Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Vern 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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fph01.jpg&hash=c093747b457705a7524450a746883183)
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fbending.jpg&hash=f9dfbb816ca97ee16ea02724672c7175)
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fpr05.png&hash=c6a7f870055cad8eb38772d9cd544e8b)
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.
-
Of course if this scheme gets any following we will have to name the shells Quarks [:)]
Source Code for the Calculator (http://photontheory.com/mevs.c)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fmevs.jpg&hash=f8666195b5b4d739f2527429c6cf40a1)
-
This should be possible to test for
"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. "
Couldn't one use lasers in a BEC, maybe?
"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."
This I will need to read some more times:)
I'm sure that there are good physicists and mathematicans on this site that can give you ideas.
--------
But if you look at it as waves meeting?
Will that express itself the same?
Quenching light for example.
-------
" 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."
Do you see this as a self induced resonance phenomena?
--------------------
-
This I will need to read some more times:)
I'm sure that there are good physicists and mathematicans on this site that can give you ideas.
I thought of three possibilities. First, someone may find a fatal flaw and dispose of the scheme straight away. Second, someone may be able to derive the Fine Structure Constant as the ratio of the bend radius of the photon's path to the amplitude of the electric charge of an electron. Third, most people will probably ignore it. [:)] But I had fun making it.
-
I don't find it impossible, but as you say, it has to be self consistent.
And work with what we already know from experiments.
There are people here, knowing their stuff.
And a idea is there for the 'dissecting'.
And if it dissects well:)
It may grow up to a theory.
Otherwise, depending on the guys/gals behind it, perhaps reincarnate.
------
But the absolute best is if it creates an explanation for something we can't explain now::))
-
Do you see this as a self induced resonance phenomena?
No; but resonance does play a part. It requires the positive feedback plus resonance to hold the electron in the pattern.
Edit: After rereading your comment; I think that you could call it a self-induced resonance phenomena; I didn't catch your meaning at first.
-
" 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."
But 'matter'?
The atoms nucleus and the way quarks gets more 'restrective' the further they are 'moved' from each other?
You write "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."
What produces that 'greater force' and how do it get stronger with 'distance'?
-
And one other thought.
You see photons as consisting of different lightquanta right?
That is one of the things I'm not sure of yet:)
That as, relativity seen, I have this notion that what we build our ideas about red shift on expects light to be of a defined light quanta?
As waves you can explain different light strengths as waves 'peaking' more in the same time interval but when seen as particles?
If it wasn't, we shouldn't be able to trust the red shift we see, or am I exposing my utter ignorance here?
-
You see photons as consisting of different lightquanta right?
That is one of the things I'm not sure of yet:)
Yes; a photon is quantized because of its points of saturated electric and magnetic fields. The maximum EM field amplitude of every photon is the same value. That is the cause of all quantum phenomena according to this scheme.
That as, relativity seen, I have this notion that what we build our ideas about red shift on expects light to be of a defined light quanta?
I'm not sure I get your meaning here. Relativity phenomena develops naturally because the most fundamental constituent of matter must always move at the invarient speed of light. And we have known since 1909 that this would produce relativity phenomena in flat space-time. (http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein06.html#Ziegler)
As waves you can explain different light strengths as waves 'peaking' more in the same time interval but when seen as particles?
If it wasn't, we shouldn't be able to trust the red shift we see, or am I exposing my utter ignorance here?
I am sure there is some great wisdom in your last two sentences; but I have not yet figured out what it is [:)]
-
Do you see this as a self induced resonance phenomena?
No; but resonance does play a part. It requires the positive feedback plus resonance to hole the electron in the pattern.
Sorry, as it is an 'interaction' you are perfectly correct.
My thought was that I was treating whatever amount of photons interacting as a 'system' of one:)
That as they according to theory can be superimposed on eachother.
That seems to mean that when you have two photons interacting they become one new.
But they don't, do they?
Even thought they take no 'place'?
Awh, they gives me a headache.
-
You see photons as consisting of different lightquanta right?
That is one of the things I'm not sure of yet:)
Yes; a photon is quantized because of its points of saturated electric and magnetic fields. The maximum EM field amplitude of every photon is the same value. That is the cause of all quantum phenomena according to this scheme.
That as, relativity seen, I have this notion that what we build our ideas about red shift on expects light to be of a defined light quanta?
I'm not sure I get your meaning here. Relativity phenomena develops naturally because the most fundamental constituent of matter must always move at the invarient speed of light. And we have known since 1909 that this would produce relativity phenomena in flat space-time.
As waves you can explain different light strengths as waves 'peaking' more in the same time interval but when seen as particles?
If it wasn't, we shouldn't be able to trust the red shift we see, or am I exposing my utter ignorance here?
I am sure there is some great wisdom in your last two sentences; but I have not yet figured out what it is [:)]
Gotta admit that I'm not sure on that last one either:)
My thought is as follows.
If we have a redshift created by expansion etc.
We can define stars of different magnitude but we will still have a problem with distance.
If we also define lightquanta as of being of stronger or weaker 'innate' strength then it seems rather difficult to know what magnitude those stars might be of and therefore our universes size?
As their relative strenght (redshift) have to be related to their magnitude.
And how will we define a 'weak' star if we don't can have a 'gold standard' distance-magnitude wise?
As it becomes to my untrained thoughts more difficult to decide what the magnitude/distance of any given star might be?
But I'm not sure on that one, so it was just a thought:)
Am I bicycling now?
-
Photonic Theory doesn't change the way we view the universe. It simply views subatomic particles differently. Once we have the particles, current mainstream theory applies to construct all the various examples of matter.
Of course there are some macro consequences. As I mentioned in another thread, this scheme can't describe a neutrino. And I can not conceive of how matter of this nature could produce a Black Hole.
-
Ok, matter not, it's still interesting Vern.
I will have to reread this.
:)
-
Ok, matter not, it's still interesting Vern.
I will have to reread this.
:)
I am keeping a mindset for problems with Neutrinos, and anything that indicates that an electric charge develops in the bent path of a photon. Those two things are potential killers for the scheme. If we find electric charge develops in the bent path of a photon, that would indicate that we may need to make a serious study of it.
-
This I will need to read some more times:)
I'm sure that there are good physicists and mathematicans on this site that can give you ideas.
I thought of three possibilities. First, someone may find a fatal flaw and dispose of the scheme straight away. Second, someone may be able to derive the Fine Structure Constant as the ratio of the bend radius of the photon's path to the amplitude of the electric charge of an electron. Third, most people will probably ignore it. [:)] But I had fun making it.
