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
[
2
]
3
4
...
14
Go Down
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
276 Replies
178214 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
kenhikage
Full Member
86
Activity:
0%
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #20 on:
12/10/2010 07:29:53 »
CPT, thank you for well articulating what I've been trying to get at in a couple of posts. My thinking, though, is that non-electromagnetic energy is the result of light losing momentum and matter is the result of light losing energy and momentum.
It seems to me the only thing that could slow down a photon would be running into other photons. Whenever would this be more likely then right after the big bang?
Obviously you understand the math better than I do, so thank you for this post.
Lastly, I have to say, I wonder if a singularity isn't a photon that has completely lost all of it's momentum and energy (as a result of the early collisions). Things tend to become infinite or zero when they reach C, as with singularities. So, if light stops...?
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #21 on:
12/10/2010 23:40:53 »
light never really stops...
«
Last Edit: 16/10/2010 06:44:49 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
Ron Hughes
Sr. Member
363
Activity:
0%
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #22 on:
13/10/2010 02:02:08 »
What do you think the frequency of the CMBR was at 10^6 years? Inflation was another mainstream invention to cover up their lack of knowledge. It's bull poop.
«
Last Edit: 13/10/2010 02:10:57 by Ron Hughes
»
Logged
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #23 on:
13/10/2010 02:46:57 »
The reference timeline they use is wrong because they don't use the photon as the elementary particle.
I would add that not only gravity but also quantization of energy has arise from the particles creation (with time and gravity) since the BigBang.
Here is another "big" proof of the well founded of this theory, i should have seen it much earlier...:
Matter-Antimatter annihilation!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
If you accelerate enough a pair of positron-electron and collide them together, you can produce heavier particles. It seems to contradict my theory. Not at all, at collision, the positron-electron pair is still annihilated and produces photons. If the collision has a good enough symmetry, the photons accelerated energy momentum will produce heavier particles, because the photons total energy momentum in space is in the quantization range of a stable heavier particles creation, otherwise, they remain gamma photons: the true elementary particles (supposing we can call them "particles")...
The quantization information is stored in light itself, it is thus a property of light vs space (time information is stored in light, in its frequency i guess, thus the relativity of time vs Doppler effect)...
In fact, photons may have any frequencies if there is no preferential frame of reference (according to relativity and Doppler effect). For massive particles, it is not the case. Locally, they all have only finite energy states possible (quantum states). All massive particles are in fact relatively stable quantum states of the continuum of light. They appear from interaction between photons energy momentum. If two photons collide and a spherical wave, still traveling at the speed of light, appear in a stable state, a particle is created. Its gravity will arise from the acceleration in its linear momentum. Gravity has exactly the same momentum as the acceleration vector. It reconciles Quantum Theory with General Relativity.
In 2D space, you can see a massive particle as a rotating wave of a fixed number of wavelength, i would call it the
primary
quantum state number. The mass appears from the cancelled wave so the primary number can only be an integer of a wavelength (1, 2, 3, ...).
Black holes are only in primary states, only a gravitational field is maintained.. We now know that there is supermassive black holes at the center of most galaxies. They are probably the most stable particles in the Universe we know. There is a high probability that there is a type of low energy density particles in primal states. I highly suspect that this type of particles account for a very important part of Dark Matter because they should occur naturally in our Universe.
In a 2 photons cancellation, if these 2 photons did not cancelled their charges, the charge (static field) is inside the rotating wave. The simplest form of it is the electron and positron pair which possess opposite charges (one positive and the other negative). The electrostatic charge of a particle is it
secondary
quantum state and its gravitational energy momentum is its primary quantum state. The secondary quantum state can only be 0,+/-1, +/-2, +/-3...
If the primary number is 1 for the electron, using the energy of a photon having the energy of the electron mass (mc2=one wavelength), i calculated that its size should be about 3.86 x 10-13 m.
