# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?  (Read 104800 times)

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #225 on: 04/09/2013 17:48:28 »
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-bizarre-alignment-planetary-nebulae.html

The nearer a star is from our galaxy supermassive black ring, the more aligned to the plane its orbit must be in order to be stable. It is a matter of history...

How many strikes I need to convince you?

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #226 on: 09/09/2013 20:43:37 »
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-physics-classical-quantum-world.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3708

There is no truly isolated system. All particles of the universe are entangled with each other. Fifty percent of level of entanglement between two particles is sufficient to know at 100% certitude that if you define one as having a spin up, the other has a spin down... If the first particle has a spin at zero degree, the other will have a spin between 90 and 270 degrees. It always has a non zero component at 180 degrees. In fact, its maximum probability level is at 180 degrees, if you consider the outside system (the rest of the universe) as having a circular probability function (spherical in 3D) for its contribution to the spin of the particle.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2013 07:12:20 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3770
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #227 on: 13/09/2013 22:27:39 »
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.

As no mass can exceed light speed then it seems sensible to assume that no mass can collapse inside its own Schwarzschild radius as that would preclude emission of photons. It may approach the event horizon but never actually compress itself beyond that limit. As time dilation is highly accentuated at this surface electromagnetic waves would be emitted at a greatly reduced rate and a frequency too low to detect. This stretched waveform could be the driver of the expansion of the universe. The 'black hole' would eventually evaporate but over cosmic timescales.

As every action has an equal and opposite reaction the expansion is a reaction to the compression of the collapsing mass. Time dilation and its effects could describe the rotation of galaxies.
« Last Edit: 13/09/2013 22:31:43 by jeffreyH »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #228 on: 13/09/2013 23:46:28 »
I invite you to read my theory entirely, keeping only the latest conclusions. You should click on my pseudo name "cpt arkangel" and read the other latest comments I have made which are not included in my theory.

Space is not Euclidean. Space is a relation from each elementary particle to all other particles of the universe. There is a set of flat spaces evolving through time. From Earth, if you look at the universe, measure the CMB radiation and you subtract Earth relative motion from it, you get a flat space, taking account that the measurement is instantaneous-like compared to cosmological time and motion. So you are left with an elementary particle measuring the geometry of space at a specific time.

General Relativity is not a complete theory and it is flawed at the level of particles (read other of my posts to find the proofs, some are outside my theory). There is no point particles and the concept of spacetime introduced by GR is wrong. GR was made long time before entanglement was sufficiently understood.

Concerning black holes, even if I use the term "event horizon", there is no event horizon as understood in the "standard models".

The expansion is due to the release of the longitudinal component of photons at the big bang from our black ring of origin. How it happened will be the next big mystery to solve and it will explain the mass of the elementary particles. If there are different possible starting conditions, there is a different possible set of particles to each big bang.

A black ring does not evaporate in any way, it is the lowest form of entropy. The solution is simple. The expansion energy, which is 50% of the total of the original energy, never go back to its origin but it is lost due to the geometry of the rings and it produces gamma ray bursts when a sufficient quantity of matter is absorbed in a relatively short amount of time.

Another mystery is how kinetic energy could be caught again in a larger universe... maybe it transforms in neutrinos... the lightest particle... ??? Neutrinos=dark matter...
« Last Edit: 20/09/2013 21:37:15 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### petm1

• Full Member
• Posts: 52
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #229 on: 24/09/2013 04:16:04 »
Why not think of each photon as a monopole?

#### Pmb

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1838
• Physicist
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #230 on: 24/09/2013 07:48:06 »
Why not think of each photon as a monopole?
Why would anybody do that? It'd be like asking "Why not thinkg of each photon as a cow?" Sure. If you tossed everything you knew about physics out the window and put on your lying hat you might convince yourself to say such a thing. But you'd have to be drunk enough to come up with a motive for actually wanting to do such a thing. :)

They're unrelated entities. Why do you ask these questions? A photon is nothing like a monopole and there's nothing in physics to suggest it. So where on earth did you get the idea to ask such a thing?

