Post by: zordim on 27/11/2012 17:50:34
Post by: zordim on 03/12/2012 16:39:54
I know that they do modeling using QED, QCD, but, are the whirls forbidden in them?
Post by: imatfaal on 04/12/2012 17:38:06
Post by: zordim on 05/12/2012 13:46:30
Actually, such an option came to my mind when I was a student (long time ago), but I was waiting to learn more, and I expected that I will surely hear that it was considered and proved invalid. But, I never encountered to that. Even when I worked on the (successful) development of the DWDM thermo-optical telecommunications-devices, when I had almost unlimited access to literature about photons and their interactions with matter.
And you also confirmed that with your reply - that you never heard of a two-photons-whirl theory.
I recently (on thenakedscientists) encountered to some somewhat similar idea, but which has a serious lack - namely it requires a very special (I would say - impossible) situation which would cause a single photon "to catch its own tail" and to form a whirl. And that situation would require also that the photons whirls already exist, in order to enable such situation at all. So, it actually was a thinking-whirl.
Perhaps you know someone who might know, if the two-photons-whirl was ever considered?
Post by: JP on 05/12/2012 16:51:25
The problem is that "whirly photons" are usually introduced to match previous experimental results and we can always invent theories to match experiment after the fact. I haven't seen a "whirly photon" model that predicts new results that we can experimentally check to verify the theory.
Post by: zordim on 06/12/2012 15:07:27
The problem is that "whirly photons" are usually introduced to match previous experimental results and we can always invent theories to match experiment after the fact.
That is exactly how the string theory was introduced. After experimental confirmation of relation between hadron’s mass and hadron’s spin, the whole new, sub-Planck-level world was invented, in order to “explain” that. But, that theory predicted things which either could not be confirmed, or they could be confirmed, but either as not completely satisfactory, or as wrong predictions. Then the new/modified approaches were tried: P-brains, D-branes, M-theory, holographic M-theory, and somewhere in between all that also emerged the superstring theory. Also, their combinations, and combinations with QM, QED, QCD, with the black hole theory. All that without success. Partial successes and reality descriptions (not explanations, but descriptions – the difference between these two terms is essential) is all we have in official science. Yes, we have a whole lot, of that what is not the goal of science.
So, why not trying with the two-photons-whirl concept? Officially. Starting from facts, and sticking to the facts while developing it? Because it will disturb all that was done so far? Well, there was no bigger disturbance than the relativity theory and the QM in the history of science. They are officially accepted, described, presented as such. They were something completely new to the scientists.
Two-photons-whirl can explain the relation between hadron’s mass and hadron’s spin in a rather trivial way.
Two-photons-whirl can explain inertia in unprecedented way.
Two-photons-whirl theory can explain why stars explode (currently, explanation for that does not exist, only assumptions)
Two-photons-whirl theory can explain and simply, accurately and precisely derive relativity and gravity, that is, it can unify the physics. That cannot be done with any other theory.
That what enables the two-photons-whirl theory explains the observed and measured rotational velocity distribution of bodies which constitute galaxies. Without the need for any misterious matter-forms.
That what enables the two-photons-whirl theory explains the accelerated universe expansion, without the need for any misterious forms of energy.
And, the two-photons-whirl theory is simple, acurate, reasonable, easily comprehensible, and it can explain everything. One man cannot write all that. One man can set the clear bases for that, and make several crucial steps. And that can then be developed by much, much less number of men than the number of them who were/are engaged on the investigation and development of the current branches of fundamental physics.
I haven't seen a "whirly photon" model that predicts new results that we can experimentally check to verify the theory.
That is only because you do not want to see it. Why? (Do not bother to answer that to me - I know all the answers to that. Instead, try and answer that to yourself.)
Post by: JP on 06/12/2012 15:55:07
Two-photons-whirl can explain the relation between hadron’s mass and hadron’s spin in a rather trivial way.
Two-photons-whirl can explain inertia in unprecedented way.
Two-photons-whirl theory can explain why stars explode (currently, explanation for that does not exist, only assumptions)
Two-photons-whirl theory can explain and simply, accurately and precisely derive relativity and gravity, that is, it can unify the physics. That cannot be done with any other theory.
That what enables the two-photons-whirl theory explains the observed and measured rotational velocity distribution of bodies which constitute galaxies. Without the need for any misterious matter-forms.
That what enables the two-photons-whirl theory explains the accelerated universe expansion, without the need for any misterious forms of energy.
And, the two-photons-whirl theory is simple, acurate, reasonable, easily comprehensible, and it can explain everything. One man cannot write all that. One man can set the clear bases for that, and make several crucial steps. And that can then be developed by much, much less number of men than the number of them who were/are engaged on the investigation and development of the current branches of fundamental physics.
Then I encourage you to write up what you have and submit it to arXiv or better yet, a peer-reviewed journal! We're a science Q&A forum and don't have a review process or enough staff to handle new theories. If you'd rather post it on this forum instead of submitting it, then please keep it to the New Theories section. Though as I recommend to anyone trying to publish new theories on this site: this is not a great venue for such things since it's well outside our established purpose (science Q&A), so you might find better dialogue and exposure elsewhere.
Post by: zordim on 06/12/2012 22:44:56
It sounds like I am a typical “crackpot”.
But, it may also be a “bit” different. For example: it sounds as if Newton would had said to some expert for Ptolemy’s world description (helicoidal paths of heaven-bodies) that all that – even the observed deviations – can be precisely modeled with just
, 
, and 
, and that the force which cause the movement of heaven-bodies is not the God’s will, and that deviations are not the God’s anger, but all that is governed with the law . And not only that, but one can know exactly where the bodies will be, in any given future time, and that one can precisely predict the eclipses, etc. Wow!Today, the current highest science representatives had surpassed Ptolemy-experts in each and every respect – today, we live in times of the greatest wonders and miracles ever! Even the God’s will is scientifically explained: that what governs the world is uncertainty, spontaneity (spontaneous symmetry breaking, spontaneous decays, spontaneous pop-ups of universes in the multiverse and multi-time-paths world), and all that normally produces ambiguities, and vice versa – so, everything fits perfectly! Science is mathematically precise religion. Only what left to be unified is the physics itself. But, the fact that it is not already done, can be explained in only one way: it is because unification of physics is most probably impossible. They know exactly how the truth should be searched for, and they know that if someone does so, one cannot do any better than they do. If someone tries to make different approach, he is the “crackpot” (and he should feel lucky – once upon a time, they were called heretics, and their life was not worth a dime).
My theory is something that any fresh-man student can understand perfectly. In other words, it is not something that only high-academic circles are able to grasp. So, I am gratefull for now that you, at least, allow it to be presented in “New Theories” quarantine.
If you would allow yourself to read it and judge it, you would see that you were wrong for being politely sarcastic.
But, that is not necessary. It is sufficient that it is there, freely available for reading and judging, on TheNakedScientists. It fits there, because it is the Naked Truth. And it is the really New Theory. There's no other like Her.
:)