E = hc/λ = mc^2, λ = h/mc = 2*pi*R (for a circumference of one wavelength, primary number=1)
electron diameter = 2R = h/(pi*m*c)
if the primary number is 2, its size would double to 7.72 x 10-13 m.
http://ag-physics.org/electron/
It totally agrees!!
Please read section 1 and 3 The "Zitterbewegung" and the Experimental Situation. I solved their problem... photons have no mass and they have a speed of c...
The electric charge associated energy momentum comes only from interactions with other particles and photons (ultimately, photons alone...).
«
Last Edit: 03/06/2011 12:46:03 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
Ron Hughes
Sr. Member
363
Activity:
0%
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #24 on:
13/10/2010 16:19:02 »
Is there no answer for the CMBR question? A guess would be fine.
In an annihilation, no matter how fast the particle pair are moving, the total energy released will be radiation. There may be some short lived wave forms that the mainstream wants to call a particle but then these too turn. into radiation.
Logged
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #25 on:
14/10/2010 02:06:33 »
First, we need to know the entire energy of the Universe to answer the question... Secondly, we need to know how large it was at a specific time... Both has to be measured. How you can measure it if you cannot see it? You can only measure it indirectly. We need to know all possible quantum states of light, including Dark matter. So the answer is simply: i don't know...
http://www.universetoday.com/8053/early-universes-rapid-expansion-confirmed/
But, i think at the starting time (T=0+), the Universe had the size of an equivalent energy black hole's event horizon. At time 0+, all the energy momentum of the Universe is an unstable quantum state and exploded releasing the light. It means we are born from a black hole reaching the breaking point (or maybe a collision or a near collision). Black holes are in a stable quantum state. From our point of view, the energy range of the black holes quantum state may seems very large but not in a multiverse point of view.
If time stop at the event horizon, light has to rotate at the event horizon, because if time has stopped, there is no gravitational field possible... There is no quantum states possible for matter particles going through the event horizon. Matter would be accelerated until it breaks into photons and would join the light rotating at the event horizon. There is a gravitational field outside of it (and inside in the opposite direction). It means that a black hole is a very large rotating (spinning?) wave with only gravity as force field (total cancellation). You can see it only by interactions of energy with it (breaking its symmetry).
Theoretically, our Universe could be in the middle of a black hole with the event horizon being at the edge of it. Gravity from the rotating wave at the edge of the Universe would appear as Dark energy for everything in the Universe. This would mean The BigBang occurred from the collision of two Black holes of Universe scale sizes. If two Universe scale sizes black holes collide, big chunks of energy could aggregate in the middle of it and eventually could become a black hole or many black holes. Collisions of these Universe
mass
sizes black holes could produce BigBangs and it would explain Dark Energy...
No singularity (singularity solved). Dark energy solved? Holographic Universe or not?
N.B.: In any case, i use 2D space when i say rotating but it has a spin in 3D to produce a sphere...
«
Last Edit: 25/11/2010 03:32:43 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 #26 on:
14/10/2010 02:33:55 »
Space is linear for light and light has no timerate. The zero (rate) timeline of a particle would be its size but it would change in space at the speed of light due to interactions with its surrounding fields. Eiseinberg principle may arise from an absolute minimum energy interaction needed to measure its position in time (related to 0 Kelvin degree)... But still, it is independent of the way you measure it... The way you measure it will add a second mathematical term...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
«
Last Edit: 16/10/2010 06:41:16 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 #27 on:
15/10/2010 06:06:26 »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
«
Last Edit: 15/10/2010 06:23:03 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #28 on:
15/10/2010 23:57:01 »
Explanations of the meaning of the 0 rate timeline.
Photons always travel at a constant speed of C because there is no timerate in the spaceline they travel. It means there is no timerate in a pure vacuum because if you send only one photon in any direction in it, it will go straight through it... If you go there, you experience time by the interactions of your own photons electromagnetic fields... It may means space is an illusion because your perception comes from photons interactions alone...holographic world?
Would it mean we have a soul if there is no space?