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #231 on: 26/09/2013 04:32:32 »
Yes, you can see it as a monopole, but certainly not a magnetic monopole and it is conflicting with the relativistic point of view of one particle. It is interesting but I don't see its usefulness right now. By the principle of reciprocality, you can see it as an inertial monopole.

Photons have mass?
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
« Last Edit: 28/09/2013 14:01:51 by CPT ArkAngel »

Post by Pmb click to view.

#### Pmb

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1838
• Physicist
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #232 on: 26/09/2013 04:48:22 »
Shrunk
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Yes, you can see it as a monopole, ....
The term "monopole" when used without further clarification it's usually assumed to mean "magnetic monopole". Simply do a search on google to see that. But in no way can a photon be thought of as an electric dipole.

With responses like this I can't accept your claim that you studied physics in college.
You certainly can not. If you believe otherwise then please post a proof rather than just make the claim.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Photons have mass?
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
No. Read it again. This time more slowly, i.e.
Quote
...act as though they have mass ...

Post by Pmb click to view.

#### Pmb

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1838
• Physicist
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #233 on: 26/09/2013 05:14:03 »
Shrunk
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
there is no point of arguing with you because you are too stubborn Pete.
If there's no point of arguing then don't. Being very stubborn is a good way for a physicist such as myself to be. It helps us not buy into whatever someone wants us to believe just because they say so or think something.

What is an "my interrogation mark" and why would I see it?

So, that's JP and myself down now. Whoelse?

Post by Pmb click to view.

#### Pmb

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1838
• Physicist
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #234 on: 26/09/2013 06:31:58 »
Shrunk
question mark "?"

No wonder why you got kicked out of the physics forum...

It is just like you always want to shoot someone. You won't shoot me for sure, I will not answer any of your questions anymore and don't ask me why!!!

I don't deserve this. I did not attack you in any way.
Wow! I'm amazed at how paranoid you are and how much you've read into things that aren't there. You wrote "Haven't you seen my interrogation mark?" and I wanted to know what that meant - Period.

When someone writes No wonder why you got kicked out of the physics forum... it's (1) very insulting and (2) tells me that you were waiting/looking for a reason to assume its true. I was told to leave because they don't like it when people disagree with them and they can't force their beliefs on others.

You've turned vile in a very short time span so you're going into my kill file for being so cruel.

Post by jeffreyH click to view.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3770
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #235 on: 26/09/2013 15:10:54 »
Shrunk
question mark "?"

No wonder why you got kicked out of the physics forum...

It is just like you always want to shoot someone. You won't shoot me for sure, I will not answer any of your questions anymore and don't ask me why!!!

I don't deserve this. I did not attack you in any way.
Wow! I'm amazed at how paranoid you are and how much you've read into things that aren't there. You wrote "Haven't you seen my interrogation mark?" and I wanted to know what that meant - Period.

When someone writes No wonder why you got kicked out of the physics forum... it's (1) very insulting and (2) tells me that you were waiting/looking for a reason to assume its true. I was told to leave because they don't like it when people disagree with them and they can't force their beliefs on others.

You've turned vile in a very short time span so you're going into my kill file for being so cruel.

Which physics forum was it? I found one that was very hostile to debate and wonder if it was the same one.

#### CliffordK

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 6321
• Thanked: 3 times
• Site Moderator
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #236 on: 27/09/2013 06:40:32 »
Somehow I think this topic has gotten a bit off topic.
Can you please get back to a discussion of photons?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3770
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #237 on: 27/09/2013 14:31:06 »
The photon as the only elementary particle would have to also play a role in the Higgs Boson and so be involved in mass in some way. This is self referencing like pulling yourself up by your own bootstrap. Also the Graviton is shown to have spin 2 and mirrors the photon somewhat mathematically. The expression of gravity would have to come out of the photon. How is that possible?

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #238 on: 27/09/2013 20:53:01 »
In my theory, the photon has a transverse gravitational mass and a longitudinal inertial mass. The graviton is a hypothetical particle, but it could be made of 2 photons' transverse component, because any interaction must obey the principle of reciprocality. Yes, the Higgs boson is made from 2 photons, probably a total of spin 0, which conveys inertia, the longitudinal component, for some specifically quantized interactions. Yes, it is a very interesting idea. Thanks!

