1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / thoughts about the beginning of the Universe

« on: 16/10/2024 20:13:41 »

  The issue of singularities, infinities, and the "moment zero" at the Big Bang involves both space and time. In standard cosmological models, the singularity is often discussed in terms of both infinite densities and the nature of time. But let?s break it down:

    Moment Zero and Time:
When we talk about "moment zero" at the Big Bang, we?re also talking about the beginning of time itself (at least in the standard interpretation). If there?s no past?no "before" the Big Bang?the concept of time itself becomes tricky. Theories like general relativity describe time and space as interconnected (spacetime), and at the singularity, spacetime itself is said to "break down."

In general relativity, when you rewind the clock, spacetime curvature increases, and at moment zero, this curvature theoretically becomes infinite. This is part of why singularities appear, because we?re dealing with spacetime itself, not just density.

 Is the Infinity from the Moment Itself?
If we were to stop at "moment zero" without extrapolating past it (since there?s no past), the issue isn?t purely about density. The problem lies in how our equations treat spacetime. The closer we get to moment zero, the curvature of spacetime increases, which also suggests that all distances and intervals shrink to zero, leading to these infinities.

So, even if we don't think in terms of infinite density, at moment zero, general relativity still predicts infinite curvature of spacetime and the breakdown of time itself into meaningless intervals. This breakdown doesn?t only come from densities or temperatures, but from the way time and space behave under extreme conditions in the early universe.

  Can This Be Avoided?
Many modern theories of quantum gravity (which would combine quantum mechanics and general relativity) attempt to avoid this issue by proposing that spacetime is "quantized" at small scales. This could prevent both infinite densities  and the singularity in spacetime at moment zero. In these models, time could have a smallest unit, meaning the universe starts at a finite, but very small, moment.


- The infinities at moment zero come from both the way time and space behave according to general relativity and from density extrapolations.
- If we stop at "moment zero" in a more finite, reasonable way (as some quantum theories suggest), the infinities could be avoided altogether.


Here is a. hypothesis that touches on the peculiar nature of light and time. The idea that at the moment of the Big Bang there may have been only photons (or radiation) and no time in the way we usually understand it connects with the nature of how light interacts with spacetime.

    The Nature of Light and Time:
Photons, or particles of light, travel at the speed of light, and according to special relativity, time doesn't pass for objects moving at that speed. From a photon's perspective, the distance between any two points is contracted to zero, and the time it takes to traverse that distance is also zero. In other words, a photon traveling through space experiences no time at all.

So, if the early universe were dominated by photons (or radiation) immediately after the Big Bang, this suggests something quite unusual about time and spacetime. From the photon's point of view, the moment it was created and the moment it interacts with matter (or anything else) would be effectively simultaneous.

     What Could This Mean for Moment Zero?
If we consider the idea that at moment zero there were primarily photons (or perhaps a very dense form of radiation), the concept of time may become ambiguous because of how photons experience spacetime. This could mean:
- Time is not well-defined. If the universe were made entirely of photons at moment zero, then time as we experience it, which is deeply tied to the motion of massive particles, might not have existed in the same way. The passage of time, at least for photons, is irrelevant.
- A timeless state at the Big Bang: If the early universe was in a state where radiation dominated, it might have been a "timeless" state in some sense?time might only emerge as the universe cools down and particles with mass begin to dominate, leading to the expansion of spacetime as we know it.

     Photon Dominance in the Early Universe:
In fact, the early universe  was radiation-dominated for a very short period after the Big Bang. Immediately following the Big Bang, the universe was filled with extremely high-energy radiation (photons), and only later, as the universe cooled, did particles with mass start to form, creating a more familiar spacetime structure where time passes for massive objects.

   Weirdness of the Early Universe:
This photon hypothesis underscores that something strange indeed happens around the moment of the Big Bang. It could imply:
- Time, in the conventional sense, may not have existed as we understand it at the Big Bang.
- The very nature of spacetime, and whether time "exists" for light, could give us clues about the origin of time itself.
- The moment zero might not be a moment where time begins but rather where the conditions (such as mass and the emergence of spacetime curvature) allow time to begin.

