The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?  (Read 108054 times)

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #125 on: 27/05/2011 07:46:05 »
Some people on the forum, including me, have already thought about the fifth dimension as being a grid of electric charges (having a radius of the Planck Length) in the 3D space. It sounds a little reductionist but it is not impossible. :-\

Here is a very good summary of classical attempts at a Unification Theory. The most interesting part for my theory is the one about Klein's theory (unification of gravity and Maxwell's equations, see section 6.3):

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2

Here is an article about the concentric rings in the Cosmic Background Radiation (R. Penrose and V.G. Gurzadyan):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf

« Last Edit: 29/05/2011 04:21:52 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #126 on: 07/06/2011 03:58:08 »
Euclidean Space and Relativity

In my opinion, we are in an Euclidean space, but as we are made of light (all matter and energy), we cannot perceive a speed higher than the speed of light. So the Newtonian Doppler shift of the frequency becomes relativistic... Timerate really slows down with acceleration and increase of gravity. The length perception contracts because of the variation of timerate and frequency. There is no black holes but there is black rings. I would bet anything on it... Mass, gravity and time are strongly related.

Spacetime is real for us, but there is a true Euclidean space. The limit of spacetime is the Planck length because gravity is caused by the electric charge having a radius of the Planck length. A charge can produce a maximum mass of Mp (the Planck mass). Beyond the Planck length, space appears Euclidean again... This is it, i nailed it...

A particle having a mass of Mp is a charge spinning on itself, it does not rotate anymore, so there is no relativity anymore...

(the charges of quarks are not 1/3 (+/-) and 2/3 (+/-) but -1 or +1, they just appear to be like this: I have a working model of the proton and the neutron, i found the muon in it, with  pions, size, confinement, magnetic moment, beta decay; the Strong force looks like a unification of electromagnetism and gravity).
« Last Edit: 16/06/2011 01:05:10 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #127 on: 08/06/2011 05:13:02 »
Here is a graph of the Relativistic (black) vs newtonian (red) doppler shifts.

The y axis is fobserver/femitter.

The x axis is relative v/c of the emitter to the observer, a positive v is toward the observer.

« Last Edit: 08/06/2011 06:57:10 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #128 on: 10/06/2011 07:10:33 »
Relative timerate is directly related to the rotation period of the charge around an elementary particle. This period is relative to each particle. The apparent timerate is real and it is regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe... This may seems farfetched but it is not...

In their own frame of reference, each type of elementary particles has the same timerate. What can regulate time? Only something with no timerate: Entanglement.

See page 4 for my entanglement explanation.

Recent experimentation: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193

Wave pilot theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

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

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #129 on: 10/06/2011 09:47:01 »
I don't find the arrow uncertain, I find it a constant, inside your own frame. The idea of conceptually defining time when comparing frames is, conceptual. The real truth is that your arrow of time never change.

And furthermore, we're all carrying our personal SpaceTime with us. Which makes it incredibly difficult to define where a 'frame of reference' starts and ends. If I expect every 'point' to be slightly different gravitationally, and then include relative motion/acceleration I now have two good reasons for that definition. So where do you think your 'frame of reference' is situated? The one I, and you too actually, expect you to have? and how do we join them?

I don't need to define a 'time dilation' to any specific 'locality', can you see what I mean? It's a relation, nothing more.
==

How about accelerations? They are all defined by one thing as I see it, or two actually.
They all have 'gravity', and they all expend 'energy'.



The arrow of time is a constant in its own frame, i agree. But what makes, for example, all electrons, with no relative movement to each other, having the same unrelativistic properties. And what about the differentiation of acceleration and deceleration like in the twins experiment, which must be true differentiation in terms of information...

You could say that it comes from a reference point, a singularity, the usual bigbang. I just don't believe in that, if you unconditioned yourself to this point of view, you will find that it is highly improbable. You should look at its history and how it came to be and think about other possibilities.

