The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does the antiphoton exist?  (Read 702 times)

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Does the antiphoton exist?
« on: 14/07/2016 21:39:05 »
Does the anti-photon exist?
   As specified in the science forum, current theory says that the photon is its own anti-photon. It is also believed that antiparticles react the same way in the gravitational field as regular particles. As I see it, a positron is similar to an electron but opposite polarity. The electron and the positron will destroy each other and two photons will result. If the result was a photon and an anti-photon simultaneously then they would tend to destroy each other and the result would be nothing at all. So it is self-evident that two ordinary photons are produced.
   The big problem is that the experiment takes place in our galaxy. It is my opinion that the production of the photons is modified by the gravitational field they are in. Thus an anti-photon that is produced will automatically switch to align itself to the present gravitational field. The production in an antimatter galaxy would produce two anti-photons. The difference between them is merely their geometric construction.
   Do we have antimatter galaxies? It is possible. Anti-Photons emitted by the antimatter galaxy would automatically switch to regular photons when they enter our galaxy. Particles from an antimatter galaxy would be repelled from the gravitational field of the matter galaxy. Otherwise we would get destruction at the edges of the antimatter galaxy when particles encounter a matter galaxy. Could there be an equal distribution of matter and antimatter galaxies? It is possible. Likewise there could only be a small number of antimatter galaxies. And when they collide with matter galaxies even though they tend to repel, there would be great areas of space where nothing exists.
    I do not know the answer. It is an interesting question. What do you guys think?


 

Offline warpdrajv

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #1 on: 15/07/2016 00:46:57 »
I think you should read this: scienceconfession.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/theory-of-gravity-light-and-empty-space/
PS: photon doesn't exist
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #2 on: 15/07/2016 09:06:25 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Does the anti-photon exist?
No. I.e. the anti-photon is identical to the photon itself.

Quote from: jerrygg38
As I see it, a positron is similar to an electron but opposite polarity.
Correction. You mean opposite charge. Polarity usually refers to something else.

Quote from: jerrygg38
The electron and the positron will destroy each other and two photons will result. If the result was a photon and an anti-photon simultaneously then they would tend to destroy each other and the result would be nothing at all. So it is self-evident that two ordinary photons are produced.
There's no reason to assert that when a particle hits its antiparticle that the result will be photons. In fact if a proton hits an anti-proton it can produce mesons such pions and kaons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Proton-antiproton_annihilation
Quote
When a proton encounters its antiparticle (and more generally, if any species of baryon encounters any species of antibaryon), the reaction is not as simple as electron-positron annihilation. Unlike an electron, a proton is a composite particle consisting of three "valence quarks" and an indeterminate number of "sea quarks" bound by gluons. Thus, when a proton encounters an antiproton, one of its constituent valence quarks may annihilate with an antiquark, while the remaining quarks and antiquarks will undergo rearrangement into a number of mesons (mostly pions and kaons), which will fly away from the annihilation point. The newly created mesons are unstable, and will decay in a series of reactions that ultimately produce nothing but gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. This type of reaction will occur between any baryon (particle consisting of three quarks) and any antibaryon (consisting of three antiquarks). Antiprotons can and do annihilate with neutrons, and likewise antineutrons can annihilate with protons, as discussed below.

Quote from: jerrygg38
   The big problem is that the experiment takes place in our galaxy. It is my opinion that the production of the photons is modified by the gravitational field they are in. -
That won't happen because it would violate the equivalence principle. So theoretically that's incorrect.

Quote from: jerrygg38
Thus an anti-photon that is produced will automatically switch to align itself to the present gravitational field.
What exactly do you think that an anti-photon is anyway? All particles, whether they are particles or anti-particles, are defined by measureable properties, such as charge, spin, magnetic moment, baryon number, lepton number, etc.

Quote from: jerrygg38
The production in an antimatter galaxy would produce two anti-photons.
So far you've said nothing that would suggest such a thing would happen.

First off, do you understand the fact that what's called antimatter is merely a matter of convention and that there's no experiment that can tell you what is matter and what is antimatter? When the positron was discovered it was determined to be the antiparticle of the electron. However the electron is also the antiparticle of the positron.

Quote from: jerrygg38
The difference between them is merely their geometric construction.
Huh? What do you mean by "geometric construction"?

