a horizon must
exist."

2- Would a ring shape be more fitted???!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40097454/ns/technology_and_science-space/

http://www.astronomy.com/News-Observing/News/2010/01/Peering%20into%20the%20heart%20of%20darkness.aspx

« Last Edit: 25/02/2011 16:28:22 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #109 on: 25/02/2011 22:13:10 »
ArkAngel,

Your arxiv link illustrates a problem with Minkowski space-time, namely the impossibility of illustrating it in terms that the human mind can comprehend. The light-ray diagram, Fig 1, shows curved paths for photons. Evidently, this figure is drawn in Euclidean space, or something like it, because light does not bend in Minkowski space-time. I suspect that discussions of the shape of a black hole are describing its shape in Euclidean space, or something like it. If you are talking about mapping the warp of space-time in space-time, that is a different matter, and one which does not compute in ordinary human minds, at least not in mine.

To me, this is another Tower of Babel. Even the Babylonians don't speak Babylonian all the time. They're speaking Babylyptian without knowing where one language gives way to the other.

To change the subject slightly, my understanding is that Minkowski assumed only gravity can bend the path of light in Euclidean space. What if other forces can do so? What if the effect is many orders of magnitude stronger than that of gravity? We know that light is not bent by a strong electric field in a vacuum, at least not so we can detect it, but the effect on electric charges is about 44 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

If the path of light is the definition of a straight line in Minkowski space-time, and if the strong force can bend the path of light in Euclidean space, then space-time should be warped to a far greater extent in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus. A proton could be a kind of black hole, with photons trapped inside, not by gravity but by the strong force. Those photons could be moving at the speed of light in an infinitely long straight line inside the proton. Seen in Euclidean space, that same photon is orbiting in tight precessing circles.

As I explained in my first response to this topic, below, we should make a distinction between photons, which obey the formula, E = hc/λ, and the orbiting ethereal shear waves that constitute fundamental particles. What is the difference? If you modify general relativity to account for the stronger warp of space-time inside a particle, then perhaps length contraction makes the photon fit is a tighter space. But then, why wouldn't relativity also increase the mass-energy of the photon by the same proportion? I'm just thinking out loud; I don't pretend to know the answers.

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #110 on: 25/02/2011 23:20:58 »
Regarding your last question, it does increase the mass. This explain Einstein 's Equivalence Principle... The mass increase is useful and real in a particles collider like the LHC. And it generates gravity, a relativistic one... Meaning it depends on the observer's referential frame.

A proton is smaller and has more mass than an electron.

A photon, as an electromagnetic quantum and unlike particles, has no mass and has a constant speed. It has no timerate but a frequency. Only its frequency is affected by the referential clock of the observer.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2011 21:03:34 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #111 on: 26/02/2011 02:53:52 »
Regarding your last question, it does increase the mass. This explain Einstein 's Equivalence Principle... The mass increase is useful and real in a particles collider like the LHC. And it generates gravity, a relativistic one... Meaning it depends on the observer's referential frame.

Combining the formulas E = hc/λ and E = mc², you get mc² = hc/λ, so m = h/cλ, and λ = mc/h. Applying that last formula to the mass of an electron yields a wavelength about 1000th of the classical radius of the electron.

I'm trying to imagine a pair of photons having a total energy equivalent to 1/1000th of the rest mass of an electron. Somehow, as they near one another, traveling in opposite directions, a mysterious force (perhaps the strong force) pulls them into a potential well so deep that they end up orbiting with a mass-energy at least 1000 times greater than what they started out with. At the same time, length contraction shortens their wavelength to fit inside an electron. (That figure of 1000 comes from the classical radius of the electron. Other estimates of the electrons size are 10,000,000 times smaller; some even think the electron is a dimensionless point.)

So the photons would still be photons, still matching the formula E = hc/λ to a hypothetical nano-observer inside the potential well, but 1000 times more energetic (massive) to an observer outside of the the potential well. I'm talking about a potential well produced, not by gravity or electrostatic potential, but by the potential of whatever force causes the photons to orbit one another. It might be the strong force or the Higgs force.

Quote
A proton is smaller and has more mass than an electron.

