Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Vern on 16/10/2010 03:23:19

Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 16/10/2010 03:23:19
For a long time now I have noticed that there is not even one piece of evidence that suggests that all of nature might not be composed of photons alone. This notion was first suggested by Newton, then later by Maxwell, then by Einstein.

I think it was Maxwell that said, "The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field."

I have a written a movie script that explores this idea. I am interested exploring whether the major assertion in the movie is correct. Is it true that no such evidence exists.

If it does, I would like to know what it is.

Evidence in favor is

http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html

The script is:

OhMyGod (http://scripts.orkparts.com/OhMyGod.pdf)

We are pitching the script to producers this week end in Oklahoma City.

Wish us luck.



Title: Re: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 16/10/2010 03:27:12
For a long time now I have noticed that there is not even one piece of evidence that suggests that all of nature might not be composed of photons alone. This notion was first suggested by Newton, then later by Maxwell, then by Einstein.

I think it was Maxwell that said, "The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field."

I have a written a movie script that explores this idea. I am interested exploring whether the major assertion in the movie is correct. Is it true that no such evidence exists.

If it does, I would like to know what it is.

Evidence in favor is

http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html

The script is:

OhMyGod (http://scripts.orkparts.com/OhMyGod.pdf)

We are pitching the script to producers this week end in Oklahoma City.

Wish us luck.




Absolutely my friend, best of luck to you............Ethos
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 16/10/2010 04:16:01
Ethos, good to hear from you.

The script is a kinda spoof. I wrote it after I noticed that Robet Kemp published an off take of my photon hypothesis (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) in which he claimed to have proven that God exists.

He got over 200,000 hits the first week.

So I thought I might do it one better. :=)

Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 16/10/2010 04:51:38
vern, how about this. I'll give a possible example. Suppose the electron looked like a spinning doughnut, the proton would be a doughnut the size of a dot at the axis of the electron doughnut. An energy increase of the electron would shrink the doughnut diameter to the next resonant frequency. If you look at this, http://en.wikipedia....transitions.svg  . Looking at the electron with my possible idea the drawing is backwards where the ground state would be at N6 not N1. N1 would be the highest energy state.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Geezer on 16/10/2010 07:29:22

The script is a kinda spoof.


Ah! So it's more like Monty Photon then?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 16/10/2010 09:43:05
vern, how about this. I'll give a possible example. Suppose the electron looked like a spinning doughnut, the proton would be a doughnut the size of a dot at the axis of the electron doughnut. An energy increase of the electron would shrink the doughnut diameter to the next resonant frequency. If you look at this, http://en.wikipedia....transitions.svg  . Looking at the electron with my possible idea the drawing is backwards where the ground state would be at N6 not N1. N1 would be the highest energy state.

The link seems to be broken. I have thought of particle sizes and made some guesses based upon their energy content.

Suppose the size of the doughnut was a circumference the size of the wavelength of the energy content. LIKE THIS (http://photontheory.com/particles.png)

The script is making fun of the sad state of today's physical sciences institutes. The idea that all of nature may be made of light real.

I think it goes back to Maxwell, and maybe even to Newton.


Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 16/10/2010 09:44:45

The script is a kinda spoof.


Ah! So it's more like Monty Photon then?

I'm getting too old. I've forgotten Monty, I'm afraid :)
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 16/10/2010 16:21:56
Vern, They will jump me out if I post here so I'll post here.  http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34538.new#new
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 16/10/2010 18:54:59
Vern, well wishes and good luck with your film. Very interesting combinations: cannibas, fancy cars, airplanes, particle physics, and God!

With that said, I can assure you that I have not proved the existence of God; however others have also said that same thing to me! This is a very suprising reacton! In the Epigraph of the Super Principia Mathematica I presented a theory of creation similar to our current Big Bang model. This I present as a theory only. In the the Bible's book of Genesis there is also a Big Bang theory there; and in that case Moses was the first Big Bang theorist. And presenting God in this way was similar to what Newton did when he presented his Principia Mathematica in 1687.