In my understanding of entanglement, it conveys instantly informations about the spins between two entangled particles. The timerate information is in the spin according to my theory, it is the rotation period of the electric charge or frequency, if you prefer (in my model, it is two halves of an electric charge).

Thanks Yor_on, it is a golden question that i needed!
« Last Edit: 16/06/2011 00:59:38 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #130 on: 10/06/2011 22:59:36 »
Ahh CPT, now you're discussing two, or, maybe more things :)

We have matter as your chair. Then we have its constituents, which are the 'particles'. The particles seems to be both loosely defined as well as being able to 'pinpoint' depending on your view. For an electron that can express itself under certain circumstances, as the same electron apparently is able to exist in two orbitals, simultaneously. That's not what we expect of our chairs.

Then there is the definition of a charge.

Do you define a charge to a photon? If you do you better know that there have been no experiments I know of defining such a thing. The only idea existing, as far as I know, is the theoretical definitions of its limits, if it would exist.

And yes, you can see a entanglement the way you do, as a form of 'information' but information imply a communication, and all 'useful' communications known takes time. The other variant is to define it as those two particles in a way is the exact same. Just like the idea of a wave plastered out through SpaceTime. Some call them 'clones', but the principle defines as you say something 'instant'.

"The apparent timerate is real and it is regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe"

I've been wondering about that one too, if all photons to some degree could be defined as entangled. Although you lose me when defining the 'timerate' as regulated? We're talking entanglements I presume, and then you can not have any 'useful' information.

How do you think there?
==

Another thing worth thinking of. In a entanglement the particle(s) defined always will have a opposite 'spin'. If they are the 'same', why does this differ?

A symmetry?

Keep it on CPT. All ideas change with reflection, but the longer you think of it the simpler it should be. If you find yourself going the other way, finding it to becoming increasingly complicated, then it's time to draw back to test the assumptions.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2011 13:11:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #131 on: 14/06/2011 01:09:46 »
There can be 2 electrons with opposite spins on the same orbital, they are not on top of each other, they just orbit on opposite sides of the nucleus.

Far from an electron, it is perceived as a point particle, but its gravitational and electromagnetic fields comes from a ring shape. The charge appears smeared around its rotation, because it has a velocity of c in its own frame. I see a particle as being a strong entanglement of halves of photons. With MRC = h/2π and E=hν, it forms the uncertainty principle.

In the same way, a photon is made of two halves of a charge (to account for a possibility of dark matter made of +1/2 -1/2) of +1/2 and -1/2. The charge is smeared and it produces an effective charge of zero.

All energy of the universe is made of one wave of light in an Euclidean 3d space. Particles and photons are the strong entanglement relations and entanglement between particles and photons is the weak one. A part of the weak entanglement regulates time (and gravity) by relativity. You can see it like a coil spring between two entangled particles, but you must replace space dimension x by the velocity v component dx/dt (Δx -> Δv). Vectors of acceleration and gravity corresponding to true inertial force between two particles are stored in the entanglement.

Some information travels at the speed of light, some are instantaneous but are limited between the two entangled particles.

According to what i have read, some researchers are trying to experiment with multiple levels of entanglement, they want to reach a higher than 50% certainty on the switch of the spin. An up spin changes by 90 to 270 degrees, making it a down spin with 50% of uncertainty...

An excellent explanation of some properties of the spin that gives a good idea of how it works:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html


About Relativity and Minkowski spacetime:
According to Einstein Theory of Relativity, our four main dimensions should be indivisible spacetime. Simultaneity is relative to the observer and there is no possible true simultaneous related events, because nothing can have a velocity greater than the speed of light. In this model, relativity is explained by the properties of spacetime itself. The problem is that it does not allow simultaneity and non locality. This is why Einstein disliked so much the idea of entanglement.

http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTheory/OtherRelativity.doc
« Last Edit: 24/06/2011 11:24:57 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #132 on: 16/06/2011 14:39:57 »
Evidence of a ring black hole...?


http://journalofcosmology.com/SchildLeiter1.pdf

If you look at figure 7 page 39, the yellow dotted lines look much like the gravity equipotentials of my ring black hole. The black ring is somewhere between the center and the white color ring.

