1

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

« on: 16/10/2010 03:23:19 »

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.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does gravity affect gravity?

« on: 25/02/2010 16:28:03 »

The equation for acceleration contains time as an element.  Stars in galaxies experience acceleration toward the galactic centre. Massive objects in a gravity field experience the passage of time as being slower than if the gravity field were not there.

So it seems that gravity would have a negative affect upon gravity so that it would not follow a linear increase as mass increases.

Time dilation due to gravity should then be considered when calculating the expected speed of galactic rotation.

What am I missing?

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How deep a moon hole would it take to provide livable air?

« on: 24/12/2009 21:20:10 »

How deep would a hole into the moon need to be to provide air pressure suitable for human life? Say we dig the hole then fill it with air. How deep would it need to be? What equations would apply? Would this be a plausible SF scenario?

4

New Theories / Can we build a new Reality Theory?

« on: 17/11/2009 14:15:44 »

I have some ideas about what is the true nature of the universe. Others here have other notions. I wonder if we can start with a few postulates and create a new vision of reality. Can we find that principal that John Wheeler talked about when he said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."

As a first postulate I suggest Maxwell's idea.

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

5

New Theories / Do we need to rethink gravitational red shift?

« on: 09/11/2009 15:08:02 »

Light experiences a red shift due to the affect of gravity. The effect is cumulative, so that once shifted, the light does not return to its previous frequency. There seems to be much more gravity in space than is accounted for by the things we can see. Now that we have a measure for this increased amount of gravity, do we need to rethink what effect this extra gravity has upon light?

It is easy to see that light climbing out of a gravity well would be red shifted. Light plunging into a gravity well would be blue shifted. But the question here is about ambient gravity. Ambient gravity would be like the gravity balance at the common point that orbiting objects revolve around. Does ambient gravity produce a red shift?

6

New Theories / Why abandon cause and effect?

« on: 31/10/2009 15:18:46 »

Most things in nature are connected by a sequence of events that we recognize as cause and effect. For at least a century now, we have abandoned that concept in the physical sciences. We seem to have abandoned the concept of cause and effect so that we can have a wide latitude in our guesses about nature. Since we are not constrained by the need for cause and effect our guesses can be as weird as we like. Maybe it is time to question this abandonment of cause and effect.

Lets review some of the basic things we know about nature and see if we might assign causes for the effects that we notice. When we do this we might get a better insight into how nature works. We might even discover that great principle that John Wheeler talked about. He said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."

First lets think about Planck's Constant and how come the quantum.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why are there no first generation stars?

« on: 21/10/2009 17:21:45 »

While doing research for this post I realized that first generation stars do not seem to have ever existed. Such stars would contain no heavy elements, since the heavy elements must be created in novas.

Edit: Here's the pertinent quote from the link:

No one has detected stars without heavy elements above Helium. In, fact astronomers have observed evidence of elements like carbon and iron in objects that are claimed to be from the early eras of the Big Bang.4,5,6 Indeed, there is evidence that some GRBs contain metals such as iron and magnesium.7 Heavier elements like carbon or iron, according to big bang ideas, could not be produced in the big bang itself but instead must have been produced in supernova explosions that took place when large stars died. Astronomers who operate by naturalistic assumptions and do not allow for supernatural creation as Genesis describes must resort to complicated scenarios like these to explain the origin of the chemical elements.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is the mainstream view of the primordial black hole?

« on: 20/05/2009 21:26:46 »

I never thought of this before but I just recently realized that the early universe was a black hole. Does anyone know the mainstream view of how the universe emerged from its primordial black hole?

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does anisotropic red shift kill the expansion theory?

« on: 23/04/2009 15:53:34 »

I just finished Lyndon Ashmore's book, Big Bang Blasted. It is a good read. He points out a clear difference between Tired Light, and Expansion concepts. In Tired Light, red shifted spectra should be shifted more in the red end of the spectrum than in the blue end of the shifted spectrum. Expansion predicts no difference between red and blue. I just found a sample of red shifted spectra on Wiki, and sure enough, the red end is shifted more than the blue.

