The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?  (Read 19557 times)

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
For a long time now I have noticed that there is not even one piece of evidence that suggests that all of nature might not be composed of photons alone. This notion was first suggested by Newton, then later by Maxwell, then by Einstein.

I think it was Maxwell that said, "The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field."

I have a written a movie script that explores this idea. I am interested exploring whether the major assertion in the movie is correct. Is it true that no such evidence exists.

If it does, I would like to know what it is.

Evidence in favor is

http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html

The script is:

OhMyGod

We are pitching the script to producers this week end in Oklahoma City.

Wish us luck.



« Last Edit: 16/10/2010 03:32:14 by Vern »


 

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #1 on: 16/10/2010 03:27:12 »
For a long time now I have noticed that there is not even one piece of evidence that suggests that all of nature might not be composed of photons alone. This notion was first suggested by Newton, then later by Maxwell, then by Einstein.

I think it was Maxwell that said, "The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field."

I have a written a movie script that explores this idea. I am interested exploring whether the major assertion in the movie is correct. Is it true that no such evidence exists.

If it does, I would like to know what it is.

Evidence in favor is

http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html

The script is:

OhMyGod

We are pitching the script to producers this week end in Oklahoma City.

Wish us luck.




Absolutely my friend, best of luck to you............Ethos
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #2 on: 16/10/2010 04:16:01 »
Ethos, good to hear from you.

The script is a kinda spoof. I wrote it after I noticed that Robet Kemp published an off take of my photon hypothesis in which he claimed to have proven that God exists.

He got over 200,000 hits the first week.

So I thought I might do it one better. :=)

 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #3 on: 16/10/2010 04:51:38 »
vern, how about this. I'll give a possible example. Suppose the electron looked like a spinning doughnut, the proton would be a doughnut the size of a dot at the axis of the electron doughnut. An energy increase of the electron would shrink the doughnut diameter to the next resonant frequency. If you look at this, http://en.wikipedia....transitions.svg  . Looking at the electron with my possible idea the drawing is backwards where the ground state would be at N6 not N1. N1 would be the highest energy state.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #4 on: 16/10/2010 07:29:22 »

The script is a kinda spoof.


Ah! So it's more like Monty Photon then?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #5 on: 16/10/2010 09:43:05 »
vern, how about this. I'll give a possible example. Suppose the electron looked like a spinning doughnut, the proton would be a doughnut the size of a dot at the axis of the electron doughnut. An energy increase of the electron would shrink the doughnut diameter to the next resonant frequency. If you look at this, http://en.wikipedia....transitions.svg  . Looking at the electron with my possible idea the drawing is backwards where the ground state would be at N6 not N1. N1 would be the highest energy state.

The link seems to be broken. I have thought of particle sizes and made some guesses based upon their energy content.

Suppose the size of the doughnut was a circumference the size of the wavelength of the energy content. LIKE THIS

The script is making fun of the sad state of today's physical sciences institutes. The idea that all of nature may be made of light real.

I think it goes back to Maxwell, and maybe even to Newton.


« Last Edit: 16/10/2010 09:50:22 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #6 on: 16/10/2010 09:44:45 »

The script is a kinda spoof.


Ah! So it's more like Monty Photon then?

I'm getting too old. I've forgotten Monty, I'm afraid :)
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #7 on: 16/10/2010 16:21:56 »
Vern, They will jump me out if I post here so I'll post here.  http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34538.new#new
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #8 on: 16/10/2010 18:54:59 »
Vern, well wishes and good luck with your film. Very interesting combinations: cannibas, fancy cars, airplanes, particle physics, and God!

With that said, I can assure you that I have not proved the existence of God; however others have also said that same thing to me! This is a very suprising reacton! In the Epigraph of the Super Principia Mathematica I presented a theory of creation similar to our current Big Bang model. This I present as a theory only. In the the Bible's book of Genesis there is also a Big Bang theory there; and in that case Moses was the first Big Bang theorist. And presenting God in this way was similar to what Newton did when he presented his Principia Mathematica in 1687.

Discussed in Volume 1 of the Super Principia, "The First Law of Motion" in Chapter 11, section 11.4 "Inertial Mass and Photon Energy Conservation" I discuss your "Photon Only Hypothesis" and state that this is an Aether Theory; which you don't really discuss. I have been waiting for over 15 years for you to get there with the Aether; but you just did not get threre for whatever the reason! I credit you and Arthur Compton for determining that photons which are considered mass-less to interact with bodies that have mass such as the electron. I credit Compton for the wavelength discovery (λ = 2π•d), and you with the radius or amplitude discovery(d = (λ/2π)).