The size of the ring seems to agree with their conclusion, Rg is about half the Schwarzschild radius (see page 4 of my theory for my description of a black ring).

About MECO: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0602/0602453v1.pdf

Here is dipole measurements in the CMB radiation map (courtesy of yor_on :):
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

Anomalies in the spin of galaxies:
http://128.84.158.119/abs/1104.2815
« Last Edit: 28/06/2011 02:40:14 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #133 on: 28/06/2011 03:15:02 »
It is now clear for me, that there is no true Spacetime as Einstein conceptualized it. There is only one giant wave of light (or many) in a Euclidean space (Phractality was right about Euclidean space).

The laws of Entanglement and the laws of General and Special Relativity come from properties of the lightwave as a whole, "propagating" through 3D space.

Spacetime is only apparent, there is no true curvature of spacetime, but there is curvature of light in space. The lower limit of apparent Spacetime is the rest mass and the higher limit is the Planck mass. The ultimate proof lays on the present and future observations of black holes.

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html (another gem discovered on the net by Yor_on)
The most interesting paragraph is "Objections", a must read!!!

A little secret:
The strong force is what maintain the two half charges in an elementary particle. The two half charges are the virtual particles needed (they are inside h/2π) and they are bound by GMp^2/(2R)^2, energy = MC^2 = MC^2/2 + GMp^2/2R (kinetic + Strong potential) where MCR = h/2π. Remember, the charge has no mass, no inertia, but it creates it by rotating. All dimensions except space dimensions expand from the charges...

Why photons have no timerate and no apparent charge:
Photons can be viewed as a dipole of one -1/2 and one +1/2 charges, rotating at the speed of light and propagating at the speed of light. In analogy to a wheel, the distance it covers in a one rotation period is equal to its circumference without any shearing (in a particle's rest frame). Thus, you can replace the time dimension by a fourth space dimension for photons. For an elementary particle having a mass, there is a shearing of the wheel and you need something linking mass and space: this is Time... Here ends the analogy of a shearing wheel because it is not shearing in any medium other than its own, it is just rotating at the speed of light in its rest frame, which is not the case for a photon (no rest frame). And you can't measure the charges of something propagating with no timerate...

Viewed in this way, there is only a small difference between photons and neutrinos...



« Last Edit: 01/11/2011 22:03:24 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #134 on: 20/07/2011 21:24:49 »
In very short, the HUP (uncertainty principle) is caused by:

A- Entanglement between all elementary particles of the universe (1st level=50%, 2nd=25%, 3rd=12.5%, ...); There is a 0 level or ground state of entanglement for the particle itself but it is a special case for later.
 +
B- the electric charge is equally the mass charge, it always propagates at the speed of light;
 +
C- an elementary particles possess an angular momentum of h/2π and a spin of 1/2.

The whole universe is totally causal excepted, probably, living entities, naturally... This would be the cause of evolution, or rather i should say: this is a process that enables evolution...

Elementary particle
An elementary particle (EP) with mass has a spin of 1/2, it has an annihilating antiparticle with perfect geometrical symmetry (circular and spherical for EP) and opposite electric charge (not mass, same mass). The photon is the ultimate elementary particle, but i don't use the term elementary particle for it anymore.

The charge always propagating at the speed of light solves so many problems that it may be the best solution. No experiment deny it, in the contrary, it is the best bet, it is simply an ultra basic property, even more than relativity. In my model, you have space and charges, that's all! All dimensions but Euclidean space are in the charge... The wave of energy is an expansion of some of the charge's dimensions. (note: fractal and superfluid links)

There is many circumstantial proofs that the charge rotates at the speed of light.

My first assumption is that everything is made of light and particles are made out of photons. The end of all decays is the photon. My second assumption is that there is a deterministic model underlying the probabilistic interpretation of QM, at least for the dimensions of the purely "material" world.