Quantum Theories and Time Emergence:
Some quantum cosmology models suggest that time itself is an emergent property, meaning it only appears as a meaningful concept after certain conditions in the universe are met. In these models, before the Big Bang (or at the moment zero), the universe might exist in a timeless or even spaceless state. Once particles with mass appear and the universe expands, time as we experience it begins to make sense.

  Summary:
    The fact that photons do not experience time can mean that the early universe might have been in a very different state from what we currently understand, where time, as a concept, didn?t exist or was not well-defined. Time may be intimately tied to the matter and energy content of the universe, and may not even have existed in the earliest ?moments?.We can view it as  an initial expansion that since it takes no time, the moment zero begins with an already vast volume filled with light and the first ever particles.

2

Technology / Concept for reducing emissions of an ICE car

« on: 21/04/2021 22:12:47 »

This is going to be less convenient for the owner but if by reducing emissions of the car it becomes eligible for lower taxes, it may be a preferred way to go.
The idea is to make all electrical accessories of the car run on battery supply only. These components include: lights, wipers, electric power steering , power windows, water pump(if electric), fuel pump, injectors, ignition, on board computers, blower and others.
The easiest way is to remove the alternator and install a shorter belt. Some cars have electric water pumps and you can remove the belt and pulleys as well but you will lose the A/C. This will reduce the front weight by about 10kg.
Next step is  installing a battery module. A typical car may require about 400W of power to operate the components so with a 5kWh module you can run the car around 10h time. After that you will have to recharge the battery.
A 5kWh battery can take 60x30x8 cm3 volume and weigh 25kg.
3 li-ion cells operate between 10.5-12.3V, which will probably be enough voltage to power run the car. If the battery can provide enough current (many can do) for the starter the 12V battery can be removed otherwise the low voltage may damage it. Some Pb-Acid batteries can withstand deep discharge but 10.5 is a bit tool low.  A super capacitor bank can be also installed to increase burst current for startup but it will also increase the self discharge rate.
The 3s module will need a BMS and wires directly to the high power terminals. Some cars have the 12 battery in the boot so the high capacity battery can be installed there easily. A battery monitor will also be needed.
Then this will need a charging method. The simplest way is to install a charge connector and work with a portable charger which you can leave it home when doing short trips. With a 12V/100A 1200W charger you can charge the battery in about 5h.
One liter of gasoline contains about 8.9kWh energy. With an engine that has 30% efficiency you get 2.67kWh per liter. The 400W power needs 0.15l per hour but the conversion rate through the alternator is further reduced so it should be about 0.2l/h of fuel saving. With an average speed of a busy city for example 20kph or less can be the average speed so that means 1l/100km economy from say 18l/100km to 17 which is over 5% economy.

3

New Theories / Evolution of the universe for the Big Bang

« on: 05/12/2020 13:42:24 »

Here is an idea I want to present, about what happened after the Big Bang.
The hypothesis I think makes more sense says that time and space existed at the moment of BB and something before that doesn’t make sense since there’s no time to back to. You want to know what’s going on at a time before the BB but if the universe begins to exist at the moment zero that time before moment z cannot exist. So the beginning doesn’t need a prior cause. Of course it’s a hypothesis, and It may be wrong but it makes some sense. Now the idea that I want to bring is that time may have went into two directions from the BB on. It follows then that the past is created and it’s also 14.7 b years in the other direction of time. The particles created in the reverse running time are mostly antiparticles as seen from our perspective but they would seem normal as seen from observers made of antimatter that went backwards. Occasionally we can detect antimatter as simple new strands originated from our perspective.
I also have another idea about time reversibility. In the delayed choice quantum erased experiment some may conclude that the past can be changed based on what happens in the present. For example you could write down on paper an x=5 for a detection corresponding for a lump pattern then after say 10 minutes (we imagine  a 10min delay path) you detect x=7 that corresponds  to an interference pattern. You look down on the page you have written but  you see 7 not 5 and basically you would remember 7 and not realize the past has changed in your mind as well. You can’t tell from the fist measurement which is for lump and which for interference but after like 100 trials you will be able to distinguish them.