Discussed in Volume 1 of the Super Principia, "The First Law of Motion" in Chapter 11, section 11.4 "Inertial Mass and Photon Energy Conservation" I discuss your "Photon Only Hypothesis" and state that this is an Aether Theory; which you don't really discuss. I have been waiting for over 15 years for you to get there with the Aether; but you just did not get threre for whatever the reason! I credit you and Arthur Compton for determining that photons which are considered mass-less to interact with bodies that have mass such as the electron. I credit Compton for the wavelength discovery (λ = 2πd), and you with the radius or amplitude discovery(d = (λ/2π)).

Because the photon has inertia it can interact with matter, which both are a form of condensed energy that are affected by a gravitational field. Hence the light path is curved by a strong gravitational field. And in my humble opinion, you will never to get to the cause of gravity with your electromagnetic reasonings.

To get to the cause of gravity you have to move to the Schwarzschild solution of gravitation. In the Volume 1 of the Super Principia, "The First Law of Motion" I show the difference between your solution and the Schwarzschild, and I show how they are combined into a single model. And I assumed that this would help to move you in that direction; I can see that it did not! Your analysis of the radius and amplitude of the photon is much much to large for gravitation, which acts on much smaller scales. Your theory is more of an Aether Gravitation Theory. I plan to release that book early next year.

However, it is true that your electromagnetic amplitude is found in the electron, proton and neutron structures, it is not the complete solution.

Lastly, your "Square of the Shells" rules do work with the right mathematical modifications; which I have made, and am willing to work with you to publish the results. But once again, in my humble opinion you are not seeing where that fits into mainstream. Where this "Square of the Shells" rules has mainstream appeal is in Super Symmetry "SUSY" and Guage theory. SUSY and Guage Theorist are working right around you ignoring your square of the mass rules, and producing their own results; this is a shame.

In the Super Principia my goal was to capture current physics as it is and being discovered, without bias for any particular theory or person, this is why I included you and Steven Rado into the mainstream, which mainstream are quietly bypassing the both of you. I feel that I have corrected the directional course of physics! But we will see. Best to you!

Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Geezer on 16/10/2010 22:02:38
This topic does seem like a good candidate for the New Theories section. Stay tuned!
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 17/10/2010 01:20:45
Hi Robert; good to hear from you.

Geezer, it was not my intent to stray from real physics. The question is still: is there any evidence that shows mass can not be comprised of electromagnetic fields alone?

The movie script states that there is no evidence that nature is not made of light.

I honestly want to know if the statement is true. As the OP states, if there is evidence, what is it?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 17/10/2010 01:58:20
Vern, I do not believe that electromagnetic phenomena can be separated from rest mass (m = E/c); but there is mathematical evidence that electromagnetic phenomena is separate from inertial mass gravitational phenomena.

The Gravitational semi-major radius of a rest mass is given by the Schwarzschild Radius

d(schwarzschild) = 2*(m*G/c)

The Electromagnetic semi-major radius of the same rest mass is given by the Brown Radius

d(Brown) = (1/2π)*(h/(m*c))

d(Brown_Major) = d(Brown)/(1 - e) = (1/2π)*(h/(m*c))*(1/(1 - e))

Where e is the eccentricity, h is Plancks Constant, c is the speed of light.

The Schwarzschild solution points to an Aether that is gaseous.
And your electromagnetic solution points to an additional property that is superimposed onto that background Aether. So if you have non rest mass in the form of free photons, or rest mass in the form of bound photons, if you have mass there is electromagnetic radiation. The point here is that entities such as electrons, photons, protons, or neutrons, are condensed out of the aether, which may or may not be electromagnetic.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 17/10/2010 02:42:14
Yes; in theory many things do not agree with a photonic universe. Almost every established theory does not agree with it. However, I am searching for experimental evidence.

According to Einstein, at the turn of the 20th century most physicists thought that, "the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field."

I'm looking for experimental evidence that contradicts that notion. Because now, we seem to have abandoned the notion without evidence that it is not valid.



Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 17/10/2010 03:25:22
If the supposed heat death of the universe is correct, and that's certainly a very big 'if', then those that support this hypothesis should agree that the electromagnetic field is the basic constituent of all we understand about the universe. If nothing is left but this universal field once the heat death is realized, then one must conclude that everything we observe was constructed from it.

"From dust we are made and to dust we return"............Ethos
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 17/10/2010 04:12:30
Ethos, this is good. There is a possibility of a Heat Death for the universe. The equations of the Entropy of the Universe point to this conclusion. But there is also a possibility for a cyclic universe; which if you backed me into a corner, is a theory that would subscribe too. One that involves expansion and contraction, again and again!