Because the photon has inertia it can interact with matter, which both are a form of condensed energy that are affected by a gravitational field. Hence the light path is curved by a strong gravitational field. And in my humble opinion, you will never to get to the cause of gravity with your electromagnetic reasonings.

To get to the cause of gravity you have to move to the Schwarzschild solution of gravitation. In the Volume 1 of the Super Principia, "The First Law of Motion" I show the difference between your solution and the Schwarzschild, and I show how they are combined into a single model. And I assumed that this would help to move you in that direction; I can see that it did not! Your analysis of the radius and amplitude of the photon is much much to large for gravitation, which acts on much smaller scales. Your theory is more of an Aether Gravitation Theory. I plan to release that book early next year.

However, it is true that your electromagnetic amplitude is found in the electron, proton and neutron structures, it is not the complete solution.

Lastly, your "Square of the Shells" rules do work with the right mathematical modifications; which I have made, and am willing to work with you to publish the results. But once again, in my humble opinion you are not seeing where that fits into mainstream. Where this "Square of the Shells" rules has mainstream appeal is in Super Symmetry "SUSY" and Guage theory. SUSY and Guage Theorist are working right around you ignoring your square of the mass rules, and producing their own results; this is a shame.

In the Super Principia my goal was to capture current physics as it is and being discovered, without bias for any particular theory or person, this is why I included you and Steven Rado into the mainstream, which mainstream are quietly bypassing the both of you. I feel that I have corrected the directional course of physics! But we will see. Best to you!

 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #9 on: 16/10/2010 22:02:38 »
This topic does seem like a good candidate for the New Theories section. Stay tuned!
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #10 on: 17/10/2010 01:20:45 »
Hi Robert; good to hear from you.

Geezer, it was not my intent to stray from real physics. The question is still: is there any evidence that shows mass can not be comprised of electromagnetic fields alone?

The movie script states that there is no evidence that nature is not made of light.

I honestly want to know if the statement is true. As the OP states, if there is evidence, what is it?
« Last Edit: 17/10/2010 05:56:39 by Vern »
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #11 on: 17/10/2010 01:58:20 »
Vern, I do not believe that electromagnetic phenomena can be separated from rest mass (m = E/c²); but there is mathematical evidence that electromagnetic phenomena is separate from inertial mass gravitational phenomena.

The Gravitational semi-major radius of a rest mass is given by the Schwarzschild Radius

d(schwarzschild) = 2*(m*G/c²)

The Electromagnetic semi-major radius of the same rest mass is given by the Brown Radius

d(Brown) = (1/2π)*(h/(m*c))

d(Brown_Major) = d(Brown)/(1 - e²) = (1/2π)*(h/(m*c))*(1/(1 - e²))

Where e is the eccentricity, h is Plancks Constant, c is the speed of light.

The Schwarzschild solution points to an Aether that is gaseous.
And your electromagnetic solution points to an additional property that is superimposed onto that background Aether. So if you have non rest mass in the form of free photons, or rest mass in the form of bound photons, if you have mass there is electromagnetic radiation. The point here is that entities such as electrons, photons, protons, or neutrons, are condensed out of the aether, which may or may not be electromagnetic.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #12 on: 17/10/2010 02:42:14 »
Yes; in theory many things do not agree with a photonic universe. Almost every established theory does not agree with it. However, I am searching for experimental evidence.

According to Einstein, at the turn of the 20th century most physicists thought that, "the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field."

I'm looking for experimental evidence that contradicts that notion. Because now, we seem to have abandoned the notion without evidence that it is not valid.



« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 12:26:13 by Vern »
 

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #13 on: 17/10/2010 03:25:22 »
If the supposed heat death of the universe is correct, and that's certainly a very big 'if', then those that support this hypothesis should agree that the electromagnetic field is the basic constituent of all we understand about the universe. If nothing is left but this universal field once the heat death is realized, then one must conclude that everything we observe was constructed from it.

"From dust we are made and to dust we return"............Ethos
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #14 on: 17/10/2010 04:12:30 »
Ethos, this is good. There is a possibility of a Heat Death for the universe. The equations of the Entropy of the Universe point to this conclusion. But there is also a possibility for a cyclic universe; which if you backed me into a corner, is a theory that would subscribe too. One that involves expansion and contraction, again and again!

Vern asks the question of empirical and experimental proof. That is precisely why the LHC in Geneva was created. The experiments there will be able to prove the existence of what is theorized as the "God Particle." A particle with a very large mass and a very very small size. The mass should be very close to 2x10^-8 kg; this can be converted to a very large energy of which they are looking for at the LHC. Any mass and energy that they detect that even comes close they will declare victory and break champagne bottles at the LHC.