4

New Theories / Consciousness/identity

« on: 04/12/2020 18:56:11 »

Some people claim that after you are gone, it may be possible by chance to be reborn again if for example multiple universes exist or there is a series of Big Bangs and collapses. In fact the reactivation of an old identity  may happen more often than we thought. But that doesn’t mean the old identity lives again. It may be dead.
This idea reminds me of the 5 minute hypothesis  which of course it’s not true, that says the Universe began 5minutes ago within a simulation and you have all the memories of the past in it.  If a new identity or consciousness is born with all the memories, you don’t actually realize you,  as a conscious mind, were just born maybe a few minutes or days ago.


Here is a post about this:
[Link to seemingly personal page removed]

5

New Theories / Wavefunction collapse problem

« on: 28/04/2018 07:41:20 »

According to QM a system that has an associated wavefunction in a superposition of eigenstates of a position operator, collapses upon a measurement to a single eigenstate. Depending on the measurement precision in practice the result gives a linear combinations of close eigenstates. However, I don't think it is a measurement problem. The theoretical collapse to a single state doesn't seem to be a good idea.
Basically, when we do a measurement, it involves a designed system which can only be made of materials which are made of atomic structures. In any case, it involves an interaction between two particles that have never definite positions.  For example we detect a transition of an electron to a different energy level. Therefore any collapse of a i.e. photon wavefunction is triggered by the interaction of the photon with a massive particle. But the interaction doesn't happen at a definite position. The photon energy quantum is absorbed by the electron but it doesn't happen at a point in space because the electron position is still in a superposition of eigenstates. In this case I would say, the photon wavefunction collapses and the position we get is the superposition of eigenstates of the electron that has absorbed the photon quantum, not a single point in space.

6

New Theories / Quantum gravity or continuous gravity?

« on: 26/04/2018 22:12:32 »

The idea starts from the equivalence principle where you can't distinguish between acceleration and gravity in certain theoretical conditions. If the principle holds you may expect gravity to be continuous and not quatised. However, when you accelerate something, as far as I know  it doesn't happen smoothly. At a more fundamental level, there are force carriers, particles that make othet massive particles or systems like atoms and objects made of atoms accelerate. That means it can only happen in many small  steps. These objects receive momentum quantum by quantum and you end up with a fairly constant acceleration on certain setups like for example a spacecraft using a constant power thruster. Therefore, if  pefectly smooth acceleration wouldn't be possible, perhaps gravity happens the same way.

7

New Theories / Quantum entanglement communication

« on: 12/04/2018 13:43:15 »

I was thinking of a way to send instant signals using entanglement.
Introduction:
Some say the measurement changes the system state. For example I make a measurement on a photon which has an unknown spin, then subsequent measurements for the same axis will show the same spin. We would conclude the first measurement changed the quantum state of the particle. If you do that to entangled particles, you change the state of the whole system. A measurement on the system using this time the other pair, will give the expected result of oposite spin. The system is not in a definite state before measurement which was demonstrated by the absence of hidden variables. Therefore we are not revealing the state of the system, we are interacting with it, yet they say there is no instant cause and effect.
The experiment:
We setup a laser, and using lenses and a BBO crystal we send a pair of photons vertically polarized in opposite directions. The entangled photons will have half of the frequency of the original beam so we can distinguish between entangled photons and not entangled ones. They reach two locations preferably  very far from each other ar different distance from the laser, location A will be closer and B farther. At each site we use a linearly polarized  filter in front of each beam. If A places the filter at 90 degrees it blocks all the radiation and it should change the entangled system so that a following measurement at 0 degrees will result in no detection.
I wonder what happens at location B. Before we place the filter at A all photons are vertically polarized and will pass. Will the filter at A influence what happens at B? I guess not but what would be the answer given by QM. I expect it would give exactly the result we get from the experiment.

