The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
...
6
7
[
8
]
9
10
...
14
Go Down
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
276 Replies
179465 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #140 on:
09/08/2011 11:31:48 »
See this articles and related articles
http://physics.about.com/b/2010/04/22/could-quasars-disprove-time-dilation.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/553/2/L97/fulltext
The redshifts observed of visible matter around Quasars are standard relativistic redshifts. But the regular timing of the variations in intensity observed must be related directly to the black rings. The black ring (black hole) being the upper limit of relativity at Lp and Mp, it explains its absolute property of time dilation.
My theory is the only viable solution... simply because there is no other...!!! And i did not have to change it to solve the problem...
«
Last Edit: 13/08/2011 22:06:26 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #141 on:
18/08/2011 17:03:47 »
Though i am not sure about space expansion due to a lack of information on the big picture of the universe and a good explanation of the CMB, i am convinced that matter is made entirely of light. Everything inside the HUP is smeared and unmeasurable in space, time and energy. A photon is entirely inside HUP, having an electromagnetic origin, it must possess charges or it must travel through a grid of charges.
I am reluctant to reveal my next conclusion because many of you, specially those who haven't taken much time to think about my theory, will see it as a religious conclusion, which is not. It is a logical conclusion... Here it is:
Matter is made of light. Light does not exist in time. We perceive time. Conclusion: consciousness is outside matter (or light). Thus consciousness is from other dimensions than the dimensions of simple matter. There is a possibility that "near death experiences" are true... I just hope i won't regret to have written it down... [
)] For now, take it as a grain of salt...
«
Last Edit: 26/10/2011 10:49:16 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #142 on:
30/08/2011 20:47:03 »
The fact is that the Strong Force is the electromagnetic and gravitational forces united (including the weak force). There is no proof for a fifth force, though there is a possibility according to the Dark energy theories.
The Strong Force unifies all forces into a black ring. If there is conservation of information, it is the lowest form of entropy.
Half or more of the Strong energy after a bigbang is transformed in part to other forms of energy: electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and kinetic. Kinetic and gravitational energy are relativistic. It is the gravitational link to mass that makes the kinetic energy being relativistic. You must see objects as a whole...
The only way to go faster than light is to be completely disentangled with the rest of the universe. But is it possible?
About Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB), it is probably only thermal radiation absorbed and emitted back and forth between massive particles in the universe, we just see it from the past. Its origin is still the bigbang.
«
Last Edit: 03/09/2011 10:32:33 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #143 on:
31/08/2011 22:46:50 »
Very interesting properties about GR and SR from GPS clocks measurements:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
It means the Earth was mainly liquid at its formation and the resulting shape produces a flat timerate everywhere on it at sea level. Certainly not a coincidence. Now, the Earth has cooled down and surrounding mass like mountains modify the timerate.
Escape velocity produce and equal amount of slow down of timerate (SR) compared to the increase in timerate at infinite distance due to gravity (GR).
For GR
T
0
/T = 1/(√(1-2GM/RC
2
)
For SR
T/T
0
= 1/(√(1-V
2
/C
2
)
V
escape
= √(2GM/R)
N.B.: Escape velocity means zero velocity at infinite distance...
My theory doesn't need aether, even though there is an origin (the bigbang or our bigbang is a possible absolute reference). Relativity is a property of the Wave of light (our entire "apparent" universe) with itself...
«
Last Edit: 02/09/2011 10:53:07 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #144 on:
28/09/2011 14:06:02 »
Do neutrinos travel faster than light?
We know neutrinos can have velocities below the speed of light.
Why the speed of photons is constant and not for neutrinos?
They both have an average electric charge of zero but the neutrinos have a nonzero mass charge. Neutrinos have a relativistic energy coming from its mass. Thus, neutrinos can be slow down to a alt in any referential frames, depending of proper gravitational force acting on it.
But can neutrinos travel faster than photons?
Even having an average zero electric charge, the photon is still bond by electromagnetic entanglement which convey the property of the speed of light to be constant. Relativity of light's frequency is only within the mass and timerate of a massive observer. Photon's charge is truly constant to +1/2 and -1/2 = 0. The electric charge seems to be more fundamental as an electric charge than a mass charge.