If two people enter the vacuum, their common experience (maybe existence) would come from photons interactions between each other. So to have a common experience we all need a minimum radiating energy. It agrees with thermodynamics laws. Does it mean a black hole will emit radiation?
See this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
http://www.absolutezerocampaign.org/absolute-zero-temperature.html
Time appears only from photons interactions... that is why i say time information is in the light itself...
Photons have no timerate but they are electromagnetic quantum waves with specific frequencies and wavelengths in space...
«
Last Edit: 28/11/2010 07:19:18 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #29 on:
17/10/2010 16:34:15 »
Quasars are produced by ring black holes. Black holes gravitation is produced by light waves forming a ring shape. This light waves produce gravity by cancelling each other electromagnetic field.
The x-ray beams come from the acceleration of charged particles through it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
«
Last Edit: 14/04/2011 06:58:31 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #30 on:
19/10/2010 00:56:18 »
I found the gravitational waves... It is time itself...
Electromagnetic field and gravitational field are mutually exclusive. The electromagnetic waves travel in 0 timerate spaceline and they produce frequency. Gravitational light waves still travel in 0 timerate
(but relative to the particle)
spaceline but produce time...
"A photon has always 2 halves elementary charges one of +e/2 and one of -e/2 where e=1.602×10−19 C, for a total of zero. It is frequency independent.
The creation of electron-positron pairs by the collision of two photons have been experimentally proved.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/accel/burke_prl_79_1626_97.pdf
The collision of these photons produces 2 rotating photons having each a static elementary charge, electron negative and positron positive. Total charge is conserved. It is a static charge that produces a static electrical field in the particle referential frame. This static charge is in the middle of the rotating photon. Electromagnetic waves will be produced only by relative movement of other static charges and direct interactions with electromagnetic field from other photons. If you put an electron in a pure vacuum, there is absolutely no electromagnetic wave existing (the charge is static and non active), the electromagnetic field is cancelled and has no energy momentum associated to it..."
When 2 rotational waves appear from a collision of two photons, the charges become quasi-static and the light waves are depleted from their free-frequency and become gravitational light waves, they produce gravitational waves (time) and have the same momentum of energy ( E=hν ==> E=MC2 ). They are still lightwaves but with no frequency but a timerate associated to it... 1/s ==> s ...
(pay attention to that, the rotational light waves produce timewaves but are not timewaves. You measure the effect of timewaves by measuring time!!! When you measure relative timerate of two localities, you measure its difference in gravity and acceleration. Acceleration of the energy momentum of a massive particle produces a deceleration of time as gravity does. Gravity is produced by the radial acceleration of photon in a closed form, massive particle form.)
Time should propagates at the speed of light... The timerate you experience is the sum of all timewaves at every specific locality of every massive elementary particles of your body. The sum is the effective gravitational field. So every particle has its own relative timerate.
Time is totally localized thus the existence of Relativity.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96095009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41740
«
Last Edit: 14/04/2011 07:03:58 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
Ron Hughes
Sr. Member
363
Activity:
0%
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #31 on:
19/10/2010 01:42:13 »
Cp, one should think the creation of the pairs would be very significant in explaining how they were produced (the actual sequence of events in their creation).
Logged
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #32 on:
19/10/2010 01:47:07 »
Be more specific Ron, my brain has not much remaining momentum... [
] I will, but only tomorrow...
«
Last Edit: 19/10/2010 02:20:48 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
Vern
Naked Science Forum King!
2072
Activity:
0%
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #33 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.
«
Last Edit: 19/10/2010 20:11:22 by Geezer
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #34 on:
19/10/2010 20:58:25 »
I have just read it, you were quite right!!! Keep on your good work!!!
This is just the beginning...
«
Last Edit: 20/10/2010 03:11:41 by Geezer
»
Logged
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #35 on:
23/10/2010 04:34:56 »
The meaning of the Planck constant and the relation to the radius of an elementary particle or a blackhole.