8

New Theories / Matter-antimatter asymmetry

« on: 15/10/2017 19:34:56 »

What does quantum mechanics have to say about this aspect?
Matter usually differs by antimatter having opposite charge.
It is said that the Universe in the early stages should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

The total charge is conserved no matter the interactions and if we go back in time indefinitely the universe has always been neutral. If in the early stages the universe was all EM radiation, the total charge had to be zero. This is also means a charge symmetry which feels a more natural course. But the can reason we don't have matter-antimatter symmetry have do with the randomness of nature. A classical universe would have evolves perfectly symmetrical. The whole Universe would've been a perfect sphere growing ( it doesn't matter how you model it, it remains classical). But in quantum terms, if we restarted the universe like 1000 times, would  it go ~50% of times with more matter and ~50% times more antimatter? If this is the case it is extremely unlikely to be go equal parts. Can we apply this principle?

For example we flip a coin for like

Code: [Select]

10^{20} times. We will get a ~50/50 ratio. However, in absolute values we can have something like

Code: [Select]

5.000001•10^{19} tails and

Code: [Select]

4.999999•10^{19} heads. But

Code: [Select]

0.000001 • 10^{19} is very large and would be equivalent to the matter left in the Universe.

9

New Theories / Hypothesis on quantum mechanics - relativity contradiction

« on: 14/08/2017 10:28:03 »

When analysing experiments from quantum entanglement, it appears that a measurement on a particle at one place can instantly influence the results on the entangled particle. Bell's theorem demonstarates that it cannot be hidden variable carried by the particles from the moment of the pair production. Therefore we could say there is an instant comunication between the particles. Special relativity would not allow this to happen. Two spacelike separated events cannot be cause and effect and there is no way to tell which event happened first. Indeed, it doesn't matter what particle you measure first, the outcome is the same. The no communication theorem shows we can't send information via entanglement, however this doesn't mean information doesn't travel FTL. It seems like there is no way to explain what happens, at least for me, although most physicists will say that we should take this as is. We could say we can consider the two particles a single system. When you do the measurement on one particle the system collapses and the spin of the particles becomes known. However, this is still not a  clear explanation because the particles are in different places.
A similar problem happens in the delayed choice quantum erase experiment but this time the "communication" is not instantaneous, but it apparently can even go back in time. We delay the moment of knowing the which way and the particle can go one slit or another, like it usually does, but when we look at the results it seems that the particle erases its past and writes a new one based on what we did.
There is also a delayed choice quantum entanglement experiment that also invokes retrocausality.
To explain these, instead of instant action at a distance or retrocausality, my hypothesis is the particles act as if they can anticipate the future events. In fact the whole  universe would know its future. This way it could also mean it is deterministic and the future and the past are as if they already exist. These last two statements are compatible. This hypothesis leads to no violation of relativity I suppose. From the fact that spacelike events don't have a genuine order of occurrence one can also draw the same concusion that the fututure and past already exist. My hypothesis only says the universe future is already known but it is not in contradiction with the possibility of the past and future already existing and that cannot be changed.
If we go back to the quantum entanglement, the universe evolves in such a way the entangled particles to remain in opposite states even though they don't communicate with each other. An analogy can be our free will. It appears as if we can decide about our future actions but our decisions are the result of the fundamental interactions of quantum fields.
In QM  if you measure the spin of a particle it seem that the outcome is genuinely random even though we know with certainty the probability of each spin it can take. However, as a consequence of my hypothesis here, the states only apear as if they are random. Or at least, they can only occur if there is a consistency between the past and the future, and therefore many of the possible states cannot happen. For example an entangled particle cannot be measured and found spin |up> if there is going to be a a measurement that will also show a spin |up>  for its pair  on the same axis. However, I need a deeper understanding of QM because, I'm not sure if this hypothesis holds against the idea that emerges from quantum mechanics that the universe evolution is fundamentally unpredictable.

10

New Theories / Does true motion exist?