You seem to have some interesting ideas. As I look at your diagrams from my dot-wave theory, it appears to me that the photon is a spherical type wave which exists in the dual electrical universe most of the time when traveling at light speed C. Then the dual-wave (positive and negative) reaches a zero point which is the intersection with the mechanical universe. The three universes are only separated by the Plank Length. One is t + delta T, t - delta t and just t for the mechanical universe.
In effect the photon appears as two pieces which are mirror images of each other. Externally it is electrically neutral. Internally it has the strong fields as your diagram indicates.
You want to make an electron from the photon. To me that is not readily possible by bending it. Then it would only be a battery with an outside minus charge and an inner positive charge.
As I see it, two high energy photons can hit each other. Some of the positive wave of photon one will become part of the wave of photon two. Some of the negative wave of photon two will become part of the wave of photon one. Then
Photon 1 + Photon 2 = electron + positron
So then your photons will bend as you indicate. The outer part of the electron or positron will have the excess negative or positive wave. The inner part will have a neutral blend of my dot-waves. My dot-waves are only bits and pieces of the photonic wave.
Anyway your ideas gave me other ideas to think about.
-
As I see it, two high energy photons can hit each other. Some of the positive wave of photon one will become part of the wave of photon two. Some of the negative wave of photon two will become part of the wave of photon one. Then
Photon 1 + Photon 2 = electron + positron
So then your photons will bend as you indicate. The outer part of the electron or positron will have the excess negative or positive wave. The inner part will have a neutral blend of my dot-waves. My dot-waves are only bits and pieces of the photonic wave.
Anyway your ideas gave me other ideas to think about.
I didn't show photon 2 in the schematic but you are correct, it takes two photons interfering with each other.
I wrote a computer program that bends a sine wave consisting of positive and negative half cycles into a circle one wave length in circumference. I was surprised to see that when so bent, either the positive or the negative half cycle remains on the outside of the bend all the way around.
Here's the source code (http://photontheory.com/neutrons.cpp) | Here's the class library (http://photontheory.com/neutronlib.h)
The software compiles and runs in Linux with the SDL class library installed.
-
As I see it, two high energy photons can hit each other. Some of the positive wave of photon one will become part of the wave of photon two. Some of the negative wave of photon two will become part of the wave of photon one. Then
Photon 1 + Photon 2 = electron + positron
So then your photons will bend as you indicate. The outer part of the electron or positron will have the excess negative or positive wave. The inner part will have a neutral blend of my dot-waves. My dot-waves are only bits and pieces of the photonic wave.
Anyway your ideas gave me other ideas to think about.
I didn't show photon 2 in the schematic but you are correct, it takes two photons interfering with each other.
I wrote a computer program that bends a sine wave consisting of positive and negative half cycles into a circle one wave length in circumference. I was surprised to see that when so bent, either the positive or the negative half cycle remains on the outside of the bend all the way around.
Here's the source code (http://photontheory.com/neutrons.cpp) | Here's the class library (http://photontheory.com/neutronlib.h)
The software compiles and runs in Linux with the SDL class library installed.
This sounds good. From a far distance the net charge would be zero even though the outside would be positive or negative. However if we go to neutral subparticles such as the neutrino, it could have a very local positive or negative electrical field. Thus it could have a net zero DC charge and a magnetic moment.
Then if we add two together we will get surface attraction between a positive particle and an antiparcle. Which might hold together. Later they will split into two photons.
For the electron or the positron your curved photon does not appear to produce a proper electrical field. But for a neutron subparticle, it is a great possibility. Instead of an even mixture of my dot-waves, we have a distribution of negative dot-waves on the outside and positive dot-waves on the inside.
My positive and negative dot-waves live in different universes. So the positive on the outside and the negative on the inside is an interesting combination
In general I do not work on the details of the dot-waves. I am happy to say that the photon is a balanced blend of plus and minus. Anyway I think your ideas are basically sound for neutral subparticles which are not quite so neutral as your study indicates.
-
For the electron or the positron your curved photon does not appear to produce a proper electrical field. But for a neutron subparticle
No; jerrygg38, when curled into a resonant circle the photon presents the same charge to the outside of the circle all the way around. The other charge is to the inside all the way around. I've checked it out pretty much and the charge amplitude is consistent with the Fine Structure Constant when it is considered to be the ratio of the bend radius of the path of the electron's comprising photon to the charge amplitude of the electron.[:)]
Below is the output of the software linked above. It is an animated model of a neutron. The shells are all to scale, except the innermost which would be too small to see at this scale.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fneutron.gif&hash=a28a57ac19394e556a7300e7bf8bd630)
A neutrino particle, if it exists, would be fatal to the concept. This whole concept is based upon the premise that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. I have never seen a way to reduce a neutrino particle to an electromagnetic field.
In general I do not work on the details of the dot-waves. I am happy to say that the photon is a balanced blend of plus and minus. Anyway I think your ideas are basically sound for neutral subparticles which are not quite so neutral as your study indicates.
I see that you're pretty close to the mainstream thinking here; just change the name of your dot-waves to virtual photons and you're right in the middle of QM[:)]
-
I thought of three possibilities. First, someone may find a fatal flaw and dispose of the scheme straight away. Second, someone may be able to derive the Fine Structure Constant as the ratio of the bend radius of the photon's path to the amplitude of the electric charge of an electron. Third, most people will probably ignore it. [:)] But I had fun making it.
After reading this thread, I would say it should not be ignored. I am really drawn to this idea Vern, quite a reasonable and beautiful scheme. I think you're really on to something my friend............Ethos
-
I thought of three possibilities. First, someone may find a fatal flaw and dispose of the scheme straight away. Second, someone may be able to derive the Fine Structure Constant as the ratio of the bend radius of the photon's path to the amplitude of the electric charge of an electron. Third, most people will probably ignore it. [:)] But I had fun making it.
After reading this thread, I would say it should not be ignored. I am really drawn to this idea Vern, quite a reasonable and beautiful scheme. I think you're really on to something my friend............Ethos
To be fair, this is verns own construct, one i could envision taking on pivotal roles of using eigenvalues to describe his diagrams which remind me of the photon-photon collision creating an electron and a positron. You see, for each eigenvector of a linear transformation, there is a corresponding scalar value called an eigenvalue for that vector, which determines the amount the eigenvector is scaled under the linear transformation, and this is purely complicated at best to visualize sometimes.
