The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?  (Read 107975 times)

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #250 on: 07/03/2015 05:16:23 »
there is no photon. light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26362.275

a matter/mass/charge has force/gravitational field, if the matter moves, the field follows. if the matter vibrates, the field follows.

if the sun has a big ejection/quake, we should be able to detect it 500 seconds later. we might even have a earthquake.

atoms, each has mass, when atoms exited, their fields exited, within that field, you feel light.

 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #251 on: 09/04/2015 02:09:52 »
Just a precision: The minimal relative energy of a photon may possibly be dynamical and not fixed, even though it still represents a real physical boundary.

Olbers’ paradox debunked:
“The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.”

It is simply not true. The brightness depends on the average density of radiation (temperature). The paradox disappears if you understand the implications of infinite space and discrete photons. If a star is far enough, you may have to wait a very long time before one of its photons hit one of your retinas.

I don’t think we will ever know if the Universe is finite or not, but I guess it is… According to my theory, the universe may be finite or not. The universe is made of discrete particles of energy, but the quantity of these particles is still undefined.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2015 23:08:41 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline Spring Theory

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #252 on: 19/05/2015 14:05:43 »
You're on the right track about photons being the fundamental "particle" but you assumption that the speed of light is constant should be reconsidered.

If we are made up of photons then if their speed changes, we could not notice it or measure it since our own photons orbitals would change in cycle time also.

This is what appears to be time dilation.  Einstein just had it backwards. Time is constant. The speed of light is variable.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #253 on: 20/05/2015 05:15:42 »
Time dilation is demonstrated in longer half lives of particles in accelerator and cosmic rays. What about GPS and other experiments? It is in agreement with Einstein's theories.

Time rate is constant locally but relative for different localities. The speed of light is only constant locally because it is defined by the speed of time. The flow of time depends on relative speed and relative gravity potentials.

In my theory, I defined a locality as being a single elementary particle. There is no structure of space. Space is the result of all interactions between particles. It is misleading to talk about specific coordinates in vacuum like an arbitrary point in space between you and the screen you are looking at right now, unless you put yourself in relation to a particle of air... There is no Euclidean or Newtonian space. The only absolute and common space is the Planck Length.

I have an unpublished article about it that I wrote a few months ago. I will transcribe it on the forum soon.
(I found the ISW effect in my theory but from a simple and different interpretation than the main one: there is no disconnection possible between particles)


 
« Last Edit: 20/05/2015 05:23:57 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #254 on: 20/05/2015 06:30:41 »
Quote from: Spring Theory
]
This is what appears to be time dilation.  Einstein just had it backwards. Time is constant. The speed of light is variable.
That's quite incorrect. Where's your proof or an argument to justify your assertion?
 

Offline Spring Theory

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #255 on: 20/05/2015 12:37:44 »
Time dilation is demonstrated in longer half lives of particles in accelerator and cosmic rays. What about GPS and other experiments? It is in agreement with Einstein's theories.

Time rate is constant locally but relative for different localities. The speed of light is only constant locally because it is defined by the speed of time. The flow of time depends on relative speed and relative gravity potentials.

I am not arguing with the time dilation effect - I agree it exists, but simply disagree with the mechanism behind it. Consider that instead of time slowing down in a gravity well, the speed of photons is reduced.  Since particles are made of photons, the particles that compose our bodies and our time measuring devices will also slow down, creating time dilation.

The time dilation effect is equivalent from either perspective. The major difference is that Spring Theory explains the nature of space time rather than making an assumption that "time slows down".
 

Offline Even2

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #256 on: 22/05/2015 04:15:50 »
Hi my model of the simple universe posits that the electron or rather the electro-positron is the only basic particle.
All particles including the photon which in this case would be an expanded electro-positron are formed from this one particle.
Mass in this model is a product of both positive and negative static electric fields.
Compressing these fields increases mass, and expanding these fields decreases mass.
So a photon would be an expanded electro-positron.And when the photon is compressed in a collision it gains mass and becomes either a positive-electron or a electro-positron.

even2
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #257 on: 17/02/2016 02:41:20 »
An idea about Dark Matter

I won't talk for quite a while about a cosmological model including the ISW effect.

I want to describe the gravitational tail of particles, which is exactly the gravitational correction I have voluntarily neglected in my calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. With the recent discovery of gravitational waves, I found answers I desperately needed... And it is quite a revelation for me. It is in agreement much more than what I expected. It fills the voids... literally...