Quote from: jerrygg38
   Do we have antimatter galaxies? It is possible. Anti-Photons emitted by the antimatter galaxy ..
That's incorrect. Antimatter emits photons. And since there's no such thing as antiphotons nothing produces them.

Quote from: jerrygg38
would automatically switch to regular photons when they enter our galaxy.
That would violate a conservation property, if there were such a thing as antiphotons that is.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #3 on: 15/07/2016 09:09:32 »
I think you should read this: scienceconfession.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/theory-of-gravity-light-and-empty-space/
PS: photon doesn't exist
Making claims like that are worthless. To have any worth at all it has to be justified. And photons DO exist. You see them every time you see something.

And since that URL leads to a page for which we don't know who wrote it, it's a waste of time reading it.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #4 on: 15/07/2016 11:12:28 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Does the anti-photon exist?
No. I.e. the anti-photon is identical to the photon itself.

What exactly do you think that an anti-photon is anyway? All particles, whether they are particles or anti-particles, are defined by measureable properties, such as charge, spin, magnetic moment, baryon number, lepton number, etc.
Huh? What do you mean by "geometric construction"?

  Thanks for the information. I have no definite opinions concerning anti-photons and antimatter. I have not put them in my books, and from what you say it doesn't pay for me to spend much time on them.
  The question you ask about geometric construction refers to the photon and the possibly imaginary anti-photon as well. I have two forms of light. Photons are a quantum of photonic energy which is standard physics. Photonic energy also can be spheres of spherical energy in which the sphere is not photons in a group but a form of energy that is a sphere which flows at light speed and keeps expanding. Eventually a point will be reached where the energy of the sphere runs out or breaks apart into a minimum group of photons. That is a simple geometric shape.
  Now what does the photon itself look like? I have an electrical motor self propelled model. Positive electrical energy spins in one direction and negative electrical energy spins in the same direction. This will produce a zero net magnetic field in the front of the photon. the photon has an outer shell of positive energy and an inner shell of negative energy. This makes it especially attractive to the electron.
  A anti-photon if it existed would have the opposite geometric construction. The photon can be modulated to transmit electrical signals when in a fiber optic cable. It may very well be that the adaptable photon joins together as a chain of photonic energy although I have not given that much thought.
   In free space another model of the photon is a Doppler photon. This gets down to the problem of how large is a photon? An proton in general is as large as the universe because it is constantly radiating energy since its beginning. The photon likewise is part of energy that is constantly radiating. so we could say that a photon is also as large as the universe.
   This means that when you split a photon into two parts they really are interconnected sisters. So the strange experiments in which the sisters experience reactions at extremely high light speeds are due to the fact that the photons themselves are very large. we only see the tip of their existence.
  The Doppler photon has a tip of very small size but a tail that is huge. Length in the forward direction of travel is basically zero at light speed C and rearward size reaches toward infinity.  so a photon is a strange thing. For the Doppler photon an anti photon would be hard to imagine.
 

 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #5 on: 15/07/2016 11:16:26 »
My answer to Pmbphy got messed up so I repeat it here.
 Thanks for the information. I have no definite opinions concerning anti-photons and antimatter. I have not put them in my books, and from what you say it doesn't pay for me to spend much time on them.
  The question you ask about geometric construction refers to the photon and the possibly imaginary anti-photon as well. I have two forms of light. Photons are a quantum of photonic energy which is standard physics. Photonic energy also can be spheres of spherical energy in which the sphere is not photons in a group but a form of energy that is a sphere which flows at light speed and keeps expanding. Eventually a point will be reached where the energy of the sphere runs out or breaks apart into a minimum group of photons. That is a simple geometric shape.
  Now what does the photon itself look like? I have an electrical motor self propelled model. Positive electrical energy spins in one direction and negative electrical energy spins in the same direction. This will produce a zero net magnetic field in the front of the photon. the photon has an outer shell of positive energy and an inner shell of negative energy. This makes it especially attractive to the electron.
  A anti-photon if it existed would have the opposite geometric construction. The photon can be modulated to transmit electrical signals when in a fiber optic cable. It may very well be that the adaptable photon joins together as a chain of photonic energy although I have not given that much thought.
   In free space another model of the photon is a Doppler photon. This gets down to the problem of how large is a photon? An proton in general is as large as the universe because it is constantly radiating energy since its beginning. The photon likewise is part of energy that is constantly radiating. so we could say that a photon is also as large as the universe.
   This means that when you split a photon into two parts they really are interconnected sisters. So the strange experiments in which the sisters experience reactions at extremely high light speeds are due to the fact that the photons themselves are very large. we only see the tip of their existence.
  The Doppler photon has a tip of very small size but a tail that is huge. Length in the forward direction of travel is basically zero at light speed C and rearward size reaches toward infinity.  so a photon is a strange thing. For the Doppler photon an anti photon would be hard to imagine.
 