Butn for an example, an eigenvalue of +2 means that the eigenvector is doubled in length and points in the same direction. An eigenvalue of +1 means that the eigenvector is unchanged, while an eigenvalue of −1 means that the eigenvector is reversed in sense. If two photons come together and ''bind'' to create new particles, it seems that the combined energy of two photons allows their contruct to create both a particle and an antiparticle. Could such eigenvectors help decribe these differential factors (+, -) when the resolution has been made in the collision?
-
After reading this thread, I would say it should not be ignored. I am really drawn to this idea Vern, quite a reasonable and beautiful scheme. I think you're really on to something my friend............Ethos
Thanks for the comments, Ethos; there's lots more discovery that could be done along the lines of this scheme. For example we need:
(1) An equation showing how the Fine Structure Constant relates to the bend radius of a photon. We know from observing starlight that the charge from the bend is felt by the photon as positive feedback that bends the path more in the same direction. The amount is the same as the original bending force producing twice the bend. And we know that at the bend radius of the electron, the force is equal to the charge of an electron.
(2) We think gravity is the result of photon points of saturation occurring at an offset toward increasing field strength of residual photon fields. Does gravity share the available saturation amplitude with Planck's constant such that the value of Planck's constant is less in a strong gravitational field? If so, this would limit gravitation and prevent the formation of a Black Hole.
(3) An experiment to measure the actual close-up electric charge of a proton; according to this scheme it will be 6.50209 times the strength of an electron. But since the force diminishes as the square of distance, it will be exactly equal to that of an electron at any distance greater than the electron's radius.
And many more. [:)]
-
Butn for an example, an eigenvalue of +2 means that the eigenvector is doubled in length and points in the same direction. An eigenvalue of +1 means that the eigenvector is unchanged, while an eigenvalue of −1 means that the eigenvector is reversed in sense. If two photons come together and ''bind'' to create new particles, it seems that the combined energy of two photons allows their contruct to create both a particle and an antiparticle. Could such eigenvectors help decribe these differential factors (+, -) when the resolution has been made in the collision?
Yes; according to this scheme, a particle anti-particle pair is created when photons of sufficient energy collide. I have not modelled the interaction, but I assumed that each photon would become a particle, one of which would be the anti-particle. Each particle still contains both the positive and the negative fields. The polarity of the field on the outside of the pattern determines the charge of the particle.
-
A neutrino particle, if it exists, would be fatal to the concept. This whole concept is based upon the premise that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. I have never seen a way to reduce a neutrino particle to an electromagnetic field.
According to my understanding, there have been several experiments that insist upon the neutrino's existence. However, above and beyound that issue, about your inquiry as to the electromagnetic character of the neutrino, I found this information that may be of interest to you:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part4/section-3.html
Hopefully, this may hold some answers to help with your investigation.
As a side; I have always believed that the neutrino has rest mass. I've never been comfortable with the dismissal for the conservation of energy.
BTW, I still think your theory can work because I feel certain the neutrino has electromagnetic characteristics..........Ethos
-
Thanks for the link Ethos; it is very interesting. I suspect there is a bias toward accepting a neutrino particle as real because it provides a nice symmetry for particle theory. For example, the explanation of the missing mass/energy in beta decay only gives two options:
the
masses of the electron and proton and their kinetic energy---it never
equals that of the rest energy of a neutron. Thus, one has two
choices, either energy is not conserved or there is a third decay
product.
It then goes on to assume that the third decay product must be a particle. It could just as easily be a gamma ray photon, which is my suspicion.
-
It could just as easily be a gamma ray photon, which is my suspicion.
Interesting posibility.............How would we go about justifing this position?
-
So is photonic theory true?
Originally it was called Luxon Theory, and the farthest back i can track the origin of the theory was by Newton in his book of optics;
„Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another, and may not Bodies receive much of their Activity from the particles of Light which enter their Composition?
The changing of Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies, is very conformable to the Course of Nature, which seems delighted with Transmutations. [...] And among such various and strange transmutations, why may not Nature change Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies?“
IsaacNewton - Optics 1704, Book Three, Part 1 Qu.30
Truely a man beyond his times.
I am of course, an aadvocator to the theory of Luxon-Only universe, and I don't mind posting the contention that photons where made to create rest matter.
Not only have we created matter from two photons, it is possible to see a unique nature where two of the ''same things'' or near identical objects can collesce to create stranger systems. Take other examples of other systems made up of other systems. It's not unheard of. We have glueballs, made up of gluon luxon particles. The positronium consists of an electron and a positron in momentum inside the particle itself.
The same goes for the picture of particles with rest mass. They consist of energy: photon energy to be precise. We know this, because of the matter-antimatter process of releasing their fundamental componants. Two gamma rays of energy. It was from this logic, which led me to the suspicion that for any matter to appear, it must not only appear with an antipartner, but the least energy it would require was the E^2. It seems that when two particles of photons can collide and create matter in a slice of spacetime, the energy becomes entangled, not the particles created themselves. This might be a strange perceptual way to look at entanglement, but the entanglement of energy is much more simplified than looking directly at the physical entity itelf, since the corporeality is by definition equal to the energy of the photon, not the mass in general.
Now, i had a suspicion that a single photon is not enough to convert into rest mass. You see, in Quantum Chromodynamics, quarks can come together, but actually have in their final state, less mass than what they originally constituted to the production of a proton, let's say. What's happened?
It turns out, that E=Mc^2 plays all the difference. The quarks actually give up energy to come together, and the excess energy is then converted into gluon energy, hence gluons are also Chromodynamical. Another example, at sufficiently high enough temperatures, which occur naturally inside the interior of stars, light nuclei ''fuse'' together to form heavier ones. The process happens in a series of four steps. Four H^1 nuclei fuss to form an H^4 nucleus, and the mass of the H^4 nucleus is slightly less than four times the mass of the H^1. It is consequently because of this, for an amount of energy is released according to E=Mc^2.
We may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.
The Nuetrino problem
I noticed Vern did cite the problem of the Nuetrino. I offer a solution which can proove that nuetrino's can be the by-product of a ''product'' made of photon energy. The decay of tritium through nucleosynthesized processes can possibly create nuetrino's. We know that trituim is made of very basic objects which are made up of rest energy, and therefore, photon energy as well. Could it be that nuetrino's are create as a by-product of matter that can also reduce back to that matter, which is made of photons and interact with electric fields? (1) From this we can see that we can make nuetrino's from photons, but these photons for conceptuality is nothing but different forms of trapped light.