« on: 03/08/2017 09:00:49 »

We know light and massive particles behave like waves. Like all waves, the amplitudes don't travel along the motion axis but they are propagated. This property is specific to all waves whether mechanical or electromagnetic.The variation electromagnetic field amplitudes creates a wave that advances forward, but there is nothing really moving from one place to another. These waves can also transfer energy to massive particles. The energy is transmitted in fixed amounts by waves packets that apparently are superposition of waves of different frequencies. But these wave packets still propagate. In QFT there are fields associated with all particles. These field work similarly to the electromagnetic and the same thing happens to these particles. They don't move as rigid object motion is defined, but propagate as waves.
There are several implications  I think are important.
 For a rigid body motion, the object preserves its identity. When travelling from point A to B it is the same object whereas waves can maintain their wave pattern, frequency spectrum, polarization similarly but it's not the same thing.
A rigid body has inertia and maintains its velocity if isolated(no forces acting on it). For EM waves the propagation velocity doesn't depend on amplitudes and it is always constant. I don't know how QFT explains a lower velocity propagation for other particles, but for constant propagation velocity waves, according to my hypothesis you can only have velocity variations for wavefronts where local momentum vector of the waves don't point to the direction of motion but at an angle as in OAM beams.
Another problem is relativity. If the world consists of these waves, we only have relative velocities between wave packets. I don't think we can apply relativity if there is no true motion.
Relativity works is because the mathematical model matches our observations, but what is the meaning of it in this context?

11

New Theories / Can classical EM waves show an increase in energy with a frequency increase?

« on: 23/07/2017 00:03:10 »

We know that QM equations for the energy of photons show that the energy is proportional to the frequency, but what about classical physics? Apparently physicists disagree but can we demonstrate  the same correlation?
I think we can, although it is not so straightforward.
I have integrated the energy of a pulse wave that has a certain duration ( i.e. one wavelength) and a certain wavelength and it shows that if we keep the E and B fields unchanged the total energy even decreases. But we know from experiments this does not happen, therefore I assumed that as the frequency increases the E and B fields amplitudes will increase as well. I believe this was correct assumption because relativistic fields transformations seem to help explaining the phenomenon[1].
I will take the easiest and most conclusive way of increasing the energy of an EM pulse. This is by using relativity. We know observer moving towards a source will measure a higher energy of an EM pulse than a stationary one. There are two phenomena that happen. First is the Dopppler Shift which make the frequency increase but also the pulse duration shorter. The second is the relativistic fields transformation. The E and B fields appear higher in the moving frame, hence the amplitude of the wave will be higher. This should lead to an increase of the total energy of the pulse.
When integrating [2]the energy density over a volume a higher frequency leads to a lower total energy but hopefully the fields transformations will compensate and exceed that loss. I'll post the equations in the following post.


https://dwgtheory.quora.com/The-energy-of-a-particle/comments[1]
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/The-energy-of-a-particle[2]

12

New Theories / On energy and momentum

« on: 09/05/2017 23:26:05 »

These two are close properties they are both conserved, with energy only having more speed dependence. These concepts were first incorporated into classical newtonian mechanics. Momentum is simply defined as mass times velocity, but it works well when we use it for objects. As we went deeper towards a fundamental level, we found that light is made EM waves the we discovered it can also have momentum. The fact that it had energy was clear, but momentum was thought to be a characteristic of objects, or particles with mass not radio waves or light waves. Light has energy, has momentum, but no rest mass. Rest mass remains another puzzle to solve. Although relativistic mass is not commonly discussed anymore, if light has energy, the mass is almost like the same thing. My hypothesis shows in fact that for particles the same thing happens. They would internally be made of waves with no rest mass with local Poyinting vectors propagating at no less and no more than c.
The problem with classical EM waves is they don't incorporate the momentum. Maxwell’s equations don’t incorporate momemtum. Although energy and momentum are similar, momentum has a unique feature in classical mechanics, it means the object can push other objects. From my hypothesys this is only an effect generated by interferences between waves, and it is like an illusion.
For light we can only deduct momentum relativistically. If we accelerate towards a light beam our velocity will increase relative to the source. We can now consider light having more momentum and more energy. The way we calculate the potential energy stored in the E and B field it doesn’t show that(this sounds like going from QM backwards towards classical). We can either modify the classical wave energy to express the energy or momentum increase generated by relative velocity, which would result in a change of Maxwell’s equations, or we can keep the Maxwell’s equations and modify our energy concepts. However, the later implies that the energy of a photon (according to my concept it works for particles as well) doesn’t increase with velocity, but there is a simple increase in power and frequency.
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/Energy-and-momentum