Offline warpdrajv

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #6 on: 15/07/2016 11:26:05 »
I think you should read this: scienceconfession.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/theory-of-gravity-light-and-empty-space/
PS: photon doesn't exist
And since that URL leads to a page for which we don't know who wrote it, it's a waste of time reading it.

There is my email address to prove I wrote it.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #7 on: 15/07/2016 13:51:20 »
I think you should read this: scienceconfession.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/theory-of-gravity-light-and-empty-space/
PS: photon doesn't exist

Einstein won the Nobel prize for the photon I believe. Not for special relativity for sure. Exactly what the photon is, is subject to debate. Scientists can produce experiments which emit one photon at a time. It is a quantum of photonic energy. Many devices turn photons into electrical currents.  If the photon does not exist then what do you propose interacts with various substances to produce heat or electrical currents? explain that in simple words and not web pages.
 

Offline warpdrajv

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #8 on: 15/07/2016 14:47:00 »
I think you should read this: scienceconfession.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/theory-of-gravity-light-and-empty-space/
PS: photon doesn't exist

Einstein won the Nobel prize for the photon I believe. Not for special relativity for sure. Exactly what the photon is, is subject to debate. Scientists can produce experiments which emit one photon at a time. It is a quantum of photonic energy. Many devices turn photons into electrical currents.  If the photon does not exist then what do you propose interacts with various substances to produce heat or electrical currents? explain that in simple words and not web pages.

Did you actually read what I wrote on that page?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #9 on: 15/07/2016 17:32:00 »
I think you should read this: scienceconfession.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/theory-of-gravity-light-and-empty-space/
PS: photon doesn't exist

Einstein won the Nobel prize for the photon I believe. Not for special relativity for sure. Exactly what the photon is, is subject to debate. Scientists can produce experiments which emit one photon at a time. It is a quantum of photonic energy. Many devices turn photons into electrical currents.  If the photon does not exist then what do you propose interacts with various substances to produce heat or electrical currents? explain that in simple words and not web pages.

Did you actually read what I wrote on that page?
I read that you said that the photon does not exist. Why not?
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #10 on: 16/07/2016 17:47:29 »
Does the anti-photon exist?
   As specified in the science forum, current theory says that the photon is its own anti-photon. It is also believed that antiparticles react the same way in the gravitational field as regular particles. As I see it, a positron is similar to an electron but opposite polarity. The electron and the positron will destroy each other and two photons will result. If the result was a photon and an anti-photon simultaneously then they would tend to destroy each other and the result would be nothing at all. So it is self-evident that two ordinary photons are produced.
   The big problem is that the experiment takes place in our galaxy. It is my opinion that the production of the photons is modified by the gravitational field they are in. Thus an anti-photon that is produced will automatically switch to align itself to the present gravitational field. The production in an antimatter galaxy would produce two anti-photons. The difference between them is merely their geometric construction.
   Do we have antimatter galaxies? It is possible. Anti-Photons emitted by the antimatter galaxy would automatically switch to regular photons when they enter our galaxy. Particles from an antimatter galaxy would be repelled from the gravitational field of the matter galaxy. Otherwise we would get destruction at the edges of the antimatter galaxy when particles encounter a matter galaxy. Could there be an equal distribution of matter and antimatter galaxies? It is possible. Likewise there could only be a small number of antimatter galaxies. And when they collide with matter galaxies even though they tend to repel, there would be great areas of space where nothing exists.
    I do not know the answer. It is an interesting question. What do you guys think?