For a particle having a shape of one wavelength like the electron:
E = h*ν = M*C^2
E = h*C/λ = M*C^2
=> h/λ = M*C
=> h/C = M*λ = constant = M*2πR ( see Compton wavelength:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength
)
For a circular gravitational light wave, λ = 2πR = the circumference of the particle
M*2πR = h/C
R = h/(2π*M*C) ;this is the maximum radius of a particle a "rest" mass M
For a spherical gravitational light wave, λ = 4πR^2 = the surface of the particle
M*4πR^2 = h/C
R = √[h/(4π*M*C)] ;this is the minimum radius of a particle having a "rest" mass M
Thus √[h/(4π*M*C)] < R < h/(2π*M*C) ; you have to normalized units to use this equation because of the square root.
R(circular) = √2*R(spherical) if M is constant
For Blackholes and particles having a shape made of multiple wavelengths:
h/C = M*λ/N
where N is the basic Quantum number of basic Quantum wavelength λ (or Planck length * 2π :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
).
=> C = (h*N)/(M*λ) where λ = 2π * [(h*G)/(2π*C^3)]^1/2
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html
«
Last Edit: 07/01/2011 20:36:35 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
Geezer
Naked Science Forum King!
8314
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
"Vive la résistance!"
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #36 on:
23/10/2010 09:36:58 »
Why is this so different from String Theory, or M Theory?
Photons seem to be forms of energy that have the ability to propagate through space. Whether photons are particles, or energy in space seems to be open to debate. Either way, does it not seem that space endows photons with some remarkable capabilities? So, are we not really debating the true character of space?
Logged
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.
Ron Hughes
Sr. Member
363
Activity:
0%
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #37 on:
23/10/2010 19:26:38 »
geezer, we are indeed discussing the character of space. I and many like me think that matter is made from this character of space. As I mentioned earlier I think that character is an expanding electric field which like Vern's idea was curled into matter.
I would also like to say that I did not intend to denigrate the marvelous work of mainstream scientists. The majority of the scientific community consider QM and it's standard model the main tool in the search for the truth and as such is taught in the institutions of higher learning. No matter how much you may disagree you know that students will consider it to be the only truth because of the enormous predicting powers of QM. QM is a statistical data analysis system that predicts the probability of an event occurring. I can predict that someone in the world will die in an automobile accident in the next sixty seconds with almost a hundred percent chance of being correct not because I have any knowledge of what caused the accident but I have data about what has happened in the past. Science made advances because some people went away from what the majority considered to be the truth.
«
Last Edit: 23/10/2010 19:30:00 by Ron Hughes
»
Logged
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.
CPT ArkAngel
(OP)
Hero Member
733
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 14 times
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #38 on:
24/10/2010 18:53:14 »
It is a debate about the true nature of Space, Time and Energy.
Physics laws of Nature is a big puzzle. The Standard model gives us 2 main incompleted pieces, Relativity Theory about gravity and acceleration and Quantum Theory about the quantization of energy in particles. They both work pretty well in there own domain but they cannot explain each other. For examples, Relativity needs Quantum Theory to explain the physics of Blackholes (impossible singularity) and Quantum Theory needs Relativity to explain the physics of particles (unknown shapes and sizes).
Unification of gravity with electromagnetism and nuclear forces would link these two part of the puzzle...
Nuclear Forces actual model has been construct empirically by experimentation and observations. We have nuclear bomb and fission reactors that account for the success of this model, but it is incomplete. Physicists, who have been making this model, have accomplished a tremendous work because they start from a simple and incompleted model.
After a Unifying Theory, we should be able to build fusion reactors in a few years... And what about Nanotechnology and Superconductivity...?
«
Last Edit: 24/10/2010 20:06:56 by CPT ArkAngel
»
Logged
Geezer
Naked Science Forum King!
8314
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
"Vive la résistance!"
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
«
Reply #39 on:
25/10/2010 00:48:50 »
Thanks CPT. I think I understand that. What I'm struggling with is why this so different from String Theory? Does this not also require additional dimensions? Are extra dimension not somewhat similar to having things "curled up in space"?
Logged
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
3
4
...
14
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...