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
« Last Edit: 28/09/2013 14:02:06 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #239 on: 21/10/2013 05:11:18 »
I think it is probably right to say that gravity is mediated at the speed of light.

If non locality of entanglement is here to stay, it is obvious to me that to conserve causality, space is the end product, space is the result of any interaction. The world may be a hologram. Space is just the spatial dimensions and it is the end product of the causality chain.

But what is more interesting is if spacetime is quantized and localized into energy quanta represented by particles, it means that the limit imposed on the speed of light necessitates a limit on the minimal delay in time (space is the end product therefore you need a limit on time!).

There is no gravitational wave...

« Last Edit: 21/10/2013 05:23:08 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #240 on: 16/12/2013 23:06:29 »

All charges move at the speed of light relative to any frame of reference and elementary particles are not truly elementary, they are made of at least two constituents. Space is flat...

More on that later...

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #241 on: 25/12/2013 20:10:09 »
Here is my 'proof' that there is no event horizon.

1- Forget the GR answer, because gravity is a reciprocal interaction. It must respect Mach's Principle in a theory of Quantum Gravity and that is what Einstein truly wanted for GR, without success.

2- A black hole keeps only the rest mass of particles falling into it.

3- By principle 2, kinetic energy must evade the black hole somehow. Therefore, the maximum event horizon has the Planck Length.

An electron, falling into a black hole, is a superposition or a correlation between an electron rest form and a photon form. The photon form is the kinetic part.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20121221-alice-and-bob-meet-the-wall-of-fire/

« Last Edit: 26/12/2013 07:30:43 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #242 on: 01/01/2014 01:12:21 »
No matter, no time and no space.

It is Einstein who first used the term “Mach's Principle”. According to Mach’s Principle, if the universe was made of a single unitary element, this element wouldn’t have any property, no mass, no spin, no charge, no momentum, no energy and no space. The properties of each unitary element are determined in a relation to other unitary elements. Einstein wanted GR to follow this principle and it makes perfect sense.

It is important to understand that Einstein’s views, guiding him to the foundation of General Relativity, may not be solved entirely by the mathematical solution proposed by Einstein: The GR field equations. Minkowski influenced greatly Einstein in his search for a mathematical solution. This is Minkowski’s spacetime which introduced gravitational waves. Something Einstein found but something Einstein doubted about its reality. And there is the black hole solution which he understood to be wrong.

Einstein introduced the concept of spacetime because he didn't have a valid description of matter, including the source of inertia and gravity. Spacetime replaces matter in GR, if you follow Mach. There is spacetime without matter in GR! This is why GR failed to follow Mach’s Principle. He simply couldn’t find a valid solution in agreement with his own understanding.

“Einstein added the cosmological constant term to make static cosmological solutions possible by including a long-range repulsive force. But he also hoped that the inclusion of the cosmological constant term would render his field equations solution less in the absence of matter. Willem deSitter quickly showed that Einstein’s new equations had an expanding, asymptotically empty solution, one with full inertial structure; and a vacuum solution, too. So Einstein’s attempt to include Mach’s principle in this way was deemed a failure.”

Spacetime is matter and it is discrete. No matter, no time and no space.

If there are more than one big bang in the universe, there is still a space and time solution without our big bang…

Now you can understand why I say there is no vacuum energy. There is no vacuum energy without matter.

A fifth dimension might still be necessary to explain the electric charge and fields.

Einstein’s unsuccessful investigations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_unsuccessful_investigations

Happy new year!!!

« Last Edit: 01/01/2014 01:28:45 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #243 on: 14/01/2014 23:21:13 »
The Big Bang (it is all about synchronization and the physical value of 'pi')

A black ring is a particle made of multiple wavelengths (n*2pi*Lp). Thus, the value of 'pi' must be finite in our physical reality. We have an inertial clock having a time rate of 2pi*Tp.

Then, we have a second clock for the gravitational force. This clock has a time rate of Tp.

These two discrete clocks are always out of sync in elementary particles because each of them is made of one wavelength (note on the relation of stability and synchronization). This is not the case for a black ring! While a black ring keeps growing, it will eventually reach a synchronization point between those two clocks. This is the cause of big bangs…

If you find the real discrete value of 'pi', you find the tuning value needed to explain the set of particles we have and you find the size and the mass of our black ring of origin. Good luck!!!  :o)

In fact, you need 'pi' and Tp.