13

New Theories / Acceleration and inertia

« on: 16/04/2017 08:56:30 »

My concept[1]doesn’t allow forces or inertia as fundamental phenomena but as effects therefore it says something different about acceleration.
A constant force applied to particular points of the body is felt as constant by an observer that can be a human or for example a spring and a weight. However, since the concept allows an absolute frame, the acceleration produced by something that we see as a force is not constant but as the velocity approaches c, it tends asymptotically to zero.
The proper acceleration, just like in relativity, will be measured constant because the clock that moves, will tick slower, compensating the reduction in the real acceleration.
The concept explains that, a body following a uniform straight motion, continues with the same velocity, because of inertia, but what causes inertia is the constant propagation speed of light and conservation of the wave structure. The propagation speed of an OAM light beam under the same conditions is constant and subluminal as well. Matter propagates nonlinearly that is why it can travel slower than c. If the shape structure of the wave is conserved, the velocity is conserved. Unlike the conventional explanation for inertia as resistance to change in the state of motion, I explain inertia as conservation of the shape of the wave structure. For example a linearly polarized light beam continues to propagate keeping the polarization angle and frequency as long as nothing perturbs it.

Let’s consider a celular body and the deformation of any cell to represent that the body feels it. If a force act on all cells at the same time, they do not deform. Inertia, in classical physics also acts on all cells at the same time. Such a force can be gravity, that is why this ball in free fall, will stay undeformed, the same as in deep space. Any other force applied to the ball that acts on particular areas will cause the cells to deform, with the highest deformation close to the points of contact. In the context of this concept let’s consider a constant gravitational field and a distant flat infinite plane body that produces it. A particle at a low velocity close to 0, with a certain helical wave-structure will free fall towards the massive body. The field alters the wave constinuosly with every moment, giving it energy. In classical physics we explain it as a gravity force and inertia and we explain inertia as resistance to change. Here, within our model, there is no resistance to change, basically, the wave changes instantly with every moment, no matter the mass/energy of the wave. Here the energy of the wave is proportional to its classical amplitude. The wave receives energy at a constant power rate, and the rate at which it receives it is given by the strength of the gravitational field.

https://dwgtheory.quora.com[1]

14

New Theories / How does time dilation affect matter?

« on: 04/04/2017 20:03:55 »

We know clocks slow down their tick rate if their velocity increases relative to an observer, but what happens to particles? Also, muons seem to decay slower. It is considered that they don't have an internal structure that evolves with time but it doesn't mean they don't have an internal structure. For example they could cycle through random states until a decay state occurs, with the probability for a decay state being constant throughout their lifespan.
If we go down at the particle level SR doesn't quite make sense anymore. I've seen answers that say that for an object, like a clock or a lifeform all internal processes slow down, but for a particle what slows down. I don't think you can say something slows down from a SR perspective. If their internal causality slows down then the c constant has no meaning.

My concept can explain how internal causality is preserved as c, but internal processes of  matter can modify. If we look at OAM light beams, they have a helical structure that enables them to travel slower or faster but never exceeding c, just like matter does. They can also be at rest relative to observers, because if the wavefront is slower than c, then, in principle, you could reach that speed. In this case there is obviously no time dilation, but the wavestructure vary with speed.

15

New Theories / Gravity explained as electromagnetic interference

« on: 03/03/2017 09:39:34 »

It is known that light carries momemtum and it can push particles. However, my concept[1] tries to explain this usimg EM interference only. Basically, my assumption is that the universe is made of EM waves and particles or entities that can simply travel through space do not exist. My assumption is that everything propagates and nothig litteraly moves. In this context, the  momentum cannot be attributed to a wave and  we can only say that a EM wave produces a pushing effect explained only through interference. Forces need to be expanded only as interference. Therefore, gravity should be something that behaves very similar to EM waves, but posses a negative pressure that instead of making matter waves gain velocity when in the same direction of propagation, it makes matter waves to gain velocity when they propagate in the opposite direction.