Vern asks the question of empirical and experimental proof. That is precisely why the LHC in Geneva was created. The experiments there will be able to prove the existence of what is theorized as the "God Particle." A particle with a very large mass and a very very small size. The mass should be very close to 2x10^-8 kg; this can be converted to a very large energy of which they are looking for at the LHC. Any mass and energy that they detect that even comes close they will declare victory and break champagne bottles at the LHC.

I was working separate but in agreement with Vern in the early to mid 1990s when in 1997 I was running into dead ends with an Electromagnetic Only Universe. In 1997 I met Steven Rado who proposed an Aether only universe, this was very intriguing to me, so I sought where is other theoretical implications of an Aether. Most scientist and physicists are Atheist dont believe in God and don't read the Bible. When I searched there where most physicist don't search, I discovered that when God said "Let there Be Light" in the bible there was talk that there was something there before Light was created. It states that there was darkness and a firmament of which Light was thrust into. From there my search was on and the Aether was revealed more and more.

I feel blessed in my life to have worked with Vernon Brown that proposed an Electromagnetic Only Universe, and Steven Rado that proposed an Aether Only Universe. Because of knowing both of their theories, and I have no bias or prejudice for either, I was able to see both together. The funny thing is because I know both of them. Vernon will never mention Steven Rado. And Steven Rado will never mention Vernon Brown. I was chosen to merge the two; lucky for me I guess [:-X]!
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 17/10/2010 05:03:34
Some candidates for things that can not be electromagnetic phenomena that I explored in the script were:

1. Gravity
2. Nuclear forces
3. Electron
4. Neutrino

I was able to provide reasonable electromagnetic explanations (I won't show them here) for all but the Neutrino. Then I noticed a strange thing about the neutrino. It is the only thing in the universe that does not have a decay path that ends as electromagnetic fields.

So if the neutrino exists in the form that theory suggests, it would be very detrimental to the notion of a photon only universe.




Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 17/10/2010 05:38:09
Quote from: SuperPrincepia
And in my humble opinion, you will never [be able] to get to the cause of gravity with your electromagnetic reasonings.

Gravity was the most difficult, but I did get there. As Filbert Wagman puts it in the script, "little pieces of light use the fields from other little pieces of light to help them along." It is possible to imagine that gravity might be a property of photons.

SuperPrincepia, your own Quantization of Electromagnetic Change (http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html) provides the primary mechanism for electromagnetic gravity. It is the saturation constant that you describe.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 17/10/2010 07:16:01
I would agree that the Quantization of Electromagnetic Change and the Saturation Constant predicts what I term Aether Gravitation this is what I believe you are calling Electromagnetic Gravity. The gravity the Kepler, Newton, and Einstein predict is what is known as Inertial Mass Gravitation. Electromagnetic/Aether Gravitation is different and predicts different phenomena from Inertial Mass Gravitation. You have definetly predicted new physics, but like Steven Rado you and he want to make your ideas solve every physics problem; and in my opinion do not understand the limits of your theories.

I would like to be clear here there is a difference between Aether/Electromagnetic Gravitation and Inertial Mass Gravitation. Your theory predicts Aether/Electromagnetic Gravitation only!
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 17/10/2010 11:01:50
Your latching onto the neutrino as a possible non electromagnetic particle is highly relevant.  In effect a neutrino consists purely of angular momentum. 

Also the dimensions of Planck's constant show that it is in effect angular momentum. 

So consider the possibilities that your electromagnetic ideas may not be the fundamental level but a structure built from angular momentum.

Now a little bit more about the real basics of the universe.

The two fundamental properties of an understandable universe are a large scale conservation of energy and angular momentum. 

Couple this with gravitational attraction bear in mind that this may well only exist because the universe contains something real and this in effect denies some possibilities in the virtual world,  a bit like the casimir effect.

With rotating gravitational collapse towards the fiction of a singularity you can in effect create almost unlimited quantities of particles and energy (something) by the well known process of pair production.

All you now need is to understand how gravitationally bound structures containing angular momentum might produce the electromagnetic field and charge and you have got a proper theory of everything.