Photns, seems to not be a particle themselves, but a momentum of space fabric within and over it, when frequencies are passing by and also when heat is irradiating the fabric....
 Meaning the photon as we call can and possible is, due their weird properties, just a moment, energy conserved, being neutral due positive and negative balance charges, that will keep existing as long it still have momentum, as long the frequency is traveling troug one could say, and almost aways activated when there is a source of heat, electromagnetism and radiation, constant turned "on", the dark energy around the star would resamble that the star is emanating light, when is the heat, electromagnetism and radiation that the star precense is producing that is exiting the dark energy around it, adding it momentum and frequencies, shoting them away from the heat source in all possible dirrections, one coliding against the other, reforming waves of dark energy carring frequencies, the irradiated areas we call as photons...

  Like turning a light bulb on, and split the middle of it with two different separated tunels, one will be recieving light from the bulb on the interior, the other will be blocked from recieving any light...
 The illuminated tunnel we would to call as the light tunnel because there is light and where is light there is photons...
  And the other dark tunel with no frequencies we would call as dark energy tunnel, because there is no frequencies and so there are no photons...


 In my perspective, and just based in observation, a hypotetical scenario, dark energy is the photons, and the photons are momentun of acceleration over dark energy...

 One can say, we can isolate any particle and shoot them, well I do believe on this, I've seen it,
 But one says I can isolate and observe a photon, also shoot them, I have to desagree and wonder,
 Can you do that without machines and labs submiting the tunnels to any source of measurement?
 Cause if you can't, means that you're never probably shoting photons, but shoting momentum, and this momentum was traveling all the time trough the dark energy that is everywhere, includingyour vaccum experiment tunnels, sure you can use the electromagnetism to trap a photons, but tell me, didi you capture the particle "photon", or did you capture the "energy momentum" that was created from your own experiment that presumable has "Created a particle", named "photon"...
  Didi you capture, particle or background energy momentum, and simple named it as the photon particle?


 This is not science of course, but is an impossible scenario to provide evidence, one should go along with this abstract possibility and see what happen when it is aplied on math, the problem is:
 Who the heck would be intrited and brave enought to tell humanity that their tools are working well but that the understandment, equations, is most of them, incorrect or worng, all this, simple because a miss interpretation of a wave particle duality that never belongd to one particle alone, that indeed wasnt even a particle in the first place, but a pysical manifestation of frequency momentum, over the so called dark energy, activating and deactivating, the "background"?

 Impossible to prove, hard to human concepts to accept, that matter an be deactivated into dark energy using acceleration, simple cause it predicts temporarily non existence, until it all eventually rebigbang...
 Is more poetical accept that the black hole give matter a "continuous" existence, give them hope...
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #11 on: 16/07/2016 18:00:31 »
 jerrygg38

You're mind seems to be a lot more organized than my, I would like you to thing about this simple sentence:
In terms of solar systems:

"Photons are created by heat and expeled from heat, and dark energy is atracted to heat, away from cold"

Can you see the "sphere" balancing around the star heat source, as a breading lung, but one that is constanly expanded due heat existing dark energy giving them momentum and sending away, at the same time the outerspace one, due the "limitation" of speed of light velocity falls back agains the star, atracted by its heat source?
 Inaprobriated example, but thing about the sentence, from a few time... THink about the bending of light nearby the planets as a conflict of dark energy aproxing the object it is atracted to, and than re-iradiating the outflow and expanding it away by illuminating it with electromagnetism, sending light away from the sphere.... But all this happening in a infinity cicle, there outerspace is aways being atracted to the main star and planets, trying to reach the heat source, "the inner" source, in the case of a planet hititng itself with the crost, becaming unable to reach the heat on the interior, bouncing around the sphere, slowly giving it momentum, reducing the momentum as the planet cools down, and the planet expanding the inner as the compression is reduced, because the heat is reduced.
In the case of the stars, a not so dense crost, that dark energy is able to penetrate more deep in, almost reaching the inner, but becaming exited again and so pushed away again, and so it reclicles, also giving the stars acelleration, reshaping their electromagnetism into vortexes, from where the dark energy is leacking, by being absorved by the acceleration of the body its simple precense has created and added...