The magnetic moment of the electron using the compton wavelength indicates a rotation size in agreement with many experiments. Meaning the charge has a speed of C.

The Compton wavelength is used in the QM wave models of massive particles.

The spin has fixed values that represent an inertial angular momentum with a probability distribution for its direction. If you look at it in a relativistic point of view, what can possibly produce a fixed (quantized) inertial angular momentum? Something propagating at the speed of light with no mass, no inertia (superfluid?)... The charge...

Gravity is like an only attractive DC component of the electromagnetic field. AC and DC unified form the Strong Force, which is not a field but the binding of subatomic particles. It is a conclusion, not an assumption... (you can still see it as a one dimensional circular field!)

I have made an extensive research on the net.
If you look only at the basic verified properties of particles, discarding the purely theoretical, and you forget the artificial separations of the standard model due to the lack of knowledge about the Strong Force, you find that the elementary massive particles are all a rotating charge with a spin of 1/2. Electron, muon, Tau, quarks and neutrinos. Bosons are a special case because my theory denies the Higgs. Of what i understand, if there is no Higgs, the actual models of W and Z bosons are not correct.

N.B.: for neutrinos, we must differentiate the inertial spin from the electromagnetic spin due to its neutral electric charge...
« Last Edit: 09/09/2011 07:39:03 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #135 on: 26/07/2011 22:42:45 »
A good news : "Was the universe born spinning?"

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

another one? : No time travel possible?

http://www.inquisitr.com/129162/hong-kong-research-proves-time-travel-impossible/

Even if i did not say it explicitly, mass and time is the circular motion of the charges, so implicitly, there is no negative time and no negative mass, not as far as my theory goes...

« Last Edit: 02/08/2011 02:25:06 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #137 on: 02/08/2011 09:38:41 »
CPT - dunno if you can read the actual nature article; but the techniques involved in the measurement are stunning.  I presume this is just inertial mass and no necessarily gravitational mass that has been measured.  Personally I think the chances of a variation between gravitational and inertial mass - even for antimatter - are very slight (ie reulsive gravity between matter and antimatter).  I would be fairly happy if I was you and your theory predicts no negtive mass
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #138 on: 02/08/2011 18:33:24 »
I understand that they have measured the mass-energy of the antiproton. It is true that it is not an absolute proof of positive gravitational mass but it is nonetheless a good circumstantial proof of it.

I am amazed to find so many great experimenters in Physics...


About Dark Matter, now i tend to think it could be simply stopped neutrinos between stars. Supernovae produce mostly neutrinos!!! What if there is no true expansion of space, spacetime expansion could be included in the kinetic expansion, no faster than light. How old is the Universe then? The major problem is that time is relative...  How can there be so much energy in neutrinos form? They are produced by supernovae, stars and probably matter near black holes. Dark Energy could simply be kinetic energy: there is no acceleration (no acceleration has really been measured yet), the bigbang could be a real explosion of a black ring in Euclidean space, so farther the objects are from the central point, the more kinetic energy they possess... Space is not spherical, we will never see the same object from two opposite sides of the Universe. The Universe is at least 26 billion years old at our actual timerate, not 13.5 billion years. We see the edge of the Universe in the past at 13 billion ly, assuming a constant velocity, this means the edge is now at 26 billion ly from us.

Spacetime creation and conformal coordinates expansion is not the fruit of Relativity but the fruit of the Theory of the creation of matter and spacetime from nothing...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13792-cosmic-time-warp-revealed-in-slowmotion-supernovae.html
This article talks about the proof of the expansion of space, but in fact, it's just a proof of larger redshifts related to higher relative velocities according to Special Relativity and time dilation ...

http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/ps/unified_force.pdf

Hints from the past: The largest black holes in the Universe

My black ring model is based on Kaluza-Klein Tower Equation:
http://everything.explained.at/Kaluza%e2%80%93Klein_theory/
« Last Edit: 09/08/2011 11:06:20 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #139 on: 05/08/2011 09:22:28 »
Not convinced yet? Watch this!