Just a last and quick thinking about the possibility of a universe made of multiple big bangs, each having a different finite value of PI fixed at a big bang... PI is related to the longitudinal mode (or dimension) which is inertia and it determines its wavelength. While Gravity is the transversal mode and has a wavelength in multiples of the Planck time without the direct relation to PI. Electric charges necessitate connections between both the longitudinal mode and the transversal mode to explain the two polarities. These connections were fixed by the value of PI at the big bang. But if there are other big bangs with different values of PI, what will happened? Invisible Matter, only perceived by its gravitational interactions.

It is a bit a spooky idea and a very long stretch, I must admit...

You might think there is a flaw in how matter may interact gravitationally with Dark Matter and produces its motion. You must know that Dark Matter would have charges of its own, where the Dark longitudinal mode is connected with gravity (the transversal common mode).

The magnetic field is a mixture of both dimensions...


« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 04:45:25 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 #258 on: 18/02/2016 23:42:01 »
No sterile or Majorana neutrino

Asymmetry is the cause of the big bang expansion. It is the cause of the multiplicity of the particles. If you considered that the perfect symmetry is the number 1 and the maximum entropy is zero (0), then no two particles can be perfectly symmetrical. The interactions between particles are the leftovers of earlier forms of particles; which, on average, had a lower entropy than their products. At the Big Bang, the entropy was at its lowest point but it was not 1 (no entropy and perfect symmetry). You need a string or a tail between particles to make them interact. This string is the asymmetrical result. Together, the particles symmetry is nearer the value of one. From this, it is unlikely to have a product which is of much greater symmetry than its genitors.

My model of elementary massive particles is determined to be two concentric circular waves because it is asymmetrical and absolutely necessary to explain spacetime and interactions between particles...

You should read: "The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time" by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin
Lee Smolin's part is essential because he provides another perspective and he identifies general principles I follow without defining them. These are essential general principles to achieve a unifying theory. I agree with all of them, except maybe one.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2016 08:40:08 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 #259 on: 17/04/2016 22:45:51 »
Copenhagen vs Everett, Teleportation, and ER=EPR
By Leonard Susskind

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.02589

I’ve learned a lot from Susskind. The basic concepts of entanglement and the holographic principle are those that come to my mind. I disagree on the fringes but it is normal as the fringes are ‘where people disagree’ by definition… You can find Susskind courses on entanglement on the WEB.

It seems I’m entangled with Susskind… But how?

When you discuss with someone, you become entangled with this person. The information is physically exchanged by the dynamical process of entanglement through time. This information is filtered by the brains and then stored in memory. It is a reciprocal process but time gives it a direction, at least for purely local interactions (further considerations are necessary to establish the order of the causality chain).

When you read someone writings, you become entangled with him or her. Your brains are entangled. By particles associations, you could in principle, have access to all contents, though the information is limited by the fact that the other person is entangled with his environment and that time has elapsed since the actual writing process. But the brain, obviously, has a capacity to maintain a high degree of entanglement in a selective memory using multiple particles and keeping the order. Many scientific studies show this but without explanation: This looks more like a magic trick.

Can we acquire information faster than the speed of light? The memory could be like a battery: you have to get physically entangled with someone to re-establish the link in analogy to the charge of a battery. You lose gradually your connections to a person as you and the other become entangled with other things and other people. There might be a preferential network of wormholes and/or space-time connections between all the brains on Earth due to their special abilities (your pets included). Anyway, FTL or not, information is exchanged by entanglement and the more macroscopic the information ensemble is, the greater is the multitude of entangled particles necessary to conceptualize it and to store it in memory. The level of entanglement can explain why our memory is not perfect but still very efficient...

Sometimes, it may be necessary to disconnect yourself from parts of your environment and connect to some other people to be enlightened (thinking out of the box). Thus, differences are necessary. Respect and honesty are the keys to maximize the validity of the information exchanged… I hope someday, not too far, we will all understand that it is a real physical process and no one can escape it! No one should escape it! If you don’t respect other people, don’t expect respect from others.

Fear is not respect!

The concept of success in our society is mostly related to our profound desire for freedom and the need to have an example to follow, without understanding the actual history and further consequences. In our society, money is power, power represent “freedom”.  Truth is only important if someone realizes he can make a buck out of it… We all know that truth should be more important than money because truth is the only way to fulfill one’s dreams… It is the only way to minimize uncertainty while maximizing freedom by following the best paths accordingly. This is a dynamical process that must be continuously maintained.