Neutrino's could be the by-product of matter that is the by-product of photons. Is the neutrino a tachyon?
We have all heard of the hypothetical particles called tachyons. They have a rest mass M that also has an imaginary value (M^2<0). It turns out that E=Mg, the observable mass-energy of these light weight particles, becomes ''real'' and ''positive''. If a particle was able to defy the light-speed barrier so that v was greater than c, (v>c) , then both g and E would become imaginary quantities, because ß would be larger than 1 and (1- ß^2) would be negative.
We can by theory create neutrinos from the decay of tritium. The basic underlining rule is through the relativistic relation between energy and momentum ... and we find out that it is mass squared that works out the neutrino mass from tritium decay... but this mass squared can be seen in light of either a positive result or a negative result, and if it is a tachyon, containing a very light weight amount of imaginary matter of about , there is the big problem that nothing fruitful will arise out of this... because the theorists do not believe its qualities would be observable or known.
So neutrino's could be a phenomena arising from matter that does come from a direct flux of photon energy. This is a possible solution to show that in general, neutrino's are not independant of the electric field by ultimate origin, so the problem vanishes.
-
Interesting posibility.............How would we go about justifing this position?
We would need to somehow find that gamma radiation in beta decay is an amount equal to the missing mass. When a neutron decays, we find a proton and an electron in the by-products. The difference between proton and neutron mass is about 2.5 electron masses. The emitted electron and proton have kinetic energy but never enough to account for the 1.5 electrons worth of missing mass. So we would need to find gamma radiation in the amount of the missing mass.
-
We may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.
I'm not sure that we expect that many photons need to come together to create an electron and positron. Using many photons in the reaction increases the probability that two photons of sufficient energy may interact. I suspect that only two photons of the correct energy and phase relationship would be required. [:)]
The neutrino is a problem because we can't build one out of a photon curled into a circle. It would have to be a composite of an even number of shells in order to be neutral. I can find no combination of shells for a neutrino that would follow the same rules that produce the electron, proton, and neutron.
-
We may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.
I'm not sure that we expect that many photons need to come together to create an electron and positron. Using many photons in the reaction increases the probability that two photons of sufficient energy may interact. I suspect that only two photons of the correct energy and phase relationship would be required. [:)]
The neutrino is a problem because we can't build one out of a photon curled into a circle. It would have to be a composite of an even number of shells in order to be neutral. I can find no combination of shells for a neutrino that would follow the same rules that produce the electron, proton, and neutron.
Hi friend,
What was meant by this passage, was simply conversational factors. Whilst i am absolutely 100% that a lower expactency value of energy is simply \lambda E^2, (as you rightly agree with), there must be, in some cases where many photons come together and mangle not only the creation of an electron and a positron, but could release a new type of decay of a third particle, let's say, between the interaction of three photons. To understand what i mean, this was why i stated this:
''It turns out, that E=Mc^2 plays all the difference. The quarks actually give up energy to come together, and the excess energy is then converted into gluon energy, hence gluons are also Chromodynamical. Another example, at sufficiently high enough temperatures, which occur naturally inside the interior of stars, light nuclei ''fuse'' together to form heavier ones. The process happens in a series of four steps. Four H^1 nuclei fuss to form an H^4 nucleus, and the mass of the H^4 nucleus is slightly less than four times the mass of the H^1. It is consequently because of this, for an amount of energy is released according to E=Mc^2.''
So in effect, we could expect a bombardment of many photons giving up their energy to flux into a more solid type of energy, whilst other synthesis processes could be involved in a loss of energy to other matter.
-
We may expect that many photons come together to create the birth of an electron and positron. But when the two particles (the normal and anti-pair) come together, only two photons are observed to come out of the annihilation. Again, the equivalance equation may answer why.
I'm not sure that we expect that many photons need to come together to create an electron and positron. Using many photons in the reaction increases the probability that two photons of sufficient energy may interact. I suspect that only two photons of the correct energy and phase relationship would be required. [:)]
The neutrino is a problem because we can't build one out of a photon curled into a circle. It would have to be a composite of an even number of shells in order to be neutral. I can find no combination of shells for a neutrino that would follow the same rules that produce the electron, proton, and neutron.
You know, the idea behind this part is very interesting. I would need to time to accumilate it. I am already lumming over it right now, but i promise to give some kind of answer, even if it satisfies your problem or not, i promise i will provide some answer, one that will stay as scientifically correct as possible, because it seems i misunderstood your paradox, which made me give the information i gave previously and erreneously to your case.
-
Since you propose to dwell upon it, let me state the problem a little more completely.
I know that there is some equation, not yet derived, that can equate the Fine Structure Constant to a bend radius in the path of a photon. This equation will show that the force on the outside of a circle equal to the electron's wave length is equal to the electric charge of an electron. The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron. The amount of force for the strong nuclear interaction will be found in these greater forces.
Now, this same equation would need to apply to a neutrino. I can see no way that it could apply to a neutrino.
-
Since you propose to dwell upon it, let me state the problem a little more completely.
I know that there is some equation, not yet derived, that can equate the Fine Structure Constant to a bend radius in the path of a photon. This equation will show that the force on the outside of a circle equal to the electron's wave length is equal to the electric charge of an electron. The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron. The amount of force for the strong nuclear interaction will be found in these greater forces.
Now, this same equation would need to apply to a neutrino. I can see no way that it could apply to a neutrino.
Mm... I will try and work out some kind of mathematical basis, but if i can't, are you open to the idea the neutrino is massless? I know it's been mathematically shown to have a mass, but it truely is surprising how many times physics have claimed something, only to find a non-corresponding factor?
-
Since you propose to dwell upon it, let me state the problem a little more completely.
I know that there is some equation, not yet derived, that can equate the Fine Structure Constant to a bend radius in the path of a photon. This equation will show that the force on the outside of a circle equal to the electron's wave length is equal to the electric charge of an electron. The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron. The amount of force for the strong nuclear interaction will be found in these greater forces.
Now, this same equation would need to apply to a neutrino. I can see no way that it could apply to a neutrino.
Since you propose to dwell upon it, let me state the problem a little more completely.
I know that there is some equation, not yet derived, that can equate the Fine Structure Constant to a bend radius in the path of a photon. This equation will show that the force on the outside of a circle equal to the electron's wave length is equal to the electric charge of an electron. The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron. The amount of force for the strong nuclear interaction will be found in these greater forces.
Now, this same equation would need to apply to a neutrino. I can see no way that it could apply to a neutrino.