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

« Last Edit: 15/01/2014 03:48:51 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #244 on: 07/02/2014 01:35:43 »
The story of the lonely Mr. Electron desperately seeking love (The endless pursuit of happiness)

Mr Electron is looking for his dreamed particle. He asks to a psychophysicist friend about Miss Positron. She looks so perfect to him.

He learns that the price to pay for a wedding with Miss Positron is the lost of identity of his charges and a split of his massive personality.* He then learns that they could not agree when they talk about their mass. Moreover, after having exchanged half of their mass, they would immediately understand their ultimate incompatibility about it and they would decide to separate at the speed of light.

Later, Mr Electron thinks he has found his perfect half in the name of Mrs Blackring. After their first meeting, they become inseparable. But Mrs Blackring seems never satisfied; she invites others to share their home. Mr Electron cannot leave her because she is simply too attractive.

One day, Mrs Blackring makes a fatal mistake; she has charmed Mr Pi. Once Mr Pi enters their home, everybody understands that his dream can only be fulfill somewhere else. Suddenly, Mrs Blackring doesn’t look attractive anymore; she is not the perfect one. Everybody leaves in a big turmoil, continuing his endless search for happiness, for his perfect half.

Mrs Blackring has become a memory, a story, but she is still a part of their present and a part of their future…
« Last Edit: 07/02/2014 01:37:44 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #245 on: 25/03/2014 03:42:04 »
An interesting article about entanglement and spin propagation:
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-diamonds-friend.html

Note the difference in the spin lifetime when in the middle compared with when at the edge...

This one is related to what I've been thinking for quite a while (black rings and elementary particles tails):

Without tails, there would be no interactions... More on that later.

About the B-Mode polarization signal in the CMB, it is due to supermassive black rings jets which were active for billions of years. (remember that it is very faint)

Why the Milky Way signal has to be subtracted from the CMB and not the signals from all other galaxies?

Why the CMB forms a sphere of a radius of over 13 billion ly only a few 100 thousand years after the big bang?

Faster than light expansion of space is nonsense because the expansion is caused by light... There is only circular and circumstantial proofs of proper space expansion!

There is no such thing as an ultimate free lunch! Nothing is free, and we all know that... Unfortunately, entropy is the mother of evolution...

« Last Edit: 02/04/2014 04:08:26 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### Tenergy

• First timers
• Posts: 2
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #246 on: 09/04/2014 06:25:54 »
I have to wonder if there’s yet another kind of particle that's even more fundamental.http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/Smileys/default/wink.gif
I'm just someone with a hobby and would like to share here some exciting hunches.  Hopefully you can help here (or just shoot holes).

1) A far more powerful and mysterious undetectable ghost particle powers blackholes.
2) ‘Big Collision’ was responsible for the Big Bang which resulted as a ‘blackhole supernova’.

Could tachyons be the ultimate elementary particles of the universe powering blackholes - making them be incredibly stable tachyon stars?

Picture matter and energy falling past the event horizon of a blackhole. Inside the blackhole they ultimately 'break' (or ‘decay’) into tachyons which when ‘activated’ always travel faster than light making it possible for it to escape the blackhole’s gravitational grip. This not only solves the information paradox but also may help explain other bizarre behaviors involving galaxy formation.  Today most galaxies from the early universe still have supermassive blackholes at its core.  So unlike stars these objects tend to be very stable hanging around since the Big Bang days.  A blackhole may in essence be a tachyon star that is possibly the most stable object in the known universe.  Perhaps a relationship similar to E = mc2 also exists for tachyons where the equivalence could be expressed something like:
T  ~ kEvt2 = kmc2vt2

T =Tachyon Energy
Vt = an unknown constant velocity of the associated tachyon within the blackhole’s ‘spacetime’.
k = an unknown constant involved.  (True ‘vacuum’ condition for a tachyon inside of a blackhole is unknown.)
E = energy of the equivalent particle (~photon) within the known universe where tachyon energy is much greater than the equivalent particle’s energy.