Just open your eyes and stop giving power to those who don’t deserve it so we can all connect our heart to our brain and continue to evolve… So it becomes true to say that truth is more important than money… Money is just paper and its value is in your head… It has more a tendency to maximize uncertainty than the other way around…

The word “honesty” and all its derivatives seem to be vanishing from many people’s vocabulary these days, often from powerful people’s vocabulary. In fact, if you are honest and speak openly of your desire for honest and opened relations within a business, political or law context, you will probably face expulsion and you will be exposed to ridicule. Those people don’t seem to understand that they are a part of the play. The concept of constant evolution is absent from their narrow mind, though from a monkey and beyond, we have evolved…

PS.: I still think that space is the result of the causality chain and that there is a preferred direction to time, simply because it is our daily experience.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2016 22:17:27 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #260 on: 24/04/2016 14:01:51 »
There are several problems with your discussion. You have curved space-time. Where did that come from? Then you have a photon. What is that? Is a photon an entity in itself or is it merely a perturbation in the gravitational field. thus it is a quanta of the light wave which interacts with matter and transforms into spherical energy (mass) and or linear energy (momentum).
   As I see it, the fundamental particles are spherical dot-waves which are positive, negative and bi-polar dot-waves. They come in three different forms of momentum. Linear, angular, and spherical. It is the spherical form which causes gravity.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #261 on: 24/04/2016 20:04:33 »
I leave for two weeks, then I will have more time to give you more explanations. You should read all my theory and keep only the last conclusions.

About binary black holes merger:

Each black hole, being in a degenerative orbital motion, represents a dipole because my black hole model is two concentric rings separated by the Planck length bound by the strong interaction which is gravity (at the planck length). Two black holes having the same mass and merging will produce only gravitational waves (gravitational quadrupole: each black ring is a dipole). A single particle like the proton or the electron falling toward a black hole, will spiral around one side of the ring before merging with the black ring. As the mass of the ring is much higher, this produce only a dipole i.e. only one particle oscillating from the point of view of an outside observer. As gravity is suppressed only in the middle plane of the black ring, this is where two photons in opposite directions will be launched, considering that the momenta for the black hole and the particle are reciprocal. This will produce gamma ray bursts and jets when sufficient number of particles will fall in. Thus the difference in mass for a two black holes merger will produce photons. See latest FERMI possible photons detection corresponding to LIGO black hole merger observation.

This produces Dark Energy too... in the long run...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/04/all-the-light-in-the-universe-is-it-coming-from-an-exotic-unknown-source-weekend-feature.html#more

Black holes recycle the energy of expansion!

« Last Edit: 23/06/2016 12:24:30 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #262 on: 26/04/2016 02:12:25 »
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
taken partly from another of my post:

A quantum of light (a photon), may possess an infinitesimal energy and always travel at C in vacuum.
What is an an infinitesimal energy? I don't wish to be nit-picky but I'm concerned that you may not know that there are more than one definitions to this term. The context tells me that you might mean it to be extrmely small. Is that the case here?

The mathematical meaning of the term infinitesimal has a meaning only when it is applied to differentials. It cannot be used to refer to a finite quantity since it would be meaningless in that context. Please see the definition of that term at: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinitesimal.html
Quote
Infinitesimal: An infinitesimal is some quantity that is explicitly nonzero and yet smaller in absolute value than any real quantity. The understanding of infinitesimals was a major roadblock to the acceptance of calculus and its placement on a firm mathematical foundation.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory.
Where did you get that notion from? The conversion of matter into light and vice-versa is from special relativity and elementary particle physics (EPP). EPP is not the same thing as quantum theory and the conversion has little to do with waves. It's unclear to me what you mean by the term "model" here. What is it you mean by that term in this context?

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything.
That is not the case whatsoever.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy?
It's unclear what the two have to do with each other. And the energy of a photon is frame dependent. While a photon may have an extremely small amount of energy in one frame it will have an extremely large energy in another frame which is  moving extremely fast in the direction the photon is moving.
 

Offline poiesis

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Quantum Metaphysics
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #263 on: 11/05/2016 10:45:50 »
Your theory has some similar points to my theory, Quantum Metaphysics (QuMe), which states that photons do not travel at all but are more like relay stations that push out information to other particles. In this way, a photon is the medium through which information propagates. It doesn't move in spacetime but the information it sends out has a velocity as it propagates through space. A photon provides information to other photons that are near it, but there is only resistance with those types of photons that don't have its type of information. When there is no resistance, there is no result from the interaction and we can therefore say that it wasn't sent to those photons at all.

QuMe postulates light either carries information about relationships or about interactions. When it carries information about relationships we call it time (and mass). When it carries information about interactions we call it space (and velocity). When it carries both, the information appears in the form of energy.

Further, there is no real 'spin' of a photon but simply the way the information is relating to other particles.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #263 on: 11/05/2016 10:45:50 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums