The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?  (Read 107725 times)

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #25 on: 14/10/2010 02:06:33 »
First, we need to know the entire energy of the Universe to answer the question...  Secondly, we need to know how large it was at a specific time... Both has to be measured. How you can measure it if you cannot see it? You can only measure it indirectly. We need to know all possible quantum states of light, including Dark matter. So the answer is simply:  i don't know...

http://www.universetoday.com/8053/early-universes-rapid-expansion-confirmed/

But, i think at the starting time (T=0+), the Universe had the size of an equivalent energy black hole's event horizon. At time 0+, all the energy momentum of the Universe is an unstable quantum state and exploded releasing the light. It means we are born from a black hole reaching the breaking point (or maybe a collision or a near collision). Black holes are in a stable quantum state. From our point of view, the energy range of the black holes quantum state may seems very large but not in a multiverse point of view.

If time stop at the event horizon, light has to rotate at the event horizon, because if time has stopped, there is no gravitational field possible... There is no quantum states possible for matter particles going through the event horizon. Matter would be accelerated until it breaks into photons and would join the light rotating at the event horizon. There is a gravitational field outside of it (and inside in the opposite direction). It means that a black hole is a very large rotating (spinning?) wave with only gravity as force field (total cancellation). You can see it only by interactions of energy with it (breaking its symmetry).


Theoretically, our Universe could be in the middle of a black hole with the event horizon being at the edge of it. Gravity from the rotating wave at the edge of the Universe would appear as Dark energy for everything in the Universe. This would mean The BigBang occurred from the collision of two Black holes of Universe scale sizes. If two Universe scale sizes black holes collide, big chunks of energy could aggregate in the middle of it and eventually could become a black hole or many black holes. Collisions of these Universe mass sizes black holes could produce BigBangs and it would explain Dark Energy...

No singularity (singularity solved). Dark energy solved? Holographic Universe or not?

N.B.: In any case, i use 2D space when i say rotating but it has a spin in 3D to produce a sphere...
« Last Edit: 25/11/2010 03:32:43 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #26 on: 14/10/2010 02:33:55 »
Space is linear for light and light has no timerate. The zero (rate) timeline  of a particle would be its size but it would change in space at the speed of light due to interactions with its surrounding fields. Eiseinberg principle may arise from an absolute minimum energy interaction needed to measure its position in time (related to 0 Kelvin degree)... But still, it is independent of the way you measure it... The way you measure it will add a second mathematical term...

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

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





« Last Edit: 16/10/2010 06:41:16 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: 15/10/2010 06:23:03 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #28 on: 15/10/2010 23:57:01 »
Explanations of the meaning of the 0 rate timeline.

Photons always travel at a constant speed of C because there is no timerate in the spaceline they travel. It means there is no timerate in a pure vacuum because if you send only one photon in any direction in it, it will go straight through it... If you go there, you experience time by the interactions of your own photons electromagnetic fields... It may means space is an illusion because your perception comes from photons interactions alone...holographic world???? Would it mean we have a soul if there is no space???? If two people enter the vacuum, their common experience (maybe existence) would come from photons interactions between each other. So to have a common experience we all need a minimum radiating energy. It agrees with thermodynamics laws. Does it mean a black hole will emit radiation?

See this  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

http://www.absolutezerocampaign.org/absolute-zero-temperature.html

Time appears only from photons interactions... that is why i say time information is in the light itself...

Photons have no timerate but they are electromagnetic quantum waves with specific frequencies and wavelengths in space...
« Last Edit: 28/11/2010 07:19:18 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #29 on: 17/10/2010 16:34:15 »
Quasars are produced by ring black holes. Black holes gravitation is produced by light waves forming a ring shape. This light waves produce gravity by cancelling each other electromagnetic field.

The x-ray beams come from the acceleration of charged particles through it.

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

« Last Edit: 14/04/2011 06:58:31 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #30 on: 19/10/2010 00:56:18 »
I found the gravitational waves... It is time itself...

Electromagnetic field and gravitational field are mutually exclusive. The electromagnetic waves travel in 0 timerate spaceline and they produce frequency. Gravitational light waves still travel in 0 timerate (but relative to the particle) spaceline but produce time...

"A photon has always 2 halves elementary charges one of +e/2 and one of -e/2 where e=1.602×10−19 C, for a total of zero. It is frequency independent.