Now, two asteroids on space, without momentum, by being dense means tha their themperature, inner, will be always supperior than the other space temperature:

 Would this cause a sort of "Atraction" between the two asteroids, but in fat being a result of a more compressive force "provinient from universe expansion" agains a very little inner heat production of the asteroids, resulting in a more dirrect compression between both objects...
 Convert the asteroids into a planet and the other a sun, would than this scenario result in more conserved momentum to the planet in function of a strong heaxpanding heat source comming from the main star expansion against the other space compression over it, " and by compression of outerspace, I trully mena universe expansion, causing (compression) of wherever is within, as a raction"?...
  Iwondering if momentum is in a simple explanation give to us by dark energy, space fabric around us, and we, dense atomic structure only providing the heat source, we only being the catalist, simple by being what we are...

 Photons as a name for a descripition of a reaction, such as gravity being simple a name for a description of universe expansion over us.... So everything being dark energy being heated up and cooled down around the heat sorces, consequentilly converting the difference oetween the two expansive colisions into horizontal momentum, forming poles and outflows of electromagnetism...

As an apple being pushed up with a pyshical acceleration, and due its "density", being counterparted by the own outerspace acceleration against the planet, where this very acceleration against, is resultant not from the "Weight of the aple due its mass" but compression has being a result of the very existence of the planet causing the acceleration by actrating dark enegy to the heat it is producing... Remove the apple dense atomic structure and the epansion will not affect it...
 Our weight of thinks concept would become a realible and already stablished, measuring tool for gravity, explaining why our calculations are working... what we call as weight being the meassurement of the gravitational pull over individual objects...  Exchange the weight concept being realated with the mass, for the same meassurement but being related with the gravational momentum of dark energy all around the apple, in case of an experiment made over a planet surfaces, the general momentum being converted into acceleration, towards the planets, not from the weight, the apple didn't wanted to rejoin the crost, but instead the acceleration of dark energy round of it, pushed the apple against the ground as a simple and non relative effect, as a consequence, of its constant attempt of reaching the inner heat source, the apple was simple there... Open a hole on the planet and let the apple falls in along with the acceleration, it will speed up and in the case of an indestructible apple as soon as it aproaches the inner core, it will start to be pushed up, becomening balanced at some point and than starting to float near and around the inner core... The same way the planets are floating the horizontal disk of the heliosphere, not the crost, not the manttle, but the core of the planets due heat...
« Last Edit: 16/07/2016 18:38:42 by Alex Siqueira »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #12 on: 17/07/2016 10:04:07 »
I think you should read this: scienceconfession.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/theory-of-gravity-light-and-empty-space/
PS: photon doesn't exist
And since that URL leads to a page for which we don't know who wrote it, it's a waste of time reading it.

There is my email address to prove I wrote it.
I see. Thanks. I didn't notice it before. But it wasn't clear to me that the page is supposed to prove that photons don't exist because I can't even find the term photon in that page.

Why not give us a summary of your proof of why photons don't exist. Surely you can do that, can't you? If not then can you tell me where on that page you prove it?

However, in this thread you're making statements as if you know, as a fact, that photons don't exit. In that page you wrote What you are about to read might be just my false wild imagination. which tells me that you haven't proved it, you merely believe that photons don' exist. It's not possible to prove that photons don't exist. Are you familiar with the elements and structure of a cogent argument? Such an argument has at least two propositions. A proposition is a statement which has a value of being either true or false. One of the proposition(s) are the axioms, i.e. hypotheses, which are assumed to be true but are not proved in the argument. They are either the conclusions of another argument or they're basic axioms which can't be proved but are assumed to be true. An example are the two principles of the special theory of relativity (1) the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference and (2) the speed of light in empty space is constant, independent of the direction of propagation and the relative velocity between the source and the observer.

<stop: I have to eat and sleep now. More later.>
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #13 on: 17/07/2016 13:14:35 »
I think you should read this: scienceconfession.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/theory-of-gravity-light-and-empty-space/
PS: photon doesn't exist
And since that URL leads to a page for which we don't know who wrote it, it's a waste of time reading it.



. An example are the two principles of the special theory of relativity (1) the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference and (2) the speed of light in empty space is constant, independent of the direction of propagation and the relative velocity between the source and the observer.