Through the Wormhole: Are There More Than Three Dimensions?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-there-more-than-three-dimensions/
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #140 on: 09/08/2011 11:31:48 »
See this articles and related articles
http://physics.about.com/b/2010/04/22/could-quasars-disprove-time-dilation.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/553/2/L97/fulltext

The redshifts observed of visible matter around Quasars are standard relativistic redshifts. But the regular timing of the variations in intensity observed must be related directly to the black rings. The black ring (black hole) being the upper limit of relativity at Lp and Mp, it explains its absolute property of time dilation.

My theory is the only viable solution... simply because there is no other...!!! And i did not have to change it to solve the problem...
« Last Edit: 13/08/2011 22:06:26 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #141 on: 18/08/2011 17:03:47 »
Though i am not sure about space expansion due to a lack of information on the big picture of the universe and a good explanation of the CMB, i am convinced that matter is made entirely of light. Everything inside the HUP is smeared and unmeasurable in space, time and energy. A photon is entirely inside HUP, having an electromagnetic origin, it must possess charges or it must travel through a grid of charges.

I am reluctant to reveal my next conclusion because many of you, specially those who haven't taken much time to think about my theory, will see it as a religious conclusion, which is not. It is a logical conclusion... Here it is:

Matter is made of light. Light does not exist in time. We perceive time. Conclusion: consciousness is outside matter (or light). Thus consciousness is from other dimensions than the dimensions of simple matter. There is a possibility that "near death experiences" are true... I just hope i won't regret to have written it down...  [:o)] For now, take it as a grain of salt...
« Last Edit: 26/10/2011 10:49:16 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #142 on: 30/08/2011 20:47:03 »
The fact is that the Strong Force is the electromagnetic and gravitational forces united (including the weak force). There is no proof for a fifth force, though there is a possibility according to the Dark energy theories.

The Strong Force unifies all forces into a black ring. If there is conservation of information, it is the lowest form of entropy.

Half or more of the Strong energy after a bigbang is transformed in part to other forms of energy: electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and kinetic. Kinetic and gravitational energy are relativistic. It is the gravitational link to mass that makes the kinetic energy being relativistic. You must see objects as a whole...

The only way to go faster than light is to be completely disentangled with the rest of the universe. But is it possible?

About Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB), it is probably only thermal radiation absorbed and emitted back and forth between massive particles in the universe, we just see it from the past. Its origin is still the bigbang.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2011 10:32:33 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #143 on: 31/08/2011 22:46:50 »
Very interesting properties about GR and SR from GPS clocks measurements:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

It means the Earth was mainly liquid at its formation and the resulting shape produces a flat timerate everywhere on it at sea level. Certainly not a coincidence. Now, the Earth has cooled down and surrounding mass like mountains modify the timerate.

Escape velocity produce and equal amount of slow down of timerate (SR) compared to the increase in timerate at infinite distance due to gravity (GR).

For GR
T0/T = 1/(√(1-2GM/RC2)

For SR
T/T0 = 1/(√(1-V2/C2)

Vescape= √(2GM/R)

N.B.: Escape velocity means zero velocity at infinite distance...

My theory doesn't need aether, even though there is an origin (the bigbang or our bigbang is a possible absolute reference). Relativity is a property of the Wave of light (our entire "apparent" universe) with itself...
« Last Edit: 02/09/2011 10:53:07 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #144 on: 28/09/2011 14:06:02 »
Do neutrinos travel faster than light?

We know neutrinos can have velocities below the speed of light.

Why the speed of photons is constant and not for neutrinos?

They both have an average electric charge of zero but the neutrinos have a nonzero mass charge. Neutrinos have a relativistic energy coming from its mass. Thus, neutrinos can be slow down to a alt in any referential frames, depending of proper gravitational force acting on it.

But can neutrinos travel faster than photons?