Hi, vern.... brain is going crazy here, but i ask admirably: You said
''The equation will show that the force increases as the square of decreased radius for shells smaller than an electron.''
But what if the electron is really not the smallest unit of mass, because of dimensional factors that of nature of contraction? Such as the Lorentz-Spin contraction, and then given the speed it moves linearly through spacetime may give the electron a structure larger than the next known largest particle... i think it's the muon... my memory serves me bad here. However, if your contentions are correct, then your hypothesis should make absolutely logical sense, because the standard model states the electron as the smallest unit of matter known.
-
Yes; the neutrino can be massless and not pose a problem for the photonic theory. But then, it would simply be a gamma-ray photon. It can masquerade as a particle by being spin polarized. If the spin completed in an even number of wave lengths, it might propagate as a neutral particle and not react easily with matter.
-
But what if the electron is really not the smallest unit of mass, because of dimensional factors that of nature of contraction? Such as the Lorentz-Spin contraction, and then given the speed it moves linearly through spacetime may give the electron a structure larger than the next known largest particle... i think it's the muon... my memory serves me bad here. However, if your contentions are correct, then your hypothesis should make absolutely logical sense, because the standard model states the electron as the smallest unit of matter known.
In the photonic scheme, the electron would be the smallest unit of mass. It would be one quantum of energy occupying a shell the circumference of an electron's wave length. This would make the electron the largest of the elementary particles.
The size of the electron was not experimentally determined because the energy probes were always too great. The energy would need to be on the order of 1 MeV or less to avoid punching right through the electron.
-
Yes; the neutrino can be massless and not pose a problem for the photonic theory. But then, it would simply be a gamma-ray photon. It can masquerade as a particle by being spin polarized. If the spin completed in an even number of wave lengths, it might propagate as a neutral particle and not react easily with matter.
''masquerade as a particle by being spin polarized''
Did you notice how close this was to my theory that the photon can flux into matter (almost as if it is ''fluttering'' in the field with a slower speed defined as a ratio of rest mass? It seems that for a massless boson such as a nuetrino to exist could have a mass that it actually a perturbation of the gravitational field (thus matter being an innate property of the field itself) but only when momentum is concieved?
My conclusion, so far, is that it is possible to have a nuetrino move through space with mass, but when stationary, (if that is even possible for matter), would then exhibit its pure energy state, as much like you theorized? I mean, we both know this is speculation so far, but so far in general, i've proven that charge and the planck time are closely related (even more so than the original derivations of Planck), but what is even more interesting is your thesis or idea if you like, on the neutrino not having a mass. This could all be, in short, inexorably dependable.
-
I like the idea that the neutrino might be a spin polarized gamma ray photon. The angular momentum would derive from the spin of the outer photon shell of a neutron. The spin would decrease the probability that its phase relationship would coincide with that of matter. This would make it less likely to react.
Yes; this is all purely speculative. It's fun to speculate; sometimes it leads to some good solid ideas.
-
I like the idea that the neutrino might be a spin polarized gamma ray photon. The angular momentum would derive from the spin of the outer photon shell of a neutron. The spin would decrease the probability that its phase relationship would coincide with that of matter. This would make it less likely to react.
Yes; this is all purely speculative. It's fun to speculate; sometimes it leads to some good solid ideas.
Indeed.
-
An example of pure speculation leading to something that may have more wide ranging implications is the contemplation of how gravity might affect gravity in the formation of a black hole. Since time is part of the equation for gravitational acceleration and time is dilated in strong gravitational fields, gravitational acceleration must also be reduced in strong gravitational fields.
Then this fact might be useful in understanding the anomaly we see in some galaxies where the outer stars move too fast. The effect described above would cause a gravitational depression toward the centre of massive galaxies. There would be a halo effect where more gravity than expected would concentrate in the outer reaches of the galaxy.
I started this thread to explore the notion. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=22407.0)
-
If this registers at all......even in vestige ...i would like to continue to expound on my postulate(s). Refer to picture illustration attached
It was difficult for me to find self-consistent reasoning in your post.
-
Maybe I should just say I don't understand what you are posting about. And after reading a paragraph several times without getting its meaning, I give up and skip the rest of the post.
Edit: For lurkers who can't make any sense out of this post, it refers to a post that seems to have been deleted by the poster. [:)] It is just as well. I couldn't make any sense of it.
-
Interesting posibility.............How would we go about justifing this position?
It would have to be a mathematical construct, I suspect. I can't think of any way to create such a gamma ray photon. But I suspect it would be spin polarized and the spin would restrict its interactions.
-
A neutrino particle, if it exists, would be fatal to the concept. This whole concept is based upon the premise that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. I have never seen a way to reduce a neutrino particle to an electromagnetic field.
According to my understanding, there have been several experiments that insist upon the neutrino's existence. However, above and beyound that issue, about your inquiry as to the electromagnetic character of the neutrino, I found this information that may be of interest to you:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part4/section-3.html
Hopefully, this may hold some answers to help with your investigation.
As a side; I have always believed that the neutrino has rest mass. I've never been comfortable with the dismissal for the conservation of energy.
BTW, I still think your theory can work because I feel certain the neutrino has electromagnetic characteristics..........Ethos
I have no problem with neutrinos in my neutron theory. However according to my neutron theory, the electron splits from a singularity in the Bohr orbit (single quark) to three quarks in the neutron. At the radius of 1.9077E-15, the electrical energy put into the three quarks is
E = KQ/R = 0.754817MEV
The neutrino energy is only
Neutrino energy = 0.78230-0.754817 MEV = 0.027484 MEV
Therefore the neutrino is only a small amount of photonic energy.
In my Quantum states of the Neutron theory, there are 104 stable neutron states of the split electron. Therefore the neutrons will absorb and radiate neutrino energy on the average of approximately 29percent of what has been calculated as the 0.78230MEV.
-
I have no problem with neutrinos in my neutron theory. However according to my neutron theory, the electron splits from a singularity in the Bohr orbit (single quark) to three quarks in the neutron. At the radius of 1.9077E-15, the electrical energy put into the three quarks is
E = KQ/R = 0.754817MEV
It took me a while on this one. I mistook your use of the word singularity to mean what we normally use it to mean in the scientific community. Now I see that you mean that the electron splits from a single quark. It is a difficult concept for me to grasp.