The creation of electron-positron pairs by the collision of two photons have been experimentally proved. http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/accel/burke_prl_79_1626_97.pdf

The collision of these photons produces 2 rotating photons having each a static elementary charge, electron negative and positron positive. Total charge is conserved. It is a static charge that produces a static electrical field in the particle referential frame. This static charge is in the middle of the rotating photon. Electromagnetic waves will be produced only by relative movement of other static charges and direct interactions with electromagnetic field from other photons. If you put an electron in a pure vacuum, there is absolutely no electromagnetic wave existing (the charge is static and non active), the electromagnetic field is cancelled and has no energy momentum associated to it..."

When 2 rotational waves appear from a collision of two photons, the charges become quasi-static and the light waves are depleted from their free-frequency and become gravitational light waves, they produce gravitational waves (time) and have the same momentum of energy ( E=hν ==> E=MC2 ). They are still lightwaves but with no frequency but a timerate associated to it... 1/s ==> s ...

(pay attention to that, the rotational light waves produce timewaves but are not timewaves. You measure the effect of timewaves by measuring time!!! When you measure relative timerate of two localities, you measure its difference in gravity and acceleration. Acceleration of the energy momentum of a massive particle produces a deceleration of time as gravity does. Gravity is produced by the radial acceleration of photon in a closed form, massive particle form.)

Time should propagates at the speed of light... The timerate you experience is the sum of all timewaves at every specific locality of every massive elementary particles of your body. The sum is the effective gravitational field. So every particle has its own relative timerate.

Time is totally localized thus the existence of Relativity.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96095009

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

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41740

« Last Edit: 14/04/2011 07:03:58 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #31 on: 19/10/2010 01:42:13 »
Cp, one should think the creation of the pairs would be very significant in explaining how they were produced (the actual sequence of events in their creation).
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #32 on: 19/10/2010 01:47:07 »
Be more specific Ron, my brain has not much remaining momentum... ;) I will, but only tomorrow...
« Last Edit: 19/10/2010 02:20:48 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #33 on: 19/10/2010 19:15:06 »
You seem to have hit upon an idea that I have explored since around 1986. Photon Theory is fascinating. A universe made of light.

I have some particle sizes to scale assuming they are made up as you say --- A photon curls around and locks into the curl. I know the reason for the curl, and the strength of it.

« Last Edit: 19/10/2010 20:11:22 by Geezer »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #34 on: 19/10/2010 20:58:25 »
I have just read it, you were quite right!!! Keep on your good work!!!


This is just the beginning...
« Last Edit: 20/10/2010 03:11:41 by Geezer »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #35 on: 23/10/2010 04:34:56 »
The meaning of the Planck constant and the relation to the radius of an elementary particle or a blackhole.


For a particle having a shape of one wavelength like the electron:

E = h*ν = M*C^2

E = h*C/λ = M*C^2

=> h/λ = M*C

=> h/C = M*λ = constant = M*2πR   ( see Compton wavelength: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength )

For a circular gravitational light wave, λ = 2πR = the circumference of the particle
M*2πR = h/C
R = h/(2π*M*C) ;this is the maximum radius of a particle a "rest" mass M

For a spherical gravitational light wave, λ = 4πR^2 = the surface of the particle
M*4πR^2 = h/C
R = √[h/(4π*M*C)] ;this is the minimum radius of a particle having a "rest" mass M

Thus √[h/(4π*M*C)] < R < h/(2π*M*C) ; you have to normalized units to use this equation because of the square root.

R(circular) = √2*R(spherical) if M is constant

For Blackholes and particles having a shape made of multiple wavelengths:

h/C = M*λ/N

where N is the basic Quantum number of basic Quantum wavelength λ (or Planck length * 2π : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length).

=> C = (h*N)/(M*λ) where λ = 2π * [(h*G)/(2π*C^3)]^1/2

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html
« Last Edit: 07/01/2011 20:36:35 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #36 on: 23/10/2010 09:36:58 »
Why is this so different from String Theory, or M Theory?

Photons seem to be forms of energy that have the ability to propagate through space. Whether photons are particles, or energy in space seems to be open to debate. Either way, does it not seem that space endows photons with some remarkable capabilities? So, are we not really debating the true character of space?


 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #37 on: 23/10/2010 19:26:38 »
geezer, we are indeed discussing the character of space. I and many like me think that matter is made from this character of space. As I mentioned earlier I think that character is an expanding electric field which like Vern's idea was curled into matter.

I would also like to say that I did not intend to denigrate the marvelous work of mainstream scientists. The majority of the scientific community consider QM and it's standard model the main tool in the search for the truth and as such is taught in the institutions of higher learning. No matter how much you may disagree you know that students will consider it to be the only truth because of the enormous predicting powers of QM. QM is a statistical data analysis system that predicts the probability of an event occurring. I can predict that someone in the world will die in an automobile accident in the next sixty seconds with almost a hundred percent chance of being correct not because I have any knowledge of what caused the accident but I have data about what has happened in the past. Science made advances because some people went away from what the majority considered to be the truth.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2010 19:30:00 by Ron Hughes »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #38 on: 24/10/2010 18:53:14 »
It is a debate about the true nature of Space, Time and Energy.