Even having an average zero electric charge, the photon is still bond by electromagnetic entanglement which convey the property of the speed of light to be constant. Relativity of light's frequency is only within the mass and timerate of a massive observer. Photon's charge is truly constant to +1/2 and -1/2 = 0. The electric charge seems to be more fundamental as an electric charge than a mass charge.

Depending on the unknown proper masses of the neutrinos and possibly the fine structure constant (or coupling constant=1/137), it is possible that the minimal strength of their gravitational entanglement is lower at their creation compare to the strength of photons electromagnetic entanglement. This would allow the neutrinos to have a higher momentum and speed

According to my theory, the only possibility for neutrinos to have a speed limit beyond C implies that their electromagnetic entanglement is changed ,in this case, in an enough quantity to a weaker gravitational entanglement as a proper mass charge. The neutrino's electric charge being equal to the photon's charge, it would mean neutrinos momentum increases by being bond in part by gravity rather than entirely by electromagnetism.

Different mass generation for neutrinos than ordinary matter? I think it is rather unlikely...


« Last Edit: 29/09/2011 05:04:34 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #145 on: 10/10/2011 08:38:56 »
About curvature of light by a gravitational field and the shape of the universe.

Curvature of light by a gravitational field is due to the transversal gravitational entanglement of photons.

see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html#c4

Something important to note in this case is that the beam of light emitted by the star and received on earth is not the same as the one we would receive without the gravitational field of the sun. Thus, the light path has shortened. The rate of curvature maintains the speed of light constant locally.

This effect is produced by the pulling of all elementary particles of the sun on the photons by gravitational entanglement. Light has no mass because it does not depend on the energy of the free photon and light has no rest frame. Light has inertia in its direction of "propagation" when absorbed or reflected in a rest frame but it has no mass because of its constant velocity which is directly related to length and timerate. If gravity and light have the same velocity, photons just can't possess gravitational mass in its velocity direction! There is a kind of gravitational mass in the transverse direction though...

We observe from earth a longer path due the curvature, but locally it is straight due to the length contraction of the higher gravitational pulling nearby the sun. This is why all very massive objects in the universe are spherical (or circular in the case of a black ring).

In Euclidean space, a black ring would first expand in a donut shape, then in an ellipsoid (oblate spheroid) tending toward a sphere over time. The differential of the equatorial radius and the polar radius decrease over time. The black ring expands at the speed of light from a ring having a thickness of twice the Planck length and a diameter equal to half the Schwarzschild radius.

Light rays on a large scale are relatively straight but still length contracted in the middle of the universe and they have a higher curvature inward as they travel along the edge of the universe but certainly not enough to form a loop around the universe. It is a quite a simple explosion (expansion) in Euclidean space. In this case, a uniform expansion would produce an expansion of the ring shape only. My first proposition is an expansion with velocities proportional to the square of the distance. The universe we observe having a radius of about 14 billion Ly, the expansion could be quite linear in a first approximation in distances less than a billion Ly.

This way, it is highly possible that the expansion is due to the release of the kinetic energy of the black ring, half its total energy. The proof of that will come from observations of a non uniform and anisotropic universe.

Kinetic energy is relativistic energy without the rest mass energy (i prefer the term rest mass than invariant mass because of its reference to the rest frame).

Kinetic energy is energy which is not in a rest frame. It is energy in the form of momentum or free light (not a particle form having a rest mass). Free Light form does not exist in time. The more relativistic or kinetic energy a particle with mass possess (relative to another), the more it is in a relative free light form and the more its timerate is dilated.

About my black ring description, i said that in order to keep only the rest mass, the relativistic energy of a particle vanishes at the event horizon in an elastic collision due to the fact that it is perpendicular to the motion of the light ring. It should vanish in flashes of light... The universe being unbound, the photons loss by matter in the universe should convert mass into kinetic energy and causes a decrease in the deceleration of the expansion. Thus an expanded black ring cannot reform in its entirety in a big crunch (collapse due to gravity).

Its seems very likely that there is other black rings expanding or not outside our visible universe...

More to come!