-
I have no problem with neutrinos in my neutron theory. However according to my neutron theory, the electron splits from a singularity in the Bohr orbit (single quark) to three quarks in the neutron. At the radius of 1.9077E-15, the electrical energy put into the three quarks is
E = KQ/R = 0.754817MEV
It took me a while on this one. I mistook your use of the word singularity to mean what we normally use it to mean in the scientific community. Now I see that you mean that the electron splits from a single quark. It is a difficult concept for me to grasp.
The electron is a strange animal. In the double slit experiment we see that it splits into several parts. We see that it can travel anywhere. Thus each part of the electron can reach the speed of light like a photon. Thus the electron can be here right now and a million miles away a few seconds from now.
The proton is basically a particle but the electron is more photon than a particle. Therefore it tends to be a single plane like the photon.
In the hydrogen atom it looks like a wave around the proton. The electron readily splits into three parts. Yet all three parts are basically the same.
The mathematical problem we are faced with for the neutron is that the spin of the neutron is the same as the proton. Therefore when additional electrical energy is added to the electron to bring it into the proton, its spin becomes zero.
How can we do this? The only way is for the electron to split into three parts. The vector sum of the angular momentums then equals zero. Problem solved. The other problem is that the magnetic moment of the split electron must equal (1.4 + 0.9)E-26 in order to produce a -0.9E-26 for the neutron.
Unless you split the electron into three parts, you will not achieve zero angular momentum and a very tiny mangetic momentum vector for the electron in the neutron's orbit.
Thus between the double slit experiment and the necessity for zero angular momentum and the proper magnetic moment, necessitated the electron to split into three parts within the neutron.
-
The proton is basically a particle but the electron is more photon than a particle. Therefore it tends to be a single plane like the photon.
In the hydrogen atom it looks like a wave around the proton. The electron readily splits into three parts. Yet all three parts are basically the same.
I don't remember anything about the electron splitting into three parts. It basically destructs into a photon of .511 MeV, usually by collision with its counterpart, the positron.
-
The proton is basically a particle but the electron is more photon than a particle. Therefore it tends to be a single plane like the photon.
In the hydrogen atom it looks like a wave around the proton. The electron readily splits into three parts. Yet all three parts are basically the same.
I don't remember anything about the electron splitting into three parts. It basically destructs into a photon of .511 MeV, usually by collision with its counterpart, the positron.
The splitting is part of my theory of the neutron. It also agrees with the results of the double slit experiment in which the electron appears to pass through both slits simultaneously and interfere with itself.
If the electron readily splits into three parts in the neutron, then the angular momentum vectors would be zero. However the magnetic moment vectors would be different for the neutron as long as the three parts had small differences in charge.
-
The double slit experiment is also consistent with the electron being comprised of a single photon resonating in a tight loop [:)]
-
The double slit experiment is also consistent with the electron being comprised of a single photon resonating in a tight loop [:)]
could you explain what you mean by that? I read the words but I cannot understand what you mean.
-
I view the photon as two points of electromagnetic saturation surrounded by electric and magnetic fields. The fields occupy a spacial area and propel the photon through space. Interaction is most probable at the points and exponentially less probable away from the points. An electron is a photon trapped in a resonant pattern. The fields are still present and can interfere when some of the fields go through one slit and some of the fields go through the other.
This is a model of a neutron of this construct
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fvern.gif&hash=c22996c1b3c68c693722af86eb9eafb9)
-
I view the photon as two points of electromagnetic saturation surrounded by electric and magnetic fields. The fields occupy a spacial area and propel the photon through space. Interaction is most probable at the points and exponentially less probable away from the points. An electron is a photon trapped in a resonant pattern. The fields are still present and can interfere when some of the fields go through one slit and some of the fields go through the other.
This is a model of a neutron of this construct
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fvern.gif&hash=c22996c1b3c68c693722af86eb9eafb9)
What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields
(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.
In a similar manner the proton is held together by three force vectors which balance to zero at the Plank radius. It is just a simple photonic/ electric force which holds the proton together. there is no need for anything fancy. Pure simple vectors do the job.
As far as the electron being a photon, I agree. It is an electro-photon or a charged photon. It will form a circular wave around the proton. It is not a simple ball of energy.
I do not agree with you on the double slit explanation. One could argue that the electron fields interact with the slits to produce resonant fields in other electrons and these will cause the interference patterns.
However I like the quantum explanation ever since I split the electron into three equal parts for the neutron.
Therefore from this theory, the neutron is really a different hydrogen atom. Instead of one electron spinning around the Bohr orbit we have three mini-electrons spinning around the neutron orbit. Think about that!
-
What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields
(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.
Yes; the photon is propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields. The propelling mechanism is the changing amplitude of the fields. The photon interacts at points because its construct is two saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude. The greatest potential for reaction is at the points, but it can react at an offset depending upon the phase dynamics of its reaction partner.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fphoton-01.jpg&hash=fdb8df20e4b0531ffc4c59573374c8c0)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fphoton-02.jpg&hash=9190207849a1552df38f03b4da4df766)
-
However I like the quantum explanation ever since I split the electron into three equal parts for the neutron.
Therefore from this theory, the neutron is really a different hydrogen atom. Instead of one electron spinning around the Bohr orbit we have three mini-electrons spinning around the neutron orbit. Think about that!
It is interesting but it can't work according to the model I developed. I have the electron comprised of a single photon locked in a circle. The circumference is equal to the wave length of the comprising photon. This makes the electron physically larger than protons and neutrons. Several protons and neutrons could fit inside the electron shell.
Here is a neutron inside an electron; it is to scale.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Felectron-01.png&hash=53f822cb62d53f29be9ea18591c95fed)
Here is a proton inside an electron; it is to scale also.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Felectron-02.png&hash=7201e577887c5c3d657665aa48d987b2)
-
What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields
(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.
Yes; the photon is propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields. The propelling mechanism is the changing amplitude of the fields. The photon interacts at points because its construct is two saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude. The greatest potential for reaction is at the points, but it can react at an offset depending upon the phase dynamics of its reaction partner.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fphoton-01.jpg&hash=fdb8df20e4b0531ffc4c59573374c8c0)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fphoton-02.jpg&hash=9190207849a1552df38f03b4da4df766)
Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving. The electrical self propulsion idea only came to me the last few months. Then I saw that the photon was an electrical motor device. so we have a standard electrical motor which moves through space-time. It is a one plane gyroscope.
Mass then is a three plane gyroscope. Can you make a three plane picture? Then you will have a basic particle! (That will be rough to do but perhaps you can do it.