<stop: I have to eat and sleep now. More later.>

  It appears to me that principle (1) is good for inertial frames where the speed of the frame is low as compared to the speed of light C. Thus we would have a very non-linear set of laws. In addition the laws within very high gravitational fields would be quite non-linear and you would not be able to specify our equations. So what does Einstein really mean by principle 1. Principle 2 specifies that photons act like constant speed motors (synchronous) except they move in a straight line. I have no objection to that except to say that the reference plane is the gravitational field and that the photon adapts from the suns field to the Earths field. thus when in the suns field it moves with C relative to the sun and when in the earths field it moves with C relative to the Earth. thus M/M experiment is meaningless.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #14 on: 17/07/2016 13:28:53 »
From Alex Siquerira
 
"Photons are created by heat and expeled from heat, and dark energy is atracted to heat, away from cold"

Can you see the "sphere" balancing around the star heat source, as a breading lung, but one that is constanly expanded due heat existing dark energy giving them momentum and sending away, at the same time the outerspace one, due the "limitation" of speed of light velocity falls back agains the star, atracted by its heat source?
 From Jerrygg38:
You seem to have some good thoughts here.You think the dark energy flows toward the heat. This would cause a gravitational compression and force the earth to be pushed toward the sun and the orbit of the Earth would keep it away.
  Yet what is the greatest source of the heat? It is the particles themselves. the proton is hot. thus the proton is radiating the heat.  this causes dark energy to be emitted from the proton. this fills space with dark energy and causes the universe to expand. Gravity then is a sort of kickback effect as energy leaves the proton causing spherical momentum which kicks back. Gravity then is plus and minus. Plus as it pushes back upon matter and minus as it pushes against the galaxies and causes the universe to expand.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #15 on: 17/07/2016 15:26:53 »
You're correct, but I do not believe that the heat is provinient from the particles themselves, I do believe that the temperatures heat and cold are provinient from the "interactions of particles", but the thing that is being heated up or cooled down never where the particles, but the photonic space fabric, dark energy by any menas...
  Dark energy being some sort of super massive particle that we would call as unique super photon of lower density, being the speed of light limit prof of its density, with the main star like suns being the load of particles to interact and than heat up the dark energy forming a sphere, and the black holes being as the same as the stars, but with a exponential more strong heat in lower scale, so tinny that the exitement and curvature it creates is able to go far beyond the star main body, becaming unable to cooldown fast, also since the event is happening free of a crost of any kind, the horizon, the acceleration of the atraction of dark energy towards the heat source is counterparted not by a crost but by the expansion itself, in the case of a black hole it would not require to fuel itself with particles for producing light, its already an anomaly that by specific reasons become able to produce heat simple by being compressed one neutron against the other, being the comepression of neutrons by otherspace its own heat source, doing so it would virtually never require to burst any kind of fuel, the fuel to heat up...
  If dark energy is the car, and the engine is running with heat, one does not need particle colissions on the innercore, if the innercore has find meanings to heatup itself alone, you do not need to burn only to be...
  The constant dtraction of the dark energy towards the heat source would than find and form a much more powerfull event horizon, simple by having no crost of density of anykind around, the sun and planets ade their true velocity t the innercore, cause the density of the crost is limitating the direct interaction with space fabric...

 So yes absoluty, the particles are defenitly the heat source, but I do believe that the colision of particles and right charges convert both into heat and energy, somehow, the dark energy on the are is able to quantify and instantaneously self contain the energy released, by compressing the momentum into something that we would missunderstand as a particle, when in reality it was always momentum...
  We turned the measuments on and due electromagnetism we become able to create the same momentum but the electromagnetism is able to keep it there before it disipates, something like the colision creates enourmous amounts of heat that just by being so hot, instantaneously evoke dark energy atraction over it, forming something that would spark, being spherical sometimes not being, do not get me wrong the energy contained is real, the rest was dissipated as heat, I just don't thing that the photon belong to a category as a particle...

 I thing that the photon happens even without the colision becose it is a momentum formed by the interaction of particles over spacefabric... So one ask me if the wenghleng frequency is real, I have to agree it is, and has a infinity speed, any limit know on this universe is the limit of the photonic space fabric and how fast due its density it can respond to wherever is happening or traveling over it...

 Basicly I do not believe that in anything on the universe exept from a neutron star or any anomality, the temperatures have ever belonged to the particles interaction or non-interaction...
 Dark energy normal state is could, every sincle cold on this universe including planets belongs to the space within the atoms and around, and the heat also belong to the dark energy, provinient from the interaction of particles, again within the space within the atoms and around, gain dark energy...
  For me dark energy is decomposed matter, the photons have no shape and can't be split and desapear cause they are no particle but simple momentum created by heat and energy, over dark energy, being dark energy the wave and the energy the dots, bits of information of their sources, but each traveling at the speed of the dark energy fabric, the photon speed, limited by its density....