Physics laws of Nature is a big puzzle. The Standard model gives us 2 main incompleted pieces, Relativity Theory about gravity and acceleration and Quantum Theory about the quantization of energy in particles. They both work pretty well in there own domain but they cannot explain each other. For examples, Relativity needs Quantum Theory to explain the physics of Blackholes (impossible singularity) and Quantum Theory needs Relativity to explain the physics of particles (unknown shapes and sizes).

Unification of gravity with electromagnetism and nuclear forces would link these two part of the puzzle...

Nuclear Forces actual model has been construct empirically by experimentation and observations. We have nuclear bomb and fission reactors that account for the success of this model, but it is incomplete. Physicists, who have been making this model, have accomplished a tremendous work because they start from a simple and incompleted model.

After a Unifying Theory, we should be able to build fusion reactors in a few years... And what about Nanotechnology and Superconductivity...?
« Last Edit: 24/10/2010 20:06:56 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #39 on: 25/10/2010 00:48:50 »
Thanks CPT. I think I understand that. What I'm struggling with is why this so different from String Theory? Does this not also require additional dimensions? Are extra dimension not somewhat similar to having things "curled up in space"?
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #40 on: 25/10/2010 11:47:33 »
Are extra dimension not somewhat similar to having things "curled up in space"?
Or indeed necessary for?????
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #41 on: 25/10/2010 23:44:48 »
I don't need 10 or 11 dimensions. I just need 4 or 5 dimensions. String Theories are interesting but they did not predict anything proved yet... Until now, String theories seems to emerge from a common mathematical framework. They are defined by data from experimentation within the Standard model of particles. Maybe someday, this mathematical framework will lead to new discoveries...

I just need the four dimensions of space and time and maybe a fifth for the charges. The rotating photons are in space and their effects in time and space and maybe a fifth dimension for the charges...

See this!!!

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein_theory

This theory has never been disproved. Einstein and his colleagues stop investigating it when they found no mathematical solution. But i think i know why, because gravity and electromagnetism are mutually exclusive (duality wave-particle)... I am working on it...
« Last Edit: 26/10/2010 14:46:17 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #42 on: 26/10/2010 18:44:40 »
That was really my only point. They both rely on additional dimensions.

If there are additional dimensions, why would a smaller number be necessarily any better?
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #43 on: 28/10/2010 17:51:54 »
Less dimensions is not necessarily better but it is simpler...

There is no string in my theory but there is minimum quantum length and energy. I still have to find how quantization of particles appears in spacetime.

The key point is that Gravity and acceleration are the same as Time rate... If you have no change in acceleration or gravity, you have a fixed timerate. The zero timerate line of the particles explains the Relativity Theory.

 
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: 18/12/2010 18:20:26 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #45 on: 17/11/2010 12:05:02 »
I don't think this should have been moved from physics.

It has been proven in experimental physics that all matter is made from light. Light is also a fundamental particle, which would make it the fundamental consituent of all matter. No physicist argues with this, so why was this moved? Or atleast, no credible scientist argues with this.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #46 on: 17/11/2010 12:10:54 »
I moved this thread because the claims being made were highly speculative and not based on mainstream physics.  The main purpose of this forum is a science Q&A forum and if speculative posts are left outside of New Theories, it can confuse and mislead those who show up to ask questions.

I think what no credible scientist would argue with is energy is the currency of physics, and light and all other particles can be created from energy (as long as certain conservation laws are kept in mind).  As for particles literally being made up of photons, that's certainly outside of the mainstream.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #47 on: 17/11/2010 15:07:56 »
It has been proven in experimental physics that all matter is made from light.

That is simply nonsense.
Ypu may be getting confused with this: Mass-energy_equivalence
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #48 on: 17/11/2010 19:56:44 »
It has been proven in experimental physics that all matter is made from light.

That is simply nonsense.
Ypu may be getting confused with this: Mass-energy_equivalence

Not at all.

Are you familiar with a more successful site called ''sciforums''?
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #49 on: 17/11/2010 21:30:36 »
Not at all.

Are you familiar with a more successful site called ''sciforums''?

a) What's your definition of successful, exactly? Are talking quality or quantity? Should 'sciforums' now be recognised as a peer review body?
b) If you've got some amazing 'new' evidence that the whole of the respected scientific community doesn;t know about why not reference it here for us ignoramuses.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #49 on: 17/11/2010 21:30:36 »

 

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