-
Do you mean put it in three dimensions? Yes; I could do it; it might take awhile.
Here is the source code for the neutron model (http://photontheory.com/neutrons.cpp)
Here is the class library for the source code (http://photontheory.com/neutronlib.h)
You also need the SDL class library for Linux. Compile with g++ neutrons.cpp -l SDL
-
Do you mean put it in three dimensions? Yes; I could do it; it might take awhile.
Here is the source code for the neutron model (http://photontheory.com/neutrons.cpp)
Here is the class library for the source code (http://photontheory.com/neutronlib.h)
You also need the SDL class library for Linux. Compile with g++ neutrons.cpp -l SDL
Yes three dimensions but your pictures look three dimensional. So if you could approximate a regular three dimensional drawing on 2 dimensional board.
-
What I would really like to make is a model of space. It is empty nothingness but with the properties of permittivity and permeability. Those two properties allow electric and magnetic fields to propagate. I would like to place a disturbance in that space and watch it propagate. This would be a model of all of nature comprised only of empty space and its two properties. I envision each point in space sensing its immediately adjacent point and responding in accord with it. The outcome must model the electromagnetic field, but must do so without any added input. It must simply be each point sampling its neighbour and providing a fixed response to its neighbour's action.
Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving.
The software actually produces animated schematics.
-
What I would really like to make is a model of space. It is empty nothingness but with the properties of permittivity and permeability. Those two properties allow electric and magnetic fields to propagate. I would like to place a disturbance in that space and watch it propagate. This would be a model of all of nature comprised only of empty space and its two properties. I envision each point in space sensing its immediately adjacent point and responding in accord with it. The outcome must model the electromagnetic field, but must do so without any added input. It must simply be each point sampling its neighbour and providing a fixed response to its neighbour's action.
Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving.
The software actually produces animated schematics.
Sounds good. I analyzed the over unity results and posted it. Now I am tired. I think I will pack it in for today. I will watch some tv and fall asleep.
-
I saw your post; it was a very good analysis; I'm glad that you took the time to study it. It pains me very much to have to give a negative review of someone's hypothesis. But we owe it to them to be truthful. Elsewhere they may find more hostility. I was attracted to this forum because it did not seem to elicit hostility toward alternative ideas.
-
I saw your post; it was a very good analysis; I'm glad that you took the time to study it. It pains me very much to have to give a negative review of someone's hypothesis. But we owe it to them to be truthful. Elsewhere they may find more hostility. I was attracted to this forum because it did not seem to elicit hostility toward alternative ideas.
You can imagine how I feel as well. I do not like to hurt peoples feelings. My Aunt had a sewing design invention. She spent a lot of money on it but it was only a financial failure. Yet she enjoyed it.
In many respects I am in the same boat as well. I spent 28 years on this effort and so far it is nill. I was a good design engineer until the big layoff in 1993. No work, no need for a good design engineer. so from 17.5 years to 55 years I had interesting design work. I wish I could get back but the requirements today are so computerized that I am out of date. Therefore I am back to my part-time handyman job. Yet I design little things for people and little tools for the jobs.
-
We've travelled similar paths. I've been investigating the electromagnetic construct since 1986 when I retired from AT & T. I enjoy the high you get when a complicated set of rules come together and match up with observations. When I built my first neutron model and discovered from it the square-of-the-shells rule, I was walking on air for a week. [:)] It was a couple of years later that someone pointed out that the model's predictions of proton and neutron mass were off by .00948 MeV. That didn't bother me too much. I figured the difference could be due to binding dynamics.
-
We've travelled similar paths. I've been investigating the electromagnetic construct since 1986 when I retired from AT & T. I enjoy the high you get when a complicated set of rules come together and match up with observations. When I built my first neutron model and discovered from it the square-of-the-shells rule, I was walking on air for a week. [:)] It was a couple of years later that someone pointed out that the model's predictions of proton and neutron mass were off by .00948 MeV. That didn't bother me too much. I figured the difference could be due to binding dynamics.
That seems like a very small difference. You will have to explain your square of the shells rule. Where is it posted?
-
Square-of-the-shells rule: Take the mass of the neutron's outer shell as the difference between neutron and proton mass in units of electron masses. This is shell one. Each successive shell mass is then the square of that of the next shell out. Proton mass then is s2 + s3 + s4. Neutron mass is proton mass plus s1. This comes to within .00948 MeV to being exact.
Here is the source code in C (http://photontheory.com/mevs.c)
Here is the output of the compiled program.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fmevs.jpg&hash=f8666195b5b4d739f2527429c6cf40a1)
-
I see your name is Vernon Brown. That is strange.
I went to Brooklyn Tech HS Class of 56 and used to eat lunch with a Vernon Brown.
Any relationship??
PS I will study your data.
-
No; that wasn't me. In 56 I was in Japan until December.
The neat thing about taking electron mass and electron charge as unity is that the charge magnitude of the strong nuclear interaction is s2 + s2 + s3 + s3. In order to get the correct dynamics, shells 3 and 4 need to be inside shells 2. Then like charges repel to hold the union. The like charges must get closer together on separation. This causes the increase in force that is seen as the cores separate.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fpr05.png&hash=c6a7f870055cad8eb38772d9cd544e8b)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fpr01.png&hash=254a9ff17d838224ad4db7503c645d77)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fpr03.png&hash=8b7e2abf01ab2216c47cdd5b41e436d9)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fpr04.png&hash=c4475c27f44738c149af44fd1b0d8eed)
-
The graphics in the above post are models of two protons locked together by the force of electric charge originating at the circumference of shell 3 and shell 2 of the protons. When you consider that charge magnitude is inversely proportional to shell size and shell size is determined by the wave length of the trapped photon, the charge magnitudes add up to the value of the strong nuclear interaction. This is shown in the square-of-the-shells rule.
-
Hey Vern,
A very interesting theory, and i find it much more likely than the 11 dimensions of M-theory and whatnot, but please answer me these:
How does your photonic theory explain that there seems to be more matter than antimatter in the universe?
Where does this inequality come from? Because for me it seems that matter is always created in the same amount as antimatter when photons collide.
If PT turns out to be real, does that mean we can give up traveling to other galaxies over reasonable amounts of time due to theoretically not possible? (No black holes means no wormholes either)
Oh, and me being a layman: with the photon being 2 saturated points, do you mean the wavefront of the electrical wave and the wavefront of the magnetic wave?