I was working separate but in agreement with Vern in the early to mid 1990s when in 1997 I was running into dead ends with an Electromagnetic Only Universe. In 1997 I met Steven Rado who proposed an Aether only universe, this was very intriguing to me, so I sought where is other theoretical implications of an Aether. Most scientist and physicists are Atheist don’t believe in God and don't read the Bible. When I searched there where most physicist don't search, I discovered that when God said "Let there Be Light" in the bible there was talk that there was something there before Light was created. It states that there was darkness and a firmament of which Light was thrust into. From there my search was on and the Aether was revealed more and more.

I feel blessed in my life to have worked with Vernon Brown that proposed an Electromagnetic Only Universe, and Steven Rado that proposed an Aether Only Universe. Because of knowing both of their theories, and I have no bias or prejudice for either, I was able to see both together. The funny thing is because I know both of them. Vernon will never mention Steven Rado. And Steven Rado will never mention Vernon Brown. I was chosen to merge the two; lucky for me I guess :-X!
« Last Edit: 17/10/2010 05:35:24 by SuperPrincipia »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #15 on: 17/10/2010 05:03:34 »
Some candidates for things that can not be electromagnetic phenomena that I explored in the script were:

1. Gravity
2. Nuclear forces
3. Electron
4. Neutrino

I was able to provide reasonable electromagnetic explanations (I won't show them here) for all but the Neutrino. Then I noticed a strange thing about the neutrino. It is the only thing in the universe that does not have a decay path that ends as electromagnetic fields.

So if the neutrino exists in the form that theory suggests, it would be very detrimental to the notion of a photon only universe.




 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #16 on: 17/10/2010 05:38:09 »
Quote from: SuperPrincepia
And in my humble opinion, you will never [be able] to get to the cause of gravity with your electromagnetic reasonings.

Gravity was the most difficult, but I did get there. As Filbert Wagman puts it in the script, "little pieces of light use the fields from other little pieces of light to help them along." It is possible to imagine that gravity might be a property of photons.

SuperPrincepia, your own Quantization of Electromagnetic Change provides the primary mechanism for electromagnetic gravity. It is the saturation constant that you describe.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2010 05:47:29 by Vern »
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #17 on: 17/10/2010 07:16:01 »
I would agree that the Quantization of Electromagnetic Change and the Saturation Constant predicts what I term Aether Gravitation this is what I believe you are calling Electromagnetic Gravity. The gravity the Kepler, Newton, and Einstein predict is what is known as Inertial Mass Gravitation. Electromagnetic/Aether Gravitation is different and predicts different phenomena from Inertial Mass Gravitation. You have definetly predicted new physics, but like Steven Rado you and he want to make your ideas solve every physics problem; and in my opinion do not understand the limits of your theories.

I would like to be clear here there is a difference between Aether/Electromagnetic Gravitation and Inertial Mass Gravitation. Your theory predicts Aether/Electromagnetic Gravitation only!
« Last Edit: 17/10/2010 07:32:19 by SuperPrincipia »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #18 on: 17/10/2010 11:01:50 »
Your latching onto the neutrino as a possible non electromagnetic particle is highly relevant.  In effect a neutrino consists purely of angular momentum. 

Also the dimensions of Planck's constant show that it is in effect angular momentum. 

So consider the possibilities that your electromagnetic ideas may not be the fundamental level but a structure built from angular momentum.

Now a little bit more about the real basics of the universe.

The two fundamental properties of an understandable universe are a large scale conservation of energy and angular momentum. 

Couple this with gravitational attraction bear in mind that this may well only exist because the universe contains something real and this in effect denies some possibilities in the virtual world,  a bit like the casimir effect.

With rotating gravitational collapse towards the fiction of a singularity you can in effect create almost unlimited quantities of particles and energy (something) by the well known process of pair production.

All you now need is to understand how gravitationally bound structures containing angular momentum might produce the electromagnetic field and charge and you have got a proper theory of everything.

Now most of this is in solid conventional physics that you can prove.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #19 on: 17/10/2010 11:56:53 »
Quote from: SuperPrincepia
Your theory predicts Aether/Electromagnetic Gravitation only!

I'm not comfortable with, "Your theory". It's not a theory. The notion is much older than me. I'm interested in proving the notion false.

In the script, the protagonists attempt to prove that notion false with ten million dollars the prize for success. They try various things such as the forces of nature, etc. The present ending has them not successful.

I will change the ending if I can find reasonable proof.