Now most of this is in solid conventional physics that you can prove.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 17/10/2010 11:56:53
Quote from: SuperPrincepia
Your theory predicts Aether/Electromagnetic Gravitation only!

I'm not comfortable with, "Your theory". It's not a theory. The notion is much older than me. I'm interested in proving the notion false.

In the script, the protagonists attempt to prove that notion false with ten million dollars the prize for success. They try various things such as the forces of nature, etc. The present ending has them not successful.

I will change the ending if I can find reasonable proof.

I don't understand the two different gravitation mechanisms. The equations may be different; the end results may be the same.

I didn't attempt to develop the maths for electromagnetic gravitation based upon your saturation constant, you are far more capabale of that than I.



Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 17/10/2010 12:41:01
Ethos, this is good. There is a possibility of a Heat Death for the universe.

Thank you SuperP,......but my only point was to illuminate the fact that those that support the Heat Death Hypothesis should also accept the Photonic Theory. However, my own personal view does not support the Heat Death Hypothesis. I suppose one could still support the Photonic theory without it being necessary to believe in the Heat Death Hypothesis. And in principle, one might also suggest that to support the Big Bang Hypothesis, they should also align themselves with the Photonic point of view. I point this out because, according to my understanding, the first event that occured at the Big Bang was a great release of Electromagnetic radiation. And if nothing came before, all we now see was constructed from that initial radiation.

I personally don't buy into either the Heat Death nor the Big Bang ideas. For what it's worth, I believe the radiation we presently record from the CMBR is only from a local event in an infinate space. Just because we can't see beyond our own location does'nt mean that similar events aren't taking place within the infinity of space. I would suggest that our Big Bang is only a local event visable to us in our little corner of an infinite universe. The question then becomes; What mechanism is responsible for these outbursts of radiation? I believe there is a physical limit to the size a black hole can attain. Upon reaching that limit, it will spontaneously release all that energy in what I might call a "Little Bang". In the grand scheme of things, this Little Bang would appear to us as the, so-called "Big Bang".

I ofcourse have no proof, but to tell the truth, pyhsicists are also very lacking when it comes to proving either the Big Bang or finding sufficient evidence for either the Heat Death view or the Cyclical Universe. To prove my Hypothesis, I realize that I must find evidence to support the limiting factor for the size of a black hole. As yet, this has, ofcourse, not been realized..................Ethos
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 17/10/2010 14:58:45
I'm not comfortable with, "Your theory". It's not a theory. The notion is much older than me. I'm interested in proving the notion false.

Vern, I don't mean to be offensive, for you have my utmost respect as a physicist. I remember in 1992 buying a copy of your "Photonic Theory of Everything" from an Ad in the back of the Discovery Magazine. Then in 1994 writing my Master's Thesis in college describing some of your new concepts listed there. So to hear you say that you have "No Theory" is puzzling to me; but not worth debating.

Today most physicist attribute the Electromagnetic Radius/Amplitude (d(Brown) = (1/2π)*(h/(m*c))) to Aurthur Compton. However, from my research Compton was only interested in how the photon wavelength (λ = h/p(momentum))changed as it was scattered off of an electron. Your "Photon Theory" claims that if there is an electron, that electron originated as a photon that has been curled into a resonate orbit with a specific frequency (f = (mc/h)) whose radius is given by the radius equation that I described above. It is this radius that allows you to have a "Photonic Theory." And in 1995 I determined that you did not understand your own theory, as your own words declare, is why in 1997 I started working with Steven Rado and stopped communicating with you.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Geezer on 17/10/2010 20:24:42
The Counsel has decided that this thread is moving to New Theories.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 18/10/2010 11:05:16
The Counsel has decided that this thread is moving to New Theories.
The Counsel, indeed! [:D] [:D] [:D]
'Counsel of Welders' is that? [;D]
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 18/10/2010 11:19:36
Quote from: SuperP
Your "Photon Theory" claims that if there is an electron, that electron originated as a photon that has been curled into a resonate orbit with a specific frequency (f = (mc/h)) whose radius is given by the radius equation that I described above. It is this radius that allows you to have a "Photonic Theory." And in 1995 I determined that you did not understand your own theory, as your own words declare, is why in 1997 I started working with Steven Rado and stopped communicating with you.

I don't know how I gave the impression that I don't understand my own theory.  But if you came away with that, it's my fault for not explaining better what I do understand.