Correct. The proton's charge radius is 0.877 fm. There is much more uncertainty over the size of an electron; some claim it is a dimensionless point; some claim to have established an upper limit of 10^-22 m; the electron's classical radius is 2.818 fm. Accepting the largest electron size, the proton is still about 3 times larger in radius. With nearly 2000 times as much mass, the proton's size is much closer to a match for the equivalent wavelength of a photon with the same mass-energy.

However, it is doubtful if a proton is a fundamental particle. For all we know, the quarks may be thousands of times smaller than electrons, and orbiting each other to fill the size of the proton.

I am still thinking in terms of Euclidean space. If gravity is not the only force that can bend the path of a photon in Euclidean space, and if the path of a photon remains as the definition of a straight line in Minkowski space-time, then gravity is not the only cause of the warp of space-time. A force that makes photons orbit one another inside an electron has to be many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity; so it must warp space-time enough to create black holes with the size and mass of electrons. Perhaps this can be the unifying principle to marry GR with quantum physics.
________________________________________________

Getting back to your insistence that photons are fundamental and their straight-line paths are the best description of space:

In a way, you are right. Shapes of small physical objects, seen by local observers, don't change in Minkowski space-time (so long as the size is small enough to avoid tidal stress). In Euclidean space, the curved path of light may alter the shape of the object. The effect is extremely small, except in extreme environments, like the event horizon of a black hole or inside the nucleus of an atom. Perhaps Minkowski space-time is best for describing particle systems larger than atoms. I still think Euclidean space is best for describing a fundamental particle. There is a gray area in between those scales.

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #112 on: 26/02/2011 06:52:56 »
Phractality, please start other discussions because you're diluting the comprehension of my theory.

The size of particles from my equations are right as far as the last experiments on the subject. The size of an electron is quite large and well known for quite a while... It is not an accurate value, though.

You haven't read my theory from the beginning. A photon is an electromagnetic wave with an electromagnetic energy momentum associated. Its total charge is zero but it is truly made of a half charge + and a half charge -. Due to the speed of light and Heisenberg Principle, the charges appear to be zero. When two photons occupy the same space, they may change into gravitational lightwaves in certain circumstances, explained earlier. The charges become static and their momentum are changed into gravitational lightwaves. So gravity is generated by the charges. Black holes will not appear so easily, in fact, according to my theory, the LHC will never produce them because it cannot produce enough relativistic energy. The only possibility comes from Dark Matter, simply because i don't have enough info to make a well defined model of it...

If you want to understand my theory you have to read it all, including most of the hyperlinks. Everything works fine, though i have a better description of what can be verified in a matter of a few years. I don't want to go too far. I can even explain Heisenberg Principle (later)... In fact, my model is underlying quantum physics. For practical reasons, physicists have developed probabilistic models around experiments and the uncertainty principle. But, they went too far in this direction, in my opinion. Physics needs desperately a new perspective...
« Last Edit: 07/03/2011 05:22:18 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #113 on: 27/02/2011 20:16:58 »
My model ain't that different from yours. We should help each other out, instead of arguing over whose model is right. Discussing your model has helped me to refine my own.

The momentum of a photon is p = E/c = h/λ. The energy of a photon is E = hc/λ = mc², where m is the mass of the photon in Euclidean space. A photon has no mass in general relativity, but it does have both inertial and gravitational mass in Euclidean space. So the mass of a photon in Euclidean space is m = E/c² = h/λc.

Newton's law of universal gravitation applies to all masses, including that of photons. f = G(m₂m₂/r²). You can't use the formula f = ma at relativistic speeds, or at the speed of light; instead, you must use f = dp/dt; i.e. force is the time rate of change of momentum. As a photon passes near a star, its direction changes in Euclidean space, and a change of direction is a change of momentum. To conserve momentum, the star's momenum much change by an equal and opposite amount. This proves that a photon has gravitational mass in Euclidean space. In Minkowski space-time, however, the direction of the photon's momentum does not change because it follows a straight line (by Minkowski's definition of a straight line). This is why it is said that a photon has no mass. If you ask them about Euclidean space, they'll tell you that Euclidean space does not exist in a gravity field. That's a lie!

Now, I've laid the foundation of my argument to refute one of your claims. Stop talking about "energy momentum of photons". A photon has energy, and it has momentum; an increase in one is an increase in the other.