When a blackhole really stops feeding it can get so ‘cold’ that tachyons inside go into a ‘condense inactivated’ state where it is ‘frozen’ moving at its slowest speed - the speed of light.  It still may not have a high probability to escape so over time the frozen blackhole slowly shrinks/evaporates (possibly into a normal black dwarf).

But say new photons enter past the event horizon (or firewall) – the locked up ‘degenerate’ photons can convert into a shower of ‘frozen’ tachyons that are entangled.   And let’s say the blackhole’s increasing feeding behavior from huge amounts of in-falling matter and photons in turn cause the blackhole’s overall temperature and gravity to rise freeing more tachyons to get ‘activated’ to travel than faster than light and have a greater probability of escaping the blackhole thereby avoiding any runaway implosion effects and providing a dynamic equilibrium just like a star for countless eons.  Conversion of higher energy photons results in more tachyon energy either by converting them into more tachyons or by increasing the energy of newly formed tachyons.  A tachyon could however still remain trapped colliding inside the blackhole’s unique spacetime so that it takes on average even millions of years for a tachyon to escape the degenerate blackhole much like how a photon zips/collides around forever inside the core of its star.  (Details on both the ‘frozen’ behavior and spacetime trapping mechanism may still need more thinking here.)

When a blackhole floods the universe with tachyons – after leaving the blackhole’s spacetime and its event horizon the flow of tachyons can then inflate the normal space of the known universe.  (The only spacetime that can curve the tachyon is one that’s inside of a blackhole).

Normally only matter decays into energy but I wonder if a strange ‘energy decay’ process can also occur? Could photons somehow ‘decay’ into tachyons?  Could that also help explain the conversion of ‘degenerate’ photons into ‘frozen’ tachyons inside the event horizon?

On the other hand - could tachyons having no interaction with matter or energy (a tachyon is neither matter nor energy – it’s only another form of the substance having an ‘equivalent’ relationship to energy and matter) somehow while stretching our normal space ‘merge’ together to form the known mediating elementary particles of the known universe (including those fabulous photons)?  If that’s the case then the tachyon would truly be the ultimate elementary particle.  Some may say this is dark energy – but I say it’s distinctly a faster than light no interaction particle (tachyon) with its own constant velocity and a much lighter footprint than a photon thereby preserving the universe’s conservation of momentum.

Could ‘Big Collision’ have caused the Big Bang and Dark Flow?

Ok now picture my other hunch. I assume there can only be one universe (contains all multiverses if they exist and any unknown entities).  That being the case our ‘known’ universe was once a mighty blackhole.  It was orbiting within a neighborhood of relatively peaceful similar blackholes all moving along a certain direction within a far larger universe filled with boundless dust clouds of free tachyons and unimaginably huge tachyon star clusters of clusters (like trillions of light years across where between tachyon stars are huge voids consisting of mainly dust clouds of ‘frozen’ tachyons.  Only tiny clumps of matter and energy may exist in the universe then.  (If no matter exists then what does a blackhole in this universe feed on?  Certain kinds of tachyons that cannot escape the grip of a truly dynamic tachyon star like those ‘frozen’ tachyons.  Remember a tachyon star’s escape velocity can be much greater than our normal speed of light in our normal universe vacuum.)  Regarding the laws of physics in our known universe – some may only work locally needing expansion to accurately cover events in the larger universe while others may still apply.

Suddenly a huge fast moving rougue blackhole (can a blackhole stretch space and jet across it faster than the speed of light?) slams into our blackhole kingdom colliding with our main blackhole causing the all kinds of blackholes to get entangled and go unstable.  This in turn causes the mightiest blackhole supernova explosion (Whitehole? Is there still a core?) and possibly the occurrence of subsequent GRBs resulting in a shower of many smaller blackholes along with tachyons that have merged into new clumps of matter and energy while stretching normal space.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2014 06:33:29 by Tenergy »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #247 on: 09/04/2014 23:30:20 »
Quantum Mechanics demonstrates that everything we measure is quantized.

Quantum entanglement experiments tend to prove that there is a residual correlation between particles spin which is faster than light but somehow non causal within relative space and time. The spin is quantized, meaning it changes in energy steps in local interactions (no faster than light).