It was November of 1991 that I found the square-of-shells relationship that predicted the dynamics and strength of the strong nuclear reaction. It showed it to clearly be electromagnetic.

You have expanded on that. Your saturation amplitude was great, but I thought it should be in the form of electric charge. It would then answer a fundamental question about nature. What is the maximum charge amplitude that a point in space can support?

You had the key to find that number, but stopped short. Great work BTW. [:)]

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fmevs.jpg&hash=f8666195b5b4d739f2527429c6cf40a1)
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 18/10/2010 11:57:52
This topic does seem like a good candidate for the New Theories section. Stay tuned!

Move it there. We can then ignore the tight-rope walking necessary not to offend the BS advocates. Physics is truly in a sad state.

Does it bother anyone that we are not allowed to question the BS?

I would be embarrassed for someone to think that I signed on to the mainstream BS. Especially since future students will see our tracks and wonder how we could be so stupid.

Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 18/10/2010 12:39:40
Movie script presentation (http://scripts.orkparts.com/OhMyGod.pdf) went very well. Many re-writes will come before production, however.

Producers want more ridicule of mainstream. They smell raw meat.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 18/10/2010 13:28:03
It was November of 1991 that I found the square-of-shells relationship that predicted the dynamics and strength of the strong nuclear reaction. It showed it to clearly be electromagnetic.

I thought the combining of the strong and EM forces, plus the weak force were already mathematically described by the Quantum Field Theory.  What need is there to reinvent this view?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 18/10/2010 13:44:09
I thought the combining of the strong and EM forces, plus the weak force were already mathematically described by the Quantum Field Theory.  What need is there to reinvent this view?
Peppercorn, the physics community is fooling you, if you think that those concepts are fully understood; they are not! Currently those concepts are so marred in complexity that no high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students. All we know about the "Strong Force" is that it keep protons in the nucleus from flying apart. How does this mechanism work? They invent "Gluons" to make this work. As far as I am aware, no Gluon has ever been detected. The "Weak Force" allows for a heavy nucleus, one with many protons and neutrons, to spontaneously emit or releases a "Beta Particle" which is basically a Helium Atom without the electons. An ionized helium atom. What is the mechanism that makes this work?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 18/10/2010 13:59:02
Peppercorn, the physics community is fooling you, if you think that those concepts are fully understood; they are not! Currently those concepts are so marred in complexity that no high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students.

Why should it be that the maths has to be simple enough for a "high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students"?
I vaguely recollect some of the maths needed for 'standard' quantum mechanics from 'Solid state electronics', 2nd yr Electronic Eng BSc - That made my head spin at the time & I it's lost in the mists now!

Strong force is adequately described by QCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics) - to the point that is it's self consistent, fits with experiment and can be combined with the other two shorter-range forces.  That doesn't seem too bad for a start!
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 18/10/2010 14:38:39
Why should it be that the maths has to be simple enough for a "high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students"?
I vaguely recollect some of the maths needed for 'standard' quantum mechanics from 'Solid state electronics', 2nd yr Electronic Eng BSc - That made my head spin at the time & I it's lost in the mists now!

This is exactly my point. The physics was made so complex that you no longer remember, and except it by faith! When you study all of the great physicists throughout history, those that we still discuss today. They all state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple. I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple.


Strong force is adequately described by QCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics) - to the point that is it's self consistent, fits with experiment and can be combined with the other two shorter-range forces.  That doesn't seem too bad for a start!

Most physicist assume that if the physics works then there is only one way to describe that phenomena. I would like to add to Isaac Newton's Scientific Method by adding this to the method. If a theory work there should be at least, and at a minimum three ways to calculate and formulate that physics phenomena. If you ever pick up one of my books, you will see that I include five to ten "different" calculations for calculating the same thing. Most physicist present one equation and state that they have solved the problem. I believe that at least three different equations, are required, but when I write I include many more. And this is the proof that the math works, when you can solve the same problem at least three ways. For example the number nine (9) can be calculated many ways: (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9.....

What other short range forces are you describing? I believe this is called Guage Theory, and becoming Super Symmetry (SUSY) theory?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 18/10/2010 15:42:57
This is exactly my point. The physics was made so complex that you no longer remember, and except it by faith!
But I knew it once! - faith in one's self is about as good as it gets in terms of direct evidence!