Depending on the unknown proper masses of the neutrinos and possibly the fine structure constant (or coupling constant=1/137), it is possible that the minimal strength of their gravitational entanglement is lower at their creation compare to the strength of photons electromagnetic entanglement. This would allow the neutrinos to have a higher momentum and speed
According to my theory, the only possibility for neutrinos to have a speed limit beyond C implies that their electromagnetic entanglement is changed ,in this case, in an enough quantity to a weaker gravitational entanglement as a proper mass charge. The neutrino's electric charge being equal to the photon's charge, it would mean neutrinos momentum increases by being bond in part by gravity rather than entirely by electromagnetism.
Different mass generation for neutrinos than ordinary matter? I think it is rather unlikely...
«
Last Edit: 29/09/2011 05:04:34 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #145 on:
10/10/2011 08:38:56 »
About
curvature of light
by a gravitational field and
the shape of the universe
.
Curvature of light by a gravitational field is due to the transversal gravitational entanglement of photons.
see:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html#c4
Something important to note in this case is that the beam of light emitted by the star and received on earth is not the same as the one we would receive without the gravitational field of the sun. Thus, the light path has shortened. The rate of curvature maintains the speed of light constant locally.
This effect is produced by the pulling of all elementary particles of the sun on the photons by gravitational entanglement. Light has no mass because it does not depend on the energy of the free photon and light has no rest frame. Light has inertia in its direction of "propagation" when absorbed or reflected in a rest frame but it has no mass because of its constant velocity which is directly related to length and timerate. If gravity and light have the same velocity, photons just can't possess gravitational mass in its velocity direction! There is a kind of gravitational mass in the transverse direction though...
We observe from earth a longer path due the curvature, but locally it is straight due to the length contraction of the higher gravitational pulling nearby the sun. This is why all very massive objects in the universe are spherical (or circular in the case of a black ring).
In Euclidean space, a black ring would first expand in a donut shape, then in an ellipsoid (oblate spheroid) tending toward a sphere over time. The differential of the equatorial radius and the polar radius decrease over time. The black ring expands at the speed of light from a ring having a thickness of twice the Planck length and a diameter equal to half the Schwarzschild radius.
Light rays on a large scale are relatively straight but still length contracted in the middle of the universe and they have a higher curvature inward as they travel along the edge of the universe but certainly not enough to form a loop around the universe. It is a quite a simple explosion (expansion) in Euclidean space. In this case, a uniform expansion would produce an expansion of the ring shape only. My first proposition is an expansion with velocities proportional to the square of the distance. The universe we observe having a radius of about 14 billion Ly, the expansion could be quite linear in a first approximation in distances less than a billion Ly.
This way, it is highly possible that the expansion is due to the release of the kinetic energy of the black ring, half its total energy. The proof of that will come from observations of a non uniform and anisotropic universe.
Kinetic energy is relativistic energy without the rest mass energy (i prefer the term rest mass than invariant mass because of its reference to the rest frame).
Kinetic energy is energy which is not in a rest frame. It is energy in the form of momentum or free light (not a particle form having a rest mass). Free Light form does not exist in time. The more relativistic or kinetic energy a particle with mass possess (relative to another), the more it is in a relative free light form and the more its timerate is dilated.
About my black ring description, i said that in order to keep only the rest mass, the relativistic energy of a particle vanishes at the event horizon in an elastic collision due to the fact that it is perpendicular to the motion of the light ring. It should vanish in flashes of light... The universe being unbound, the photons loss by matter in the universe should convert mass into kinetic energy and causes a decrease in the deceleration of the expansion. Thus an expanded black ring cannot reform in its entirety in a big crunch (collapse due to gravity).
Its seems very likely that there is other black rings expanding or not outside our visible universe...
More to come!
«
Last Edit: 27/06/2016 00:44:39 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #146 on:
10/10/2011 21:36:53 »
So, our point of view of the universe depends on our relative position to the center. Yes, there is a center. We are not necessarily at this center. Limited capacity of the instrumentation we use to observe the universe is limiting our capacity to observe that we are not at the center. If the universe is quite larger than our capable observations, then the most distant objects we observe in any direction will look the same in most aspects. Our perception of length and time depends on our position in the universe. If we look at an object having a recessive speed in the opposite direction to our speed relative to the central point, we will see this object farther into the past and nearer in distance than an observer at the center of the universe will (distance of the object from us).