 In a ruddimentar atestment, if you seal a vaccum sphere and somehow by anymenas we will ignore remove the sphere from dark energy ithout making the sphere colapse, and fill the sphere with hydrogen, than put someone in there to lightup fire and it should explode, of course... I'm wondering that it won't happen cause without dark energy you will have no "possible" way to generate heat, cause there would be only energy on the mater without something to interract with and transfer the information to the hydrogen surrownding the flame.... In a real scenario such sphere would be impossible to produce, cause removing dark energy from a place in universe would require a supernova explosion with a constant expansion against the universe expansion itself wich is impossible...
 So in reasume photons beig simple stated of self contained energy, being constantly formed by the colision of particles, but their shapes and acceleration being generecly given to them from the background, being the photon the energy left for the interaction, but its shape being given by dark energy on the background...

 Different colision, different charges, different particles and also different levels of heat and information, resultant in different interactions with dark energy, resulting in different kind of particles and photons...
 And if is acceptable that the photon is a intaneus temporarily creation of dark energy to transfer information, and the photons being simple energy with momentum, is acceptable that under different universal conditions, like on the begining, every single matter was coverthed into dark energy by the bigbang, and the few that was leftwas enable to heat up and start the existence of gravity, and with gravity that original elements whre able to be heated up and decomposed, exploded, reformed, and here we are...

 What I mean is, dark energy is a way les dense than matter, but I do believe they are made from the same, blackholes are ripping the bounds, and dissipating the energy of the particle by irradiating them with electromagnetism, converting them into deactivated matter, dark energy... Of course for this I still presume that the black hole is a mass of expansion due inner conserved heat, and not and never a depression, where  never will ever fall in as long as the atracction od dark energy is providing it acceleration and a horizontal disk, a horizon...
  The quasar are prove of what happens when a inttense gravitational pull is on the are, the precense of a dense atomic structure gas cloud, increases the heat on the suronding areas, evoking atraction of more dark energy to close of it, the compression become so big that the spherical sphere starts to become eliptical by compressing the horizon, at some point the rotation and the eliptical shape does not combine anymore, the neutronstar temporarly become something resambling a eliptical object, at this very moment the horizon is still there, but the black hole are become more large in diamenter on the vortexes, alowing matter to bypass the horizon, instead of falling in as the usual concept, matter is pulled dirrect to the acceleration and ejected as titanic bursts of energy, one that was not completly decomposed by tortlefication on the horizon...

So what would be th anti-photon? Any dense atomic structure it may colide with, the energy will be transfered as heat and radiation, and the photon will cease to exist, rejoining the blackground...

Of course are just considerations based on Einstein photonic experiment as being correct but not well interpreted, it wasn't the photons that released the electrong, it was the wave leng frequency, the radiation that whas traveling trough the dark energy ouside and inside the expermital tube, that was able to release the electrons, the photon was simple the vessel, but never a true stable particle...

One last consideration, what is cold? It's the absence of heat, but we pnly know the temeratures existing with and within the dark energy, the universe, so, how would we claim that cold, lower temperatures, are not heat too?
 How to determine the temperature of something that is producing temperature by interaction over itself? So no mater how cold universe gets, as long it is temperatured, the lower temperature should also being is still heat...
« Last Edit: 17/07/2016 15:45:49 by Alex Siqueira »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #16 on: 17/07/2016 21:37:30 »
You ask what is cold?
   From an engineering viewpoint cold is the absence of heat. Heat relates to vibrations of molecules and atoms. As the universe expands eventually the stars explode and atoms break apart into protons and electrons. eventually their motion ceases and everything is at absolute zero.
  Yet in my dot-wave theory in the end the protons and electrons self destruct. So the internal heat within the particles and sub-particle disappears. then no only are their any photons of light energy but there is no source of heat as well. So heat means nothing at that time and the universe is completely dead.
  But it will compress again. And the universe will get hot at a small dimension. thus we have a heat pump. We go from hot to cold and cold compresses back to hot over and over again.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Does the antiphoton exist?
« Reply #16 on: 17/07/2016 21:37:30 »

 

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