In my theory, an elementary particle’s spin is determined by all other particles of the universe as 1/2n, n being the degree of relation from 1 to N. The sum of all terms is equal to one when N is equal to infinity (opened question). Thus the maximal relation between two particles is ½ or 50 percent. When you measure the spin of a particle, the particles of the detector become entangled with it at a level depending on the strength of the measurement and the noise. The maximal level being 50% between the two originally entangled particles, there is no way to exchange information faster than light because there is 50% of unknown. Even without any noise, you cannot determine the spin value of a single particle in advance of its measurement. In fact, it is Nyquist and Shannon theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

So case closed you will say? No, it is not. Still, there is a residual correlation. It is non causal in relative space and time but it is causal in the origin of space and time.

There is no absolute frame of reference in relative space and time but there has to be a quasi-instantaneous relation between every particle. The laws of physics are the same here and far away. Protons and electrons are the same everywhere we look. There is no absolute zero temperature.

There are metalaws (or alphalaws). These laws are prior to the laws of Relativity of space and time and they seem to be static or immutable to us.

So, finally, it is possible that there is a kind of tachyon, but I don’t think it is a particle as we know it because it is beyond Relativity of space and time. I prefer an ultimate clock but you could prefer and ultimate ruler. It seems to me that it is more reasonable to think of emerging space than emerging time.

For tachyons and your black hole explanation, I would say it is very improbable because it is based on a very improbable model of black hole which itself is based on GR which is a macroscopic approximation of reality for the reasons explained earlier in my theory. There is no particle in GR. You need a quantum gravity theory. You must find a way to understand Relativity and Quantum Physics as a single theory…
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 00:07:12 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #248 on: 10/04/2014 01:01:01 »
Concerning the Nyquist-Shannon theorem in the entanglement context of a single pair of particles, you have only a half  of a sampling per wavelength. At this sampling rate, the signal is supressed entirely.

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

More explanations later... But it works for all sampling rates of 1/2n...

« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 11:10:36 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### CPT ArkAngel

• Hero Member
• Posts: 573
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #249 on: 06/03/2015 17:28:49 »
The reality of photons

Photons are real objects. Any photon is real for every other particle of the Universe. Therefore, a photon must have a minimal relative energy which constitutes a fundamental physical layer. We already have many hints that there is a maximal value, probably around the Planck length.

The motion of a particle, relative to another, has a photonic nature. The particle is a special correlation of a rest frame with a motion frame. The motion frame is a real photon. Thus, there is a minimal relative motion and it is impossible to attain a temperature of absolute zero (no motion state).

Einstein’s Ether is not in space but in time

After that the Special Theory and the General Theory of Relativity have been recognized, physicists got rid of ether and other absolutisms. Newton’s Theory seemed dead. Everything must be relative, most scientists thought.

But as Einstein said, everything cannot be relative; there must be some kind of reality, something absolute, at least in a sense. Something must replace ether and represent a palpable layer of reality. We should get rid of absolute relativity then…

In principle, the Earth’s rotation could be stopped for an infinitely small amount of time. The Earth is an aggregate of elementary particles and its rotation is defined relatively to all particles of the Universe. The no rotation of the Earth is a boundary for Relativity, in the same way absolute zero temperature is.

The no rotation is an absolute limit replacing Ether. It is not in space but it is in time. There is a privileged frame in time. A reference in space is only an emergent one. The circular gravitational lightwave (or matterwave) of an elementary particle represents a non rotating frame: the electric charge rotates at the speed of light, not the circle…

Ultimately, the absolute reference is in time, not in space… Physicists of a distant future will one day try to crack what is hidden during the Planck interval…

Notes:
This might sounds trivial for you and you might think it doesn’t add anything to my theory. But the fact is, even though it is implied, there is no description of the source or the boundary of a no rotation frame in the Theory of General Relativity.

It is interesting to note that the only solution for a stationary orbit around a single non rotating object is a straight line away to infinity…

Article on Einstein’s ether:

« Last Edit: 06/03/2015 17:32:46 by CPT ArkAngel »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #249 on: 06/03/2015 17:28:49 »