Gravity is proportional to mass, not momentum. You don't see momentum in the universal law of gravitation, do you? Momentum is a vector, so momenta in opposite directions cancel. The gravity of masses moving in opposite directions does not cancel; it increases in proportion to the kinetic energy. Angular momentum isn't in the gravitation formula, ether. Spinning increases mass in proportion to the spin energy, not the angular momentum.

If a photon could spin fast enough to "catch its tail", it would keep its energy and lose its momentum. Something very similar happens in my model. A particle is a pair of photons orbiting one another; their momenta are equal and opposite, so the momentum of a particle at rest is zero, even though the individual photons still have their momenta.

Do you have an explanation for what causes a photon to spin and catch its tail. Can you relate the cause to the Higgs field?

Also, it should be obvious that a photon cannot spin or orbit in Minkowski space-time, since it must follow a straight line, by definition. So a particle in your model or mine would translate to a tiny black hole in Minkowski space-time. Such a black hole would be a warp of space-time not related to gravity. Anything that bends the path of light in Euclidean space contributes to the warp of space-time. Einstein's GR assumes that only gravity can bend the path of light in Euclidean space. I believe the Higgs field can do so, and the effect is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
« Last Edit: 27/02/2011 20:30:42 by Phractality »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #114 on: 05/03/2011 22:21:00 »
I don't want to conclude anything about spacetime. Would it be Euclidean or Minkowski's or something else, it should be, at best, the conclusion of a unified theory. It is better to let your mind opened. Definitely, space, time and photons are all we have...

I don't want to argue about definitions, it is futile.

The problem with the Higgs field is that there is a specific particle (Higgs boson) associated to it. You can't dissociate rest mass and particles, this would lead to photons. Though, some might argue that a boson is a photon in transition, it still cannot be dissociated.

For the rest, you did not understand me. I am not clear enough, obviously. Don't forget that gravity is caused by elementary charges from a fifth dimension. The charges generate a constant gravitational lightwave angular momentum of h/2π. Their relative oscillating frequency is their relative energy and determines their spacetime dimensions: Space by the radius of particles and time by their mass...

Please... Please, start a new discussion if you want to discuss with me. Most of your questions are already answered or are just misleading. I don't say you are wrong, i just say, i am going north and you are describing south. Everything should be explained at a specific time and space to be well understood.

« Last Edit: 07/03/2011 23:14:08 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #115 on: 07/03/2011 23:13:27 »
G*Mp^2/C = Mp*C*Lp = h/2π

This is certainly not a coincidence, in fact, it is just a more basic information about the origin of the elementary angular momentum quantum h/2π.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/Bohr_Atom/Bohr_Atom.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

This is a proof that matter is made of photons!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: 07/03/2011 23:16:24 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #116 on: 08/03/2011 00:28:28 »
You don't have to convince me that matter is made of photons. You're preaching to the choir on that matter.

Mp & Lp are defined in terms of h. The surprise is that they bear a peculiar relation to G. I'm curious about the precision of this relationship. If it is better than 5 decimal places, then it is probably not coincidence. If it is 12 decimal places, then it is definitely not coincidence.

I'm struggling to understand the physical meaning of your equations. Could you write a descriptive paragraph or two describing what they mean in knuckle-head terms.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2011 01:00:50 by Phractality »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #117 on: 08/03/2011 03:56:09 »
It is precise enough to be considered as not being a coincidence. Experimental values of accuracy are always smaller than in reality.

GMp^2 is like e^2/(4πξ0) and it is produced by the charge, the same way the electric field is. But, unlike the electric field, it does not create directly a gravitational field but it generates a gravitational lightwave (or as you see it, a shearwave) having a constant angular momentum of h/2π. The frequency of the two oscillating half charges in a photon determine the mass and radius differentials when interacting with particles or when involved in a creation of particles (2 particles, matter and antimatter particles, which mean that 2 photons, minimally, are needed).

Kaluza and Klein viewed the charge as being in a fifth dimension, having an interaction with other four dimensions of a fixed and very small dimension. They found that Maxwell equations are General Relativity's equations but with one more dimension. The problem is that the charges produce a quantized value for the angular momentum, so that the classical mathematics used could not solve it (adding terms to Maxwell equations). On the other hand, Einstein has concluded that his Gravity equation of General Relativity does not describe anything smaller than the Planck Length...