PS: If the LHC excludes the existence of a graviton or Higgs boson, you should contact the string theorists [;)]
-
I have been dwelling upon the inequality of matter and antimatter the last few days. The thing I favour right now is that it is because protons are comprised of three things; I call them shells; if you like you can call them Quarks. These three components of protons are created in equal amounts. But it takes three of them to form a stable proton. Anything left over quickly decays back to radiation. The two to one ratio assures that whatever type of matter happens first by chance, it will dominate.
I think the mainstream physicists theorize that it may be due to CP violation. If they are right, CP violation works just as well with a photon-only construct for matter as for the magical particles that can transform to energy.
A single photon moving through space has a positive half-cycle and a negative half-cycle. The points of electric and magnetic saturation would be at midpoint of each half cycle. These points of saturation are sensitive to all radiation visible or no and reach saturation with an offset toward increasing field strength of the radiation. That is gravity. [:)]
This Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation) explains CP violation.
In particle physics, CP violation is a violation of the postulated CP symmetry, the combination of C symmetry and P symmetry. CP symmetry states that the laws of physics should be the same if a particle were interchanged with its antiparticle (C symmetry, or charge conjugation symmetry), and left and right were swapped (P symmetry, or parity symmetry). The discovery of CP violation in 1964 in the decays of neutral kaons resulted in the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1980 for its discoverers James Cronin and Val Fitch.
It plays an important role both in the attempts of cosmology to explain the dominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe, and in the study of weak interactions in particle physics.
-
That is gravity. [:)]
So Physics is unified [:P].
What are those string theorists doing in fact? Except wasting tax payers money of course.
-
I am not sure why mainstream physicists have dismissed (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) the photon-only construct of the universe. We have known about that construct since Maxwell suggested it and Poincare wrote out equations now known as the Lorentz transformations, that describe how matter must distort when it moves in such a universe. To me it is the most simple and elegant way any deity, if one exists, would construct a universe. [:)]
What are those string theorists doing in fact? Except wasting tax payers money of course.
Maybe it is not such a waste; it is a good exercise in mathematics.
Edit: to add Henri Poincare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9) citation.
Poincaré introduced the modern principle of relativity and was the first to present the Lorentz transformations in their modern symmetrical form. Poincaré discovered the remaining relativistic velocity transformations and recorded them in a letter to Lorentz in 1905. Thus he obtained perfect invariance of all of Maxwell's equations, an important step in the formulation of the theory of special relativity.
-
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fph01.jpg&hash=c093747b457705a7524450a746883183)
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fbending.jpg&hash=f9dfbb816ca97ee16ea02724672c7175)
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.(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fpr05.png&hash=c6a7f870055cad8eb38772d9cd544e8b)
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.
What a wonderful posting. Photons form loops, which are our elementary particles.
Vern must have gotten this from Williamson & Co. I doubt that Vern invented this idea.
Back in about 1900 Jeans mentioned that matter was bottled light.
Newton reckoned that light made matter.
Vern was concerned about making neutrinos fit his model. I could have told him that a neutrino was a doubled photon, joined axially, ie their helixes sharing the same axis, their fields being 180 deg out of phase & hencely cancelling (Ranzan).
Vern mentions the electron as being very large, ie protons can fit inside. I forget who came up with that idea in say 1980.
Vern i think was an Einsteinologist. Vern never mentions aether, i wonder whether Vern believed in aether. And whether he was happy with SR & GR.
Anyhow finding this old thread has made my day. There are/were some smart scientists around.
Anyhow i will go back to what i was doing, looking for info re the bending of light.
-
Here is Vernon's youtube footage. I had forgotten this. Brilliant. But it would have been better if Vernon included aether. Vernon has 21 videos -- i must have a good look one day.
Vernon Brown – Photon Theory of Matter – youtube – 14Oct2013.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19935.0
-
Ok the following footage says that Vernon doesnt like SR & GR & the silly bigbang. Good.
Vernon gets this stuff from Dr Hofstadter (1961 Nobel), ie electron is largest elementary particle, nucleus has 4 shells, the electron is outer, the inner are proton & neutron. Wonderfull stuff. Did Williamson get his stuff from Hofstadter? Did H get his from Jeans?
Vernon Brown – Someone Somewhere knows it – 10July2015.
-
Vernon struggles with neutrinos. Its a pity that he didnt know that neutrinos are doubled photons, sharing the same helical axis.
In fact i am starting to think that it is the other way round -- photons are a halved neutrino.
Here the primary building block is the dark photon (the neutrino), which makes dark matter (the primary form of matter)(predominant form praps). The luminous photon is secondary, & luminous matter is secondary.
The luminous photon is in a sense semi-luminous (semi-dark), u cant see a photon, except when it hits your eye. Not important, just saying.
And Vernon struggles with gravity. Gravity is due to the acceleration of the flow of aether into mass where aether is annihilated. And all quantum things have mass. Vernon thinks that gravity is due to an interference refraction kind of interaction process of em radiation waves or something.
Nowadays i am starting to think that em forces are due to gravity. Likewise the so-called strong force & weak force. All forces are due to gravity, but that is another story.
-
Its a pity that he didnt know that neutrinos are doubled photons, sharing the same helical axis.
That's still wrong, for a number of reasons which have been pointed out to you.
The most glaring is that two photos sharing the same helical axis is what gives plane polarised light.The luminous photon is in a sense semi-luminous (semi-dark), u cant see a photon, except when it hits your eye. Not important, just saying.
That's not a sense you will find in any textbook or dictionary.
But you are right- it's not important.
-
Nowadays i am starting to think that em forces are due to gravity.
Yes, that's because you don't consider evidence to be important.
Science, on the other hand knows that em forces and gravity are different.
-
Its a pity that he didnt know that neutrinos are doubled photons, sharing the same helical axis.
That's still wrong, for a number of reasons which have been pointed out to you.
The most glaring is that two photos sharing the same helical axis is what gives plane polarised light.
I dont understand polarised light. Can u give me a link to a good a paper re photons sharing the same axis. I dont believe in polarised light, i dont believe an ordinary photon can be changed in some way to become polarised. The luminous photon is in a sense semi-luminous (semi-dark), u cant see a photon, except when it hits your eye. Not important, just saying.
That's not a sense you will find in any textbook or dictionary. But you are right- it's not important.
I have never seen a photon going by.
-
Nowadays i am starting to think that em forces are due to gravity.
Yes, that's because you don't consider evidence to be important. Science, on the other hand knows that em forces and gravity are different.
Science hasnt any theory re the nature of em forces. Especially re the transmission of em forces.