1

New Theories / Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?

« 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.

2

New Theories / How does a star make the neutron?

« on: 19/10/2010 19:07:50 »

You keep assuming that you are trying to measure something solid, like a steel ball.

The actual particles are made of electric and magnetic fields. We can calculate the sizes very easily. Everything we can discover about the particles matches the calculations.

Now if we energize electrons so that they punch right through the outer fields, we don't measure much.

BTW, you seemed to respond to my post but you quoted SuperP.

3

New Theories / How does a star make the neutron?

« on: 19/10/2010 16:18:11 »

They have to use high energy electrons to probe small things- that's the uncertainty principle for you. Does that mean your ideas are untestable?

No, it just means that the measuring device must determine the positive-negative transition point in the shell. This would be a very subtle point requiring exact energy probes.

Edit:
Hofstadter at Stanford discovered this in the sixties. He used probes of 600 MeV and saw nuclear structure in the proton. Hofstadter said that the proton seemed to be a shell structure.

This was at odds with the new QM theory so it was not mentioned in the Nobel Prize awarded Hofstadter.

4

New Theories / How does a star make the neutron?

« on: 19/10/2010 16:15:10 »

You have finally been able to work out the spatial sizes for these particles, I waited years for you to come to an understanding that the from an electromagnetic gravitation perspective, the Electron is much bigger in size than the Proton and Neutron.

I had the sizes down from the beginning. Size comes from the wave length of the photon that makes up the shell, as per the equation you know about.

My main interest right now is the dynamics of the strong force. The model predicts both the dynamics and the strength of the force.

The inner shells are trapped inside the outer shells in the binding. So to come apart, forces must first increase as the inner shells come closer to their captive outer shells.

Anyway it's fun. The source code produces the model and animates the binding.

Source Code Required library Also needed is the SDL library available on line.

5

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« on: 18/10/2010 20:51:59 »

Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.

I mentioned no theory.

6

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« on: 18/10/2010 12:39:40 »

Movie script presentation went very well. Many re-writes will come before production, however.

Producers want more ridicule of mainstream. They smell raw meat.

7

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« on: 18/10/2010 11:57:52 »

This topic does seem like a good candidate for the New Theories section. Stay tuned!

Move it there. We can then ignore the tight-rope walking necessary not to offend the BS advocates. Physics is truly in a sad state.

Does it bother anyone that we are not allowed to question the BS?

I would be embarrassed for someone to think that I signed on to the mainstream BS. Especially since future students will see our tracks and wonder how we could be so stupid.

8

New Theories / How does a star make the neutron?

« on: 18/10/2010 11:39:51 »

Vern, I mentioned creating a paper that will take the square of the shells rule mainstream. This is what I predicted for the Square of the Shells rule. This fits with the Standard Model, and Guage Theories:

I'll gladly work with you any way you want, Robert, but I'm old now and damn near senile.[] Or so it seems to me when answers don't come as fast as they used to!

9

New Theories / How does a star make the neutron?

« on: 18/10/2010 11:28:17 »

"Measurements do not find the electromagnetic bounderies of the particles."
Please define "electromagnetic bounderies".
Quantum mechanics makes it rather difficult to define the size of anything on this scale but I think you are still ignoring the observations.

I studied the measurements. They used electrons of such energy that they punched right through the fields until they encountered the most inner particle shells. The inner fields were strong enough to deflect the high energy electrons.

That's why the proton and neutron were the same. Both measurements were of the same inner shells, just as predicted by the shells equations.

So I didn't ignore the measurements, I simply noted that they agreed with the predictions of the rule, below.

Calculator Source Code

Output Result:

10

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« on: 18/10/2010 11:19:36 »

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. []

11

New Theories / How does a star make the neutron?

« on: 17/10/2010 13:57:45 »

Vern's theory is inconsistent with observations and, therefore, wrong.

Measurements do not find the electromagnetic bounderies of the particles. Therefore the notion that all of naturre might be electromagnetic is is not inconsistent with observations.

Robert: Great work!!

Did you notice how well the notion predicts nuclear dynamics of the strong force? I can not imagine how that could be coincidence.

12

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« on: 17/10/2010 11:56:53 »

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.

13

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« on: 17/10/2010 05:38:09 »

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.

14

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« 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.

15

New Theories / How does a star make the neutron?

« on: 17/10/2010 02:56:15 »

I suspect that atoms are NOT turned into neutrons in a neutron star. I suspect that a state of matter may exist as a shell structure where binding occurrs between the most central shell (shell 4) and the next shell out (shell 3).



This would be a state of matter much more dense than binding between the proton's outer shell (shell 2) and its next to outer shell, (shell 3).

But this is only a hunch. Below is particles to scale as I suspect them to be.

BTW: This state of matter would be a neutral particle of mass equal to two times shell 4 mass plus two times shell 3 mass. And, of course when discovered, it will be hailed as the Higgs.

16

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« 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.

17

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« 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?

18

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« 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

19

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« 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.

20

New Theories / Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?

« 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. :=)