See adding speed in special relativity on Hyperphysics website from my last hyperlink.
But now, what is the most interesting part is how entanglement enables relativity in Euclidean space. How spacetime is not needed at all? Kinetic energy is a relative free photon form of energy and it exists everywhere along its path at any time. Thus, one observer can see an object at a different place and time than another observer at an absolute instant. Two observers may have different timeline and timerate but they still share the same instant, only the relative distances between any two absolute instants are different. This is quite amazing...
Does it sound like Quantum Mechanics properties?
«
Last Edit: 12/10/2011 07:04:43 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #147 on:
13/10/2011 08:00:29 »
Dark Energy
A black ring energy:
E = N*M
p
C
2
/2 + N
2
*GM
p
2
/2R = N*M
p
C
2
E = kinetic energy + strong force binding energy
Where
M
p
is the Planck mass
N*M
p
is the total mass of the black ring
R is half the Schwarzschild radius = N*L
p
.
If the expansion is caused by the release of the kinetic energy at the bigbang and the velocity distribution is proportional to the square of the distance in Euclidean space, how much dark energy should be measured in the actual spacetime cosmological model?
In Euclidean space it is 50%.
In spacetime it is √50% = 70.7% (more explanations later)(in spacetime, acceleration is necessary, think of an inflating balloon in 2D).
It is estimated to about 75% for the moment...
«
Last Edit: 13/10/2011 15:29:17 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #148 on:
13/10/2011 16:51:53 »
Casimir effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
The distance between the two parallel plates act as a wavelength cut off for kinetic pressure (in this case: thermal pressure). Theoretically speaking, if the distance between the two plates would be reduced to the Planck length, the only force left between them would be the Strong Force. But in reality, the geometry of matter and the fact that the plates are composed mostly of empty space render it much weaker for any distance.
«
Last Edit: 31/10/2011 19:53:49 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #149 on:
31/10/2011 20:54:59 »
Gamma ray bursts
1- The sum of momenta of a rotating particle over a period is zero in its own frame.
2- A Black Ring (BR) is a particle.
3- Acceleration at a black ring is so strong that a particle will decay in to photons before reaching the event horizon.
4- Only the rest mass is kept turning around the BR. The BR should bite only in quanta of M
p
(without it, the black ring wouldn't be stable).
5- The reciprocal kinetic energy must be emitted in the form of light (electromagnetic radiation).
6- The BR acts like a gravitational lens. The particles velocity represents reciprocal kinetic energy to the black ring's kinetic energy, due to gravity. It's total momentum is zero. It should be ejected from the BR in opposite directions for conservation of momentum.
7- Any events synchronized at the event horizon is at a maximum possible time dilation. The local density of energy is constant for any BR at the event horizon. Its temperature is the Planck temperature divided by 2π, which is equal to Hawking-Unruh radiation temperature for a unitary BR of M
p
wavelength = 2π*L
p
... [:0]
http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/linearchannel.pdf
In Unruh radiation temperature equation, just replace "h/2π" by M
p
*C*L
p
and acceleration "a" by C
2
/L
p
You get Planck Temperature divided by 2π.
In relativity, for the ring itself, curvature = acceleration = energy density = radiation temperature
It is true until the limit mass M
p
and wavelength 2πL
p
.
For a larger BR, relativity is not a factor anymore
curvature = acceleration ≠ energy density = radiation temperature = constant.
«
Last Edit: 23/02/2012 19:47:49 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #150 on:
17/11/2011 11:47:42 »
Here is an article discussing in non mathematical terms some properties of gamma-ray bursts:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/bursts.html
It is interesting to note that their spectrum is not a black body distribution and there is no frequency produced below x-ray (correct me if i'm wrong), which is a mystery...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
«
Last Edit: 21/11/2011 06:47:29 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #151 on:
28/11/2011 08:40:03 »
Anisotropy of the Universe?
See this free article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0941v4
Uniformity of the Universe was based on very limited data and an already accepted model based on space-time.
If you want to look at my theory from a standing point of view of the String Theory, you must understand that the spatial dimensions would be energy dimensions observed in 3D space in my theory.
Dimensions that do not interact in time would be a kind of dark energy (not to confound with the Dark Energy or negative energy, though there is possible links, i doubt about negative energy)... I think entanglement is how information is conserved. Combined with the speed of light and the fixed angular momentum of massive elementary particles, it generates the 3 dimensions of energy and the uncertainty principle by switching instantly the spin of elementary particles (updated every Planck time?) according to an ordered causality chain containing all the universe.
«
Last Edit: 19/12/2011 03:03:23 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
terrildactl
Jr. Member
10
Activity:
0%
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #152 on:
28/11/2011 20:42:42 »
I agree with all of what you have said, much can be added to everything. Truth in science is teaching and listening to every entity. I believe that when we can develop different instruments, we will find that the universe is full of field lines emanating from every mass, everywhere. every atom has an energy field emanating from it. Larger mass, larger field lines. we will soon be using the plasma energy in outer space, it is packed full of energy. All of the EM fields, are producing an electrical output. Theuniverse is a huge capacitor. We will soon learn to detect this energy surrounding everything. Every planet, every star,everything. Yes gravity, and Electromagnetic are two competing forces. I know there are forces we have not even found yet, the chances are very much in my favor. So my answer is yes I agree with you.
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #153 on:
29/11/2011 03:40:46 »
If you read carefully, you will see that i don't expect new forces. And what i call dark energy is not really energy, because it does not exist in the time dimension, only quanta of energy, which are relative to each other, are useful energy. Though the invisible parts might possibly be useful in terms of information.
Here you can find the flaws of the QCD model of the strong nuclear force:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/
Comay has a model based on magnetic monopoles, interesting, but i don't think it is right. In my opinion, it is a gravitational pole or if you prefer, an inertial pole...
«
Last Edit: 05/12/2011 11:42:11 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
terrildactl
Jr. Member
10
Activity:
0%
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #154 on:
30/11/2011 15:40:01 »
Do you think photons can be captured into a mobulous loop? Which would fold itself 180 degrees back upon itself. Or what could happen?
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #155 on:
01/12/2011 03:06:43 »
All elementary particles are photons rotating in a circular orbit. Curvature of light is necessary to produce a new particle from photons.
The proton, made of 3 elementary quarks, is a mould producing Pi mesons. Pi mesons are not made of the same types of quarks than protons are made, contrary to what the standard model says... It is obvious if you look mass-energy and size. My model is very simple. Muons are included in the geometry of both, the proton and the pi mesons.
«
Last Edit: 19/12/2011 03:01:22 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #156 on:
15/12/2011 15:36:10 »
Why is there so much heavy elements in these "young" galaxies?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102092929.htm
Just to show the level of confidence, here is an article about earlier measurements of the anisotropy of the universe. Is it "the axis of evil" or "the axis of truth"?
http://www.astronomy.com/~/link.aspx?_id=001cb59f-d985-4fd7-a01e-c31716287259
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=universal-alignment
«
Last Edit: 15/12/2011 16:54:18 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #157 on:
05/01/2012 18:22:24 »
Euclidean space is totally compatible with the cosmological data.
See this article:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0310/0310808v2.pdf
They forgot something very important to account for the validity of an Euclidean space model: the gravitational redshifts of a stationary spacetime. There is no metric expansion of space, only energy expansion in space!!! They should have added the gravitational redshifts to the special relativity redshifts... This will correct the magnitude discrepancies of figure 5.
About gravitational redshift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
«
Last Edit: 06/01/2012 00:07:18 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #158 on:
17/01/2012 04:57:42 »
You still don't buy my explanation of the uncertainty principle?
Read this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120116095529.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1833
«
Last Edit: 13/05/2013 19:17:09 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #159 on:
24/01/2012 02:01:07 »
Here is "Four Problems for the Standard Model of Cosmology and Their Resolution by Inflation"
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/cosmology/fourproblems.html
The flatness is a proof that space is euclidean. And you can add Dark Energy to the cosmological problems...
Another article about cosmological problems (biased on some points)
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Cosmology_Problems_Big_Bang
And evidence of the actual BigBang model (biased in the lack of a more exhaustive look at cosmological problems, denial)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
«
Last Edit: 24/01/2012 02:06:46 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
Print
Pages:
1
...
6
7
[
8
]
9
10
...
14
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...