All of the great physicists throughout history... state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple.
Really? Give me [only] three referenced examples then.

I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple.

Believe what you like! Since the time of the QM revolution physics has looked anything but simple or especially beautiful.  The beauty of equations and fundamental ideas is aesthetically pleasing and any logical explanation of nature (or anything) should not be any more complex than necessary; that does not however lead to mean that complex maths is 'naturally' wrong - how arrogant to suppose it does!

Most physicist present one equation and state that they have solved the problem. I believe that at least three different equations, are required, but when I write I include many more. And this is the proof that the math works, when you can solve the same problem at least three ways. For example the number nine (9) can be calculated many ways: (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9.

This (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9  is called (something like) equivalence.  '6+3 = 9' barely counts as an equation as (unlike x+3 = 9) there's nothing to solve. You can write it a dozen ways to Sunday it's still says nothing new and not really a great selling point for your 'book'.

If an equation is proved consistent by writing it in one form, writing it repeatedly in further forms adds nothing.   Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).  Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Geezer on 18/10/2010 16:37:53
This topic does seem like a good candidate for the New Theories section. Stay tuned!

Move it there. We can then ignore the tight-rope walking necessary not to offend the BS advocates. Physics is truly in a sad state.

Does it bother anyone that we are not allowed to question the BS?

I would be embarrassed for someone to think that I signed on to the mainstream BS. Especially since future students will see our tracks and wonder how we could be so stupid.



Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 18/10/2010 17:57:30
Really? Give me [only] three referenced examples then.

I am a very humble person, but my physics training and skills makes it hard for me to be bullied by anyone!

What I wanted to say is, I will answer you, when you answer me. I asked you, What other short range forces are you describing? But, I will answer your question anyway!

1) Quote from Einstein - "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

2) Quote from Isaac Newton - Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/General/occam.html

3)Quote Johannes Kepler - proves that the golden ratio is the limit of the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers and describes the golden ratio as a "precious jewel": "Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras, and the other the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio; the first we may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious jewel." These two treasures are combined in the Kepler triangle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

I hope that answers your question, and maybe you will humble yourself and answer me.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 18/10/2010 19:13:17
Excellent reply SuperP..........At least my hat is off to you sir.

And BTW,........when man thought the earth was flat and popular authority was convinced, it took a much simpler idea a very long time to overcome that belief. It is a fact that the earth is a sphere and that, my friends, is much simpler than this flat earth being perched on the back of a giant elephant or turtle, which ever myth one chooses to reference.

....................Ethos
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 18/10/2010 19:16:37
What other short range forces are you describing?

Sorry. Missed that bit:
Strong, Weak & EM - all combined mathematically in QFD.


Thanks for the 3 quotes - haven't the time to read them at present.
Can you respond to the rest of my post also, please?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 18/10/2010 19:18:32
Excellent reply SuperP..........At least my hat is off to you sir.

And BTW,........when man thought the earth was flat and popular authority was convinced, it took a much simpler idea a very long time to overcome that belief. It is a fact that the earth is a sphere and that, my friends, is much simpler than this flat earth being perched on the back of a giant elephant or turtle, which ever myth one chooses to reference.

....................Ethos

There was no maths supporting the argument the world was flat though!
- & It pre-dated empirical study.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Vern on 18/10/2010 20:51:59
Quote from: Geezer
Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.

I mentioned no theory.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 18/10/2010 23:39:43
Quote from: Geezer
Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.

I mentioned no theory.
And BTW, who's to say what "BS" may stand for at any particular time in history?? I'm on your side my friend, things are getting a bit too testy around here lately IMHO!!
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 19/10/2010 10:43:25
Quote from: SuperPrincipia
Really? Give me [only] three referenced examples then.
I am a very humble person, but my physics training and skills makes it hard for me to be bullied by anyone!
If you take trying to get some usable definition out of what you're writing as 'bullying', there's not much I can do about that. But I'm sorry you feel that way.

Quote from: SuperPrincipia
1)Quote from Einstein - [Reiterating the spirit of Occam's Razor]
2)Quote from Isaac Newton - [Reiterating the spirit of Occam's Razor]
3)Quote Johannes Kepler - [Irrelevant quote with no mention of how nature should be 'simple' or 'beautiful']
I hope that answers your question, and maybe you will humble yourself and answer me.
In terms of supporting your assertion:
All of the great physicists throughout history... state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple.
It fails.  If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you. In fact I did: "any logical explanation of nature (or anything) should not be any more complex than necessary". But it quite clear to anyone that it isn't what you wrote.

Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.


Most physicist present one equation and state that they have solved the problem. I believe that at least three different equations, are required, but when I write I include many more. And this is the proof that the math works, when you can solve the same problem at least three ways. For example the number nine (9) can be calculated many ways: (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9.
This (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9  is called (something like) equivalence.  '6+3 = 9' barely counts as an equation as (unlike x+3 = 9) there's nothing to solve. You can write it a dozen ways to Sunday it's still says nothing new and not really a great selling point for your 'book'.

If an equation is proved consistent by writing it in one form, writing it repeatedly in further forms adds nothing.   Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).  Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.
Do you fancy responding to this as well while you're at it?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 19/10/2010 14:49:08
It fails.  If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you.
Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.
This is what I call bullying, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, and do not appear to be seeking intelligent discussion or understanding.  What I stated is, When you study all of the great physicists throughout history, those that we still discuss today. They all state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple. I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple.

I am not arguing that the "Standard Model" should be thrown out, in fact I agree with most of it. What I am arguing or adding to the Isaac Newton Scientific Method, is that for a scientific theory to be valid at least three different methods are required to be tested for true validity; mathematical or experimental. And if one of the three turns out to be simpler or displays some sort of beauty, the simple more beautiful one has preeminence or the other two. The other two results are still correct they are not to be discarded; but I believe that over time the simpler on is the one that will move forward in time!

Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).

No, this is bigger than repeating the experiment. For example consider Galileo's uniform acceleration experiment; rolling balls down incline planes, and dropping balls off of the leaning tower of Pisa. Then forty four (44) years later Newton validated this experiment with his Universal Gravitation Theory. Then some three hundred (300) years later, we put satellites in orbit to validate this experiment even more. Three different experiments which predict the same thing; and hence three slightly different mathematics can be used to calculate those things.

And please do not ask me to provide the mathematics, I believe that you get my point! I do not want to continue along these reasonings!

Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.
Your statements validate my point. This is my point of an additional requirement to the Scientific Method.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 19/10/2010 15:16:02
It fails.  If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you.
Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.
This is what I call bullying, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, and do not appear to be seeking intelligent discussion or understanding.

Not at all.  - To point out that you failed to support your original assertion is not bullying. It isn't my fault your quotes were not supportive of the statement that 'nature should be simple'.
I do, however, apologies if I made the incorrect assumption about you dumping the Standard Model in its completeness.

"I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple." - You can have this belief if you want, but where's the evidence?
NB. Be very careful, here - I don't see the point in another anecdote along the lines of Occam's Razor. There is no overwhelming evidence anywhere that at nature's very heart lays simplicity.  Sure many of the greatest leaps in understanding the physical world through science's history have come about by some truly beautiful equations, but this doesn't prove your belief.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 19/10/2010 15:37:03
Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).
No, this is bigger than repeating the experiment. For example consider Galileo's uniform acceleration experiment; rolling balls down incline planes, and dropping balls off of the leaning tower of Pisa. Then forty four (44) years later Newton validated this experiment with his Universal Gravitation Theory. Then some three hundred (300) years later, we put satellites in orbit to validate this experiment even more. Three different experiments which predict the same thing; and hence three slightly different mathematics can be used to calculate those things.
I think you are confused about the meanings and process of validation.
The most powerful think about the scientific method is its ability to fine-tune our understanding of reality.  Previous to this approach theorems fell into favour with no particular need to include what was already 'known'.  What about the four Greek elements - utterly arbitrary and with no way to test or measure or predict.
Jumping forward... By the time of Newton's theories he wasn;t so much validating Galileo's work as encompassing it in a more exact mathematical model.  Validation of a theory happens by it's testing with experiment - ideally as many times as possible (done well).   If you're saying (& excuse me if I misunderstand) that writing you equations (proofs) in several different ways adds some solidity to them - you are mistaken.  If they are valid first in the written form - they are always.  Of course,they may be 'spun around' to apply them better to a certain problem, but this changes them not.

Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.
Your statements validate my point. This is my point of an additional requirement to the Scientific Method.
No it doesn;t. See above.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 20/10/2010 15:33:30
This thread has moved away from the main issue. Do you think that any explanation of matter would also explain what created the matter and why times arrow is one directional?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 20/10/2010 16:54:05
This thread has moved away from the main issue. Do you think that any explanation of matter would also explain what created the matter and why times arrow is one directional?
I agree Ron..........
I've had a thought about matter creation for many years now that I can't seem to get an answer for.

If one is to believe in the Big Bang, and that all the forces of nature were all rolled up into one superforce before they split off into the four we now recognize, one has to accept that gravity along with the other 3 were present before the formation of matter. According to present understanding, one must have an accumulation of matter to activate the force of gravity.

So here is my question:

With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

My speculation:

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe gravity, which must be part of the universal field, creates matter?

...............Ethos
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 20/10/2010 17:14:01
With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 20/10/2010 17:16:21
With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.
Then you agree, gravity creates matter???????
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 20/10/2010 17:24:13
With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.
Then you agree, gravity creates matter???????
Does it look like I agree?!
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 20/10/2010 17:25:51
Yes,,,,,,it looks like you agree!
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 20/10/2010 17:31:27
With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.
Then you agree, gravity creates matter???????
Does it look like I agree?!
Would you care to commit, one way or the other my friend?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 20/10/2010 17:44:33
Yes,,,,,,it looks like you agree!
I'm genuinely surprised that you could think so from reading my post. ... Just to be clear: No I do not agree.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 20/10/2010 18:21:58
The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe. Since we know nothing about where the energy came from to create our Universe, and it had to come from someplace, we can't claim to know anything past the fact that something supplied that energy. Since we know that certain collisions of EM creates matter why wouldn't we think the energy was electromagnetic in nature? I think it must have been an electric field compressed into a field density that would turn into protons and electrons. The field would then start decompressing, (pointing the arrow of time in only one direction) and start an expanding Universe that would appear to an observer in this Universe to be an accelerated expansion. If it was a compressed electric field where did it come from? We can never test any idea that would explain it but we can imagine scenarios that fit what I propose.

The flow rate of time with respect to an observer is not constant. It slows to a crawl near a black hole. It slows when in motion with respect to an observer. The point is that there does not appear to be any limit on how fast or slow time can move. Suppose there was another Universe where it's electrons were trillions and trillions of times larger than our entire Universe. Suppose again that two particles with the same charge inside one of that Universe's stars collides with enough energy to create the compressed electric field I referred to above. Suppose again that some entity in that larger Universe wearing a watch on it's wrist could look at that collision. The entity would see our Universe be born and die in a millionth of one of his seconds. This idea would imply there are an infinite number of Universes larger than ours and an infinite number smaller than ours.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: JP on 20/10/2010 19:48:47
The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe.

That's incorrect.  Theorizing that time and space began, for our universe, at the big bang, doesn't mean that nothing could exist outside of our universe.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 20/10/2010 20:42:47
I agree jp, that was one point of my post.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: JP on 20/10/2010 22:05:46
But it's still incorrect to claim that mainstream science says that there isn't anything outside of the universe, which is how you started your post.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ethos on 20/10/2010 22:16:04
But it's still incorrect to claim that mainstream science says that there isn't anything outside of the universe, which is how you started your post.
That may be true today but not so long ago, that view was quite popular.................Ethos
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: JP on 20/10/2010 23:02:06
Do you have a source for that claim?

I'm fairly sure that view was never popular within science, as there has never been scientific evidence or a theory that claims to answer the question of what could exist outside the universe...
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 21/10/2010 02:35:41
jp, Duh, it's just an idea.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: JP on 21/10/2010 02:43:12
But your argument was "the mainstream is wrong because it claims this," when in fact it doesn't claim that at all...
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Geezer on 21/10/2010 05:52:33
I wonder what "the mainstream" even is? I've never known anyone who claimed to be a mainstream scientist.

I did know of a chap who claimed to be a theoretical botanist, but I think that was just a line he used to chat-up ladies.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: peppercorn on 21/10/2010 09:57:48
I did know of a chap who claimed to be a theoretical botanist, but I think that was just a line he used to chat-up ladies.

 [:D] [:D] I bet that worked like a charm!