To produce a blackhole, you need an energy greater than Mp*C^2. Even if there is enough energy to produce a gravitational field stronger than the electric field, a particle will need energy from surrounding particles to collapse into a minimal blackhole of Mp. Which is not a problem inside a collapsing star. Two charges cannot occupy the same space, so it means radiation will be emitted.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2011 19:42:47 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #118 on: 08/03/2011 07:37:18 »
On second thought, there is nothing surprising at all about this; it comes directly from the definition of the Planck mass. Mp ≡ √(ħc/G).

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #119 on: 08/03/2011 09:14:11 »
or Mp = h/(C*2πLp) , but i have never seen anywhere an expression like G*Mp^2 = h*C/2π = Mp*C^2*Lp = e^2/(α*4πξ0).
« Last Edit: 08/03/2011 09:19:52 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #120 on: 29/03/2011 20:09:51 »
Errata, spin, gravitational wave and nuclear force

ERRATA:

The electron classical magnetic moment (or Bohr magneton μB) is given by

μB = I * S

Where I is the current and S the surface inside the circular current

μB = [(e * C)/2πR] * πR^2 = e * C * R/2 = e * h /(4π*me)

Where e is the electric charge
R is the rotating charge radius and is given by

R = h/(2π * me * C)

Dirac's equations involve a small relativistic correction

μe = -1.0016 * μB

Thus, we have to conclude that the charge is not in the middle of the electron but rotating at a radius R.

It implies that the charges always move at the speed of light and never stop.  But the charge has an acceleration toward the center of the particle and it does not emit Bremsstrahlung radiation. The electric charge does not change at relative speed. I still think, the charge is an interaction from a fifth dimension and its acceleration produces a gravitational wave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_magneton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

Proton and neutron sizes

Protons and neutrons are made of 3 quarks which are necessarily lighter than protons and neutrons. The protons and neutrons sizes cannot be determine solely by their masses. The size of each quarks (if quarks are elementary particles) should be about 3 times larger than the equivalent proton or neutron sizes (calculated as an elementary particle). The true masses of quarks has never been measured and appear smaller because of their Strong binding energy. The experimentally measured sizes of particles are their electric charges rotation sizes...

Spin and gravitational wave

G*Mp^2/C = Mp*C*Lp = e^2/(α*C*4πξ0) = h/2π

Earlier, i said that the spin of an elementary particle is given by

m*C*R = h/2π

We know that the spin is a multiple integer of h/4π (or 1/2). What is wrong? I was implying that the gravitational wave has the same radius as the rotating charge and all the particle's energy mc^2 is kinetic energy. I was wrong, the gravitational wave has either,

1- half the rotational radius of the charge (the spin would be equal to 1 when the charge is in the middle of the gravitational wave and they both have the same radius only).

or

2- half the total energy mc^2 is in the kinetic spin and the other half is potential binding gravitational energy (the energy needed to generate its intrinsic spacetime).

I will go further by saying that the gravitational wave is generating spacetime and even further, the Strong Interaction is, at least, mainly, if not completely, gravitational in nature. It is not magnetic as i thought (though magnetism has certainly a relation to gravity: it is a relativistic effect).

Nuclear Force

The term G*Mp^2 seems to be the Strong Interaction

G*Mp^2 = 137 * e^2/(4πξ0)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

Here is a simple model for the purpose of understanding, only:

Two particles with a very small difference in sizes are concentric, the smaller one is in the middle of the larger particle.
Virtual particles (pi mesons?) are constantly exchanged between both particles so that their difference in radius becomes effectively 2*Lp

The gravitational attraction becomes

Fg = G*M1*M2/(2Lp)^2 = G*Mp^2/(R1+R2)^2 = 137 * e^2/(4πξ0*(R1+R2)^2)

You can verify it, it is correct.

The binding energy is given by

GMp^2/(R1+R2)

For the Nuclear Force between protons and neutrons, you can see their binding energy in the following graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg

For a concentric model of one neutron concentric to a proton (just for the purpose of understanding) the binding energy calculated is about 470 MeV... Proton and neutron energy MC^2 is about 940 MeV, which is twice the calculated binding...