« Last Edit: 27/06/2016 00:44:39 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #146 on: 10/10/2011 21:36:53 »
So, our point of view of the universe depends on our relative position to the center. Yes, there is a center. We are not necessarily at this center. Limited capacity of the instrumentation we use to observe the universe is limiting our capacity to observe that we are not at the center. If the universe is quite larger than our capable observations, then the most distant objects we observe in any direction will look the same in most aspects. Our perception of length and time depends on our position in the universe. If we look at an object having a recessive speed in the opposite direction to our speed relative to the central point, we will see this object farther into the past and nearer in distance than an observer at the center of the universe will (distance of the object from us).

See adding speed in special relativity on Hyperphysics website from my last hyperlink.

But now, what is the most interesting part is how entanglement enables relativity in Euclidean space. How spacetime is not needed at all? Kinetic energy is a relative free photon form of energy and it exists everywhere along its path at any time. Thus, one observer can see an object at a different place and time than another observer at an absolute instant. Two observers may have different timeline and timerate but they still share the same instant, only the relative distances between any two absolute instants are different. This is quite amazing...

Does it sound like Quantum Mechanics properties?
« Last Edit: 12/10/2011 07:04:43 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #147 on: 13/10/2011 08:00:29 »
Dark Energy

A black ring energy:

E = N*MpC2/2 + N2*GMp2/2R = N*MpC2
E = kinetic energy + strong force binding energy

Where
Mp is the Planck mass
N*Mp is the total mass of the black ring
R is half the Schwarzschild radius = N*Lp.

If the expansion is caused by the release of the kinetic energy at the bigbang and the velocity distribution is proportional to the square of the distance in Euclidean space, how much dark energy should be measured in the actual spacetime cosmological model?

In Euclidean space it is 50%.

In spacetime it is √50% = 70.7% (more explanations later)(in spacetime, acceleration is necessary, think of an inflating balloon in 2D).

It is estimated to about 75% for the moment...
« Last Edit: 13/10/2011 15:29:17 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #148 on: 13/10/2011 16:51:53 »
Casimir effect

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

The distance between the two parallel plates act as a wavelength cut off for kinetic pressure (in this case: thermal pressure). Theoretically speaking, if the distance between the two plates would be reduced to the Planck length, the only force left between them would be the Strong Force. But in reality, the geometry of matter and the fact that the plates are composed mostly of empty space render it much weaker for any distance.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2011 19:53:49 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #149 on: 31/10/2011 20:54:59 »
Gamma ray bursts

1- The sum of momenta of a rotating particle over a period is zero in its own frame.

2- A Black Ring (BR) is a particle.

3- Acceleration at a black ring is so strong that a particle will decay in to photons before reaching the event horizon.

4- Only the rest mass is kept turning around the BR. The BR should bite only in quanta of Mp (without it, the black ring wouldn't be stable).

5- The reciprocal kinetic energy must be emitted in the form of light (electromagnetic radiation).

6- The BR acts like a gravitational lens. The particles velocity represents reciprocal kinetic energy to the black ring's kinetic energy, due to gravity.  It's total momentum is zero. It should be ejected from the BR in opposite directions for conservation of momentum.

7- Any events synchronized at the event horizon is at a maximum possible time dilation. The local density of energy is constant for any BR at the event horizon. Its temperature is the Planck temperature divided by 2π, which is equal to Hawking-Unruh radiation temperature for a unitary BR of Mp wavelength = 2π*Lp... [:0]

http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/linearchannel.pdf

In Unruh radiation temperature equation, just replace "h/2π" by Mp*C*Lp
and acceleration "a" by C2/Lp

You get Planck Temperature divided by 2π.

In relativity, for the ring itself, curvature = acceleration = energy density = radiation temperature

It is true until the limit mass Mp and wavelength 2πLp.

For a larger BR, relativity is not a factor anymore
curvature = acceleration ≠ energy density = radiation temperature = constant.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2012 19:47:49 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #149 on: 31/10/2011 20:54:59 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length