Edit: The bold text was a false assumption of my own. It was not in the book.
Is this just a fluke?

Here is a red shifted spectra example from Wiki.

Now, I'll enlarge the area of interest.

10

New Theories / What actually is the Fine Structure Constant?

« on: 20/04/2009 14:58:43 »

The idea about what actually is the fine structure constant has puzzled physicists since the discovery that the electric charge magnitude of the electron was tied to observations of fine structure in the spectral lines of starlight.  This constant takes on a special meaning in the consideration of a universe that consists only of electromagnetic phenomena and nothing else. In a universe consisting only of electromagnetic phenomena, the fine structure constant can only be one thing. It must be the ratio of the bend in a photon's path to the magnitude of the electric charge resulting from that bend.

Remember that in a photon-only universe, electric charge derives from asymmetry in electric and magnetic fields of photons. Normally the opposite fields of photons cancel to neutral but when the photon's path is bent, the fields can't completely cancel; the area outside the bend is greater than the area inside the bend. The fine structure constant is the ratio of the charge magnitude to the bend radius. The tighter the bend, the greater the magnitude of the charge.


This Wiki article explains the current thinking about the fine structure constant.

In physics, the fine-structure constant (usually denoted α) is a fundamental physical constant, namely the coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. The numerical value of α is the same in all systems of units, because α is a dimensionless quantity. As of 2007, the best determination of the value of the fine-structure constant is α = 7.297352570(5)×10−3 = 1/137.035999070(98). The standard error is enclosed in parentheses.

"It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to π or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the 'hand of God' wrote that number, and 'we don't know how He pushed his pencil.' We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!" — Richard P. Feynman (1985), QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press, p. 129, ISBN 0691083886 .

11

New Theories / Can dark matter be missing matter?

« on: 18/04/2009 19:52:19 »

I've been thinking of black holes in view of some observable mechanism that might prevent their forming. One speculative mechanism is that gravity is self-limiting. If gravity itself reacts to gravity the way energy and time react to gravity, it would be self limiting. The stronger the gravitational field, the more matter required to create it.

Now, if this were so, we would observe that the outer reaches of galaxies are more effective in producing gravity than the inner reaches of galaxies where the gravitational field is strongest. Such a condition would skew our calculations about the orbital speed of stars as they move in galactic orbit.  Stars with extra massive black holes would show the effect more than less massive galaxies.

This condition would prevent the singularity that plagues us as we ponder black hole formation.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can we completely rule out Tired Light?

« on: 14/04/2009 16:40:20 »

Lyndon Asmore is an advocate of the Tired Light Theory. He is still publishing and responding to observational problems that would seem to rule out Tired Light as the cause of the cosmic red shift. I always thought the time dilation observed in distant 1A Supernova events was fatal to the Tired Light concept.

What do you think?

Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.

Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.

The Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?

When sending digital pulses down a fibre optic, monochromatic light is used as different frequencies travel at different speeds down the fibre. If white light is used, this leads to 'pulse broadening .' In supernovae 'time dilation' muticolour light curves are considered. However, a supernova burst is just a digital pulse and 'pulse broadening' is not taken into consideration when testing Tired Light models [1].

This produces an effect similar to 'Time Dilation.' Different frequencies of radiation are known to travel through space at different speeds [2] as is shown by gamma ray bursts. All frequencies may well start off at the same time but they will arrive here on Earth at different times - and the greater the redshift, the greater the pulse broadening! Who needs expansion and relativity - Tired Light.

Recent Gamma-ray Imaging indicates that different frequencies of light might propagate at different speeds in space. Ashmore claims that lends credence to his hypothesis.

The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov) telescope found that high-energy photons of gamma radiation from a distant galaxy arrived at Earth four minutes after lower-energy photons, although they were apparently emitted at the same time. If correct, that would contradict Einstein's theory of relativity, which says that all photons (particles of light) must move at the speed of light.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can dark matter be a simple thing?

« on: 30/03/2009 15:34:00 »

While reading the recent dark matter thread, an idea came to me. So since this section is for fun stuff, here's the thought:

Is it possible that the dark matter we see affecting galaxies could simply be electromagnetic radiation? At first thought, this seems preposterous; but after I dwell upon it some, I see a possibility.

If this were true, the radiation would be at a frequency we could not detect via common methods. It would either be too low in frequency, or too high in frequency for our current detectors. We detect high end radiation all the way through gamma radiation and notice that at about .511 MeV two gamma photons can interact to produce a positron and electron. So, it is probably not the high end of the spectrum.

What about the low end? We are not usually interested in radiation below the radio spectrum; but we know there's a bunch of it at those lower frequencies. We don't know how much. I don't think there's ever been an attempt to measure it. The frequency would need to be less than about 10 cycles per second or we would pick up a buzz. Suppose it is on the order of one cycle per second or less.

Now, there's so much of that stuff out there, and probably right here, if we had a perfectly tuned receiver maybe we could harness some of that energy and convert it to usable power.

Edit: Oops; wrong section; but since the referenced thread is in this section, maybe it will work.

14

New Theories / Does a neutron ask May I ?

« on: 06/03/2009 15:53:03 »

The May I theory works like a packet switching network. In such networks; like the internet for example; the sending device is not allowed to send a packet of data indiscriminately, but must first get permission from the receiving device.

So, in the May I theory, when an electron would like to rid itself of a photon, it must first find an acceptable phase relationship in a receiving electron. This negotiation happens at the speed of light. Only when an acceptable phase relationship is found, does a packet of energy instantly transfer between sending electron and receiving electron. The transfer is instant at the sender and receiver with nothing of substance happening in the intervening space.

This concept expands to beta decay, explaining why the act of observation can affect the instant of the decay. Acceptable receivers for the released energy must first be negotiated before it can happen.

Okay; I just now made this up, so don't get the Nobel shined up yet []   

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Special inertial frame; does it exist?

« on: 21/02/2009 18:00:16 »

I came across this paper that claims to be an analysis of past and present interferometer type experiments. It concludes that contrary to past findings, the experiments do show the absolute motion of the earth through space. I have never before heard of this. Is it real? Is it a hoax?

A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment:

          SPECIAL REPORT
                              A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment:
                                       Absolute Motion
                               and Gravitational Waves Detected
                                       Reginald T. Cahill
            School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide 5001, Australia

                  E-mail: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au; http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/

                Data from a new experiment measuring the anisotropy of the one-way speed of
                EM waves in a coaxial cable, gives the speed of light as 300,000±400±20km/s in
                a measured direction RA=5.5±2 hrs, Dec=70±10◦ S, is shown to be in excellent
                agreement with the results from seven previous anisotropy experiments, particularly
                those of Miller (1925/26), and even those of Michelson and Morley (1887). The Miller
                gas-mode interferometer results, and those from the RF coaxial cable experiments
                of Torr and Kolen (1983), De Witte (1991) and the new experiment all reveal the
                presence of gravitational waves, as indicated by the last ± variations above, but
                of a kind different from those supposedly predicted by General Relativity. Miller
                repeated the Michelson-Morley 1887 gas-mode interferometer experiment and again
                detected the anisotropy of the speed of light, primarily in the years 1925/1926
                atop Mt.Wilson, California. The understanding of the operation of the Michelson
                interferometer in gas-mode was only achieved in 2002 and involved a calibration
                for the interferometer that necessarily involved Special Relativity effects and the
                refractive index of the gas in the light paths. The results demonstrate the reality of
                the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction as an observer independent relativistic effect. A
                common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of light is necessarily in
                conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz symmetry — this is explained. All eight
                experiments and theory show that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and
                relativistic effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists — that absolute motion through
                that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887. These developments completely
                change fundamental physics and our understanding of reality. “Modern” vacuum-mode
                Michelson interferometers, particularly the long baseline terrestrial versions, are, by
                design flaw, incapable of detecting the anisotropy effect and the gravitational waves.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Limits on gravitational collapse?

« on: 12/02/2009 22:38:25 »

Does this mean we must now rethink the singularity that is assumed to be at the centre of Black Holes?

    It is shown, in a simple analytic example, that an infinitesimal amount of rotation can halt the general relativistic gravitational collapse of a pressure-free cylindrical body. The example is a thin cylindrical shell (a shell with translational symmetry and rotation symmetry), made of counterrotating dust particles. Half of the particles rotate about the symmetry axis in one direction with (conserved) angular momentum per unit rest mass α, and the other half rotate in the opposite direction with the same α. It is shown, using C-energy arguments, that the shell can never collapse to a circumference smaller than C=8παΛ, where Λ is the shell's nonconserved mass per unit proper length. Equivalently, if R≡||∂/∂φ∥∂/∂z|| is the product of the lengths of the rotational and translational Killing vectors at the shell's location and λ is the shell's conserved rest mass per unit Killing length z, then the shell can never collapse smaller than R=4αλ. It is also shown that after its centrifugally induced bounce, the shell will oscillate radially and will radiate gravitational waves as it oscillates, the waves will carry away C energy, and this loss of C energy will force the shell to settle down to a static, equilibrium radius.

17

New Theories / Photonic Gravity

« on: 02/02/2009 22:37:46 »

Consider that mass is composed of photons as described in What is Mass. Each photon has associated with it positive and negative fields which cancel each other when the photons move in a straight line. The fields radiate from a center point of maximum amplitude as in the classic photon model. This center point always moves at the photon's  natural speed, the speed of light.

When trapped in resonant patterns to become mass, photons still radiate the fields. These fields radiate outward from a center point of each of the photons. Amplitude of the fields diminish as they move outward from the mass. The fields continue to move outward forever and travel at the speed of light. These fields cause gravity as shown below.

Max Planck showed in 1900 that photon energy is constant for any certain wave length of light. The wave length, however, is infinitely variable, smoothly over the full range of the electromagnetic field. These two facts make clear that the electromagnetic amplitude of a photon is always a certain value that does not change. If the amplitude did change it would need be a part of Planck's equation, and it is not. This simple fact is the cause of gravity as shown below.

Remember that Planck's Constant is a property of space. It represents the positive and negative amplitude limit of an electromagnetic disturbance in space, as shown in the above paragraph. No point in space can exceed this amplitude limit. Another fact leading to the cause of gravity.

A photon moving through radiated fields (photon flux) of other photons must then reach its positive and negative amplitude limits taking into account the existing photon flux. Because of this each photon's point of maximum amplitude is offset toward increasing field strength of the photon flux. That is the cause of gravity. It cannot possibly be otherwise

Massive objects, comprised as they are of field-radiating photons, must gravitate toward each other because of the saturation offset of photons. This is one way of looking at gravity in a photonic universe.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is the solar wind becoming weaker?

« on: 31/01/2009 17:10:16 »

US Launches Space Probe to study the solar wind which seems to be getting weaker.
Info from the link:

Last month, data from the joint National Aeronautics and Space Administration and European Space Agency Ulysses solar mission revealed that the solar wind is at a 50-year low, potentially opening up the solar system to more dangerous rays from outer space.

Researchers were not surprised that the solar wind has decreased. In fact, the amount of radiation sent off by the sun operates in an 11-year cycle, but this dip was lower than those recently observed. Still, it may be in line with centuries-long patterns, said Nancy Crooker, a research professor at Boston University.

I came across this while trying to find out the composition of the solar wind. Does anyone know of a study of this? I am interested in a quantification of the positive ions, negative ions, chunks of elements, etc.

Edit: And this from Wiki:

In the late 1990s the Ultraviolet Coronal Spectrometer (UVCS) instrument on board the SOHO spacecraft observed the acceleration region of the fast solar wind emanating from the poles of the sun, and found that the wind accelerates much faster than can be accounted for by thermodynamic expansion alone. Parker's model predicted that the wind should make the transition to supersonic flow at an altitude of about 4 solar radii from the photosphere; but the transition (or "sonic point") now appears to be much lower, perhaps only 1 solar radius above the photosphere, suggesting that some additional mechanism accelerates the solar wind away from the sun.

Do we now know what it is that accelerates the Solar Wind?

19

New Theories / Is Photonic Theory possible?

« on: 30/01/2009 21:04:25 »

The photon exists as an electric and magnetic disturbance moving through space. It consists of two points of electromagnetic saturation surrounded by electric and magnetic fields that extend outward through space forever.  The fields change in amplitude in accordance with James Clerk Maxwell's equations and this drives the saturated points moving them through space.

Photon points moving through the fields of other photons reach their saturation amplitude mostly due to their own electric and magnetic fields. However, the fields of all other photons contribute toward this saturation amplitude. This causes the points to reach saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength of the other photon fields. This gives rise to the attractive force known as gravity.

When photons collide their fields interact. This can cause the path of each photon to change so that it follows a curve in a local area. When the path of a photon is bent, the electric and magnetic fields cannot be symmetrical in the bend. The area outside the bend is greater than the area inside the bend. The result of this asymmetry is a local electric and magnetic field. The strength of the field is related to the bend radius, such that the tighter the bend the greater the strength of the field. This field causes the path of the photon to bend more in the same direction, so it provides positive feedback to the bend. This causes the bend to be twice as tight as it would be without the feedback.

The path of a photon can be bent so strongly that it forms a complete circle in the space of one wave length. When so bent one polarity of the electric field remains on the outside of the bend so that the circle exhibits an electric charge. When in this condition, the photon is in resonance with itself. This resonance adds to the positive feedback and tends to hold the photon in the circle for an instant. Most circles formed this way are unstable and instantly unfurl so that the paths of the photons become straight again.

There is one certain photon frequency that when curled into this complete-circle pattern, the pattern remains stable. We call this kind of pattern an electron or positron depending upon which polarity remains on the outside of the pattern. This gives rise to the electromagnetic forces.

There are four other frequencies whose complete-circle patterns can be stable when they are combined together so that they form shells such that successive smaller shells are inside the larger shells. Each smaller shell is more massive than its neighboring larger shell. Starting with the mass of the largest shell, the mass of each successive smaller shell, when taken in terms of electron masses, is the square of the mass of the next shell out. The sum of the masses of all four shells is equal to the mass of the neutron. The sum of the three inside shells is equal to the mass of the proton.

The strength of the electric force on the outside of the shells follows the same square of shells rule. Starting with the outside shell, we have 2.5, 6.5, 42.2, and 1787.3 electrons worth of force. Although these forces are much stronger than an electron's force, they must diminish in strength as the inverse square of distance. So, when seen at any distance greater than the radius of an electron, they are exactly the force of an electron.

The strong and weak nuclear forces develop from the electric charges of the three outside shells. When two protons merge so that their outer and next to outer shells interact there are four forces at work. The sum of the forces of these four shells is 6.5 + 6.5 + 42.2 + 42.2 equals the strong nuclear force.


When nucleons merge this way the smaller shells are trapped symmetrically inside the larger shells at a distance inside so that forces balance. Any movement away from this balancing point produces a greater force until the smaller shells break through to the outside. This gives rise to the well known nuclear dynamics of the strong force.

Edit: I changed the title to be a question to help search engines find it.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How does your toilet flush

« on: 22/01/2009 14:02:19 »

This was suggested to test physics of the spinning earth. Does it really control the way your toilet spins when you flush?