N.B.: virtual particles are necessary for the standard model of the Strong and Nuclear forces too. Their cause is probably in part electromagnetic and they certainly need very specific reasons to appear. I don't really believe in spontaneous virtual particles, but i can't be sure of that. It looks like a quantum pervertion...
« Last Edit: 07/05/2011 09:01:14 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #121 on: 05/04/2011 13:31:51 »
Here is a quote from Einstein:

"This objection would be justified if the equations of gravitation were to be considered as equations of the total field. But since this is not the case, one will have to say that the field of a material particle will differ the more from a pure gravitational field the closer one comes to the location of the particle. If one had the field equations of the total field, one would be compelled to demand that the particles themselves could be represented as solutions of the complete field equations that are free of irregularities everywhere. Only then would the general theory of relativity be a complete theory."

From http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-08/6-08.htm

#### kornbredrsqar

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 22
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #122 on: 22/04/2011 20:54:18 »
WOW, there is a lot of info in this forum, and most of which is above my pay grade, but what I do comprehend of it seems to fit in with an idea I have on this subject that was posted earlier,
and after watching a short explanation of string theory it to had properties that fit in as well. If photons are dark matter then the energy they possess is dark energy, and light is waves that travel through them and each photon might be connected electromagnetically in a multidimensional gridlike structure that somehow permeates all other matter and at the same time makes up that matter. I also wounder if the fact that light waves of different wavelengths are more easily refracted then others could be why the farther away an object is the redder it appears to be. has there been any calculations or studies to disprove this idea?. To me this makes more sense than the phase shift theory, but then that would cause an uproar in the big bang comunity wouldn't it. From what I learned the whole expanding universe theory hinges on this one single peace of evidence, to me it is like hanging a 500 pound panting on a thumb tack and expecting it to hold up. Has anyone ever observed a faze shift of light on earth as an object passes by, like for instance a light on an SR-71, as this plane is capable of very high speeds, it seems like a likely candidate for recording an actual change in light frequency as it passes the point of observation.
« Last Edit: 23/04/2011 15:39:29 by kornbredrsqar »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 586
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #123 on: 24/04/2011 08:43:43 »
Dark Matter:

The studies of gravitational lensing produced by Dark Matter showed that it is localized and it does not propagate at the speed of light. It does not seem to interact with the electromagnetic field but only with gravity and maybe the weak force. It sounds pretty much like particles to me... But what is bothering me about this is that we should see the effect of it in our solar system, unless there is not much around here.

It could be heavy virtual particles forming by the interactions of very high energy photons. Their decay could feed the creation of other virtual particles and this process could continue for a while without being fed by an external agent. According to my theory, Dark Matter particles of a fixed mass energy should be easier to produce than ordinary particles because they would be made of opposite charges. The problem with the virtual particles is the quantity needed and maybe no mass produced at all... Maybe they are not so virtual... Is it possible that they have been created at the BigBang and their generating process has been sustained for so long? Instability would explain why there is not much around the solar system, due to the sun's radiation. But they could be more stable between stars, in deep space, and produced by the interactions of stars photonic radiation.

For the redshift, the classical redshift by moving light sources or particles has been proved a long time ago and the distance has no consequence.

About Dark Energy, I see 3 general possibilities:

1- It is the negative pressure of true vacuum. Spacetime has been released from confinement in this vacuum at the BigBang.

2- Dark energy is simply gravity from matter outside what we can see of the Universe. A possibility we should consider if Dark flows are real. Maybe Dark Matter?

3- It is a new Force. All attempts at a measurement of it has been unsuccessful until now. The solution does not seem to be here. But who knows?

4- The cosmological model on which dark energy is founded is wrong...
« Last Edit: 09/06/2011 09:07:57 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### kornbredrsqar

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 22
##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #124 on: 25/04/2011 16:27:00 »
I guess gravity is a better explanation of the forces having to due with photons rather than electromagnetic, bad choice of words I suppose,but it still seems to me that an individual photon being emitted from a source and traveling the enormous distances that they do is not logical, the immense number of them that would be required to emit light in all directions from a star for the millions of years that a star lasts does not seem possible to me, and if this is possible then there should be a measurable transfer of mass from the source to the observer or whatever serfice that is absorbing the light. This is the main reason for my theory that individual photons only moving a short distance and transferring there energy from one to the next much like sound waves that travel through air.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #124 on: 25/04/2011 16:27:00 »