[1] http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0239
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/Gravity-could-be-a-consequence-of-electromagnetic-field-interference[2]

16

New Theories / A theorized EM wave in comparison with a photon

« on: 17/02/2017 19:15:43 »

The model is available below [1].

If we keep the energy of the same wave packet when changing frequency, the total energy U must be divided by λ.
If we use the QM model, U must be divided by  λ². However, this violates the energy conservation.
I'll try to further investigate the first option, unless you find an error in the concept.

https://dwgtheory.quora.com/The-energy-of-a-particle   [1].

17

New Theories / SR length contraction questionable

« on: 10/02/2017 09:51:29 »

According to my concept something slightly different happens but the effect is the same.
I have calculated that objects that travel faster, get elongated in the absolute frame. This means that if you hold a meter stick, it will become greater as you accelerate, hence you will have the illusion that objects arround you get smaller.
I feel very confident about this concept since it supports the experimental evidence for the anisotropy of the speed of light and also twisted light behaviour, confirms it.

https://twistedlight.quora.com

18

New Theories / Does the energy of a photon increase in the direction of a gravitational field?

« on: 09/02/2017 14:26:23 »

Why does the energy of a photon increase when falling into a gravitational field ?
Lets suppose we don't know the Einstein Planck equation. If we model this photon as a classical wave of fixed amplitude, a fixed number of oscillations (n) and an initial frequency, if the frequency blueshifts, then in a gravitational field the energy remains constant because the number n cannot increase, neither the amplitude nor the speed. Energy density increases only. This model is a simple oscillation of a single field.( It is a bit different from a mechanical wave because these are made of objects that have mass and can move at various velocities.)

If we use the equation E=hf, then the energy of the photon increases, but I understand that we also need to add the potential energy to find the total energy. Et=Ep+hf. The potential energy decreases by the same amount the hf term increases.

The first problem is, this potential energy is not intrinsic to the photon itself.
Secondly, how can the Einstein-Planck relation for energy (E=hf) be so far from a classical model like I have described?

19

New Theories / A theoretical study of OAM light beams under gravity

« on: 07/02/2017 14:37:31 »

     Here I study the behaviour of internal orbital angular momentum OAM light beams in a gravitational field. According to this study, such a beam will behave like a particle with rest mass, therefore the wavefront will slow down if the beam is pointed against the gravitational field and it will accelerate if pointed in the same direction as the gravitational field. This study is conducted in a classical context, intentionally ignoring Lorentz factors. However, the relativistic effects associated with these helical structures will emerge naturally. The paper will focus on a single relativistic phenomenon – naturally occurring velocity limitation of a spin ½ particle concept which poses a rest mass. However, this rest mass is also a redefined concept. It is interesting that if a beam is pointed against a gravitational field, the step length of the helical structure reduces which acts on increasing the detected frequency of the incoming beam (considering a stationary detector above the source and the gravitational filed direction pointing downward), but since the speed of the wavefront reduces, it acts as a reducing factor for the frequency that the detector will read. In other words, although the wavelength of the beam reduces as the wave-front advances, the speed of the wavefront reduces as well, resulting in a decreasing frequency. When the front-wave velocity tends to zero, this frequency tends to a positive number.
   It is clear that if the wavefront speed reduces under a gravitational field, it will eventually stop and reverse the direction, falling towards the source of the field. This behaviour is similar to a particle with rest mass. However, if photons don't have mass, then, my suggestion is that particles are helical structures that have similar construction to OAM |m|   = 1 and therefore, we could say they don't have mass either.

In the next update there is a discussion about the experiment and the magnitude of the effect.


http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0084v1.pdf

20

New Theories / Do photons travel like projectiles through vacuum or like waves ?

« on: 26/01/2017 10:54:35 »

The projectile motion of light or of any other object in vacuum driven by inertia is an obsolete concept in my opinion. I think such a motion doesn't exist. It can only be described mathematically.

In my opinion, photons travel like waves and  all the other particles do the same, they propagate. All the evidence points to this conclusion.
I'm totally against the pilot wave theories.


What do you think ?