I don't understand the two different gravitation mechanisms. The equations may be different; the end results may be the same.

I didn't attempt to develop the maths for electromagnetic gravitation based upon your saturation constant, you are far more capabale of that than I.



« Last Edit: 17/10/2010 12:03:27 by Vern »
 

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #20 on: 17/10/2010 12:41:01 »
Ethos, this is good. There is a possibility of a Heat Death for the universe.

Thank you SuperP,......but my only point was to illuminate the fact that those that support the Heat Death Hypothesis should also accept the Photonic Theory. However, my own personal view does not support the Heat Death Hypothesis. I suppose one could still support the Photonic theory without it being necessary to believe in the Heat Death Hypothesis. And in principle, one might also suggest that to support the Big Bang Hypothesis, they should also align themselves with the Photonic point of view. I point this out because, according to my understanding, the first event that occured at the Big Bang was a great release of Electromagnetic radiation. And if nothing came before, all we now see was constructed from that initial radiation.

I personally don't buy into either the Heat Death nor the Big Bang ideas. For what it's worth, I believe the radiation we presently record from the CMBR is only from a local event in an infinate space. Just because we can't see beyond our own location does'nt mean that similar events aren't taking place within the infinity of space. I would suggest that our Big Bang is only a local event visable to us in our little corner of an infinite universe. The question then becomes; What mechanism is responsible for these outbursts of radiation? I believe there is a physical limit to the size a black hole can attain. Upon reaching that limit, it will spontaneously release all that energy in what I might call a "Little Bang". In the grand scheme of things, this Little Bang would appear to us as the, so-called "Big Bang".

I ofcourse have no proof, but to tell the truth, pyhsicists are also very lacking when it comes to proving either the Big Bang or finding sufficient evidence for either the Heat Death view or the Cyclical Universe. To prove my Hypothesis, I realize that I must find evidence to support the limiting factor for the size of a black hole. As yet, this has, ofcourse, not been realized..................Ethos
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 20:50:07 by Ethos »
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #21 on: 17/10/2010 14:58:45 »
I'm not comfortable with, "Your theory". It's not a theory. The notion is much older than me. I'm interested in proving the notion false.

Vern, I don't mean to be offensive, for you have my utmost respect as a physicist. I remember in 1992 buying a copy of your "Photonic Theory of Everything" from an Ad in the back of the Discovery Magazine. Then in 1994 writing my Master's Thesis in college describing some of your new concepts listed there. So to hear you say that you have "No Theory" is puzzling to me; but not worth debating.

Today most physicist attribute the Electromagnetic Radius/Amplitude (d(Brown) = (1/2π)*(h/(m*c))) to Aurthur Compton. However, from my research Compton was only interested in how the photon wavelength (λ = h/p(momentum))changed as it was scattered off of an electron. Your "Photon Theory" claims that if there is an electron, that electron originated as a photon that has been curled into a resonate orbit with a specific frequency (f = (mc²/h)) whose radius is given by the radius equation that I described above. It is this radius that allows you to have a "Photonic Theory." And in 1995 I determined that you did not understand your own theory, as your own words declare, is why in 1997 I started working with Steven Rado and stopped communicating with you.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2010 15:00:37 by SuperPrincipia »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #22 on: 17/10/2010 20:24:42 »
The Counsel has decided that this thread is moving to New Theories.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #23 on: 18/10/2010 11:05:16 »
The Counsel has decided that this thread is moving to New Theories.
The Counsel, indeed! :D :D :D
'Counsel of Welders' is that? ;D
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #24 on: 18/10/2010 11:19:36 »
Quote from: SuperP
Your "Photon Theory" claims that if there is an electron, that electron originated as a photon that has been curled into a resonate orbit with a specific frequency (f = (mc²/h)) whose radius is given by the radius equation that I described above. It is this radius that allows you to have a "Photonic Theory." And in 1995 I determined that you did not understand your own theory, as your own words declare, is why in 1997 I started working with Steven Rado and stopped communicating with you.

I don't know how I gave the impression that I don't understand my own theory.  But if you came away with that, it's my fault for not explaining better what I do understand.

It was November of 1991 that I found the square-of-shells relationship that predicted the dynamics and strength of the strong nuclear reaction. It showed it to clearly be electromagnetic.

You have expanded on that. Your saturation amplitude was great, but I thought it should be in the form of electric charge. It would then answer a fundamental question about nature. What is the maximum charge amplitude that a point in space can support?

You had the key to find that number, but stopped short. Great work BTW. :)

« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 11:21:41 by Vern »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #24 on: 18/10/2010 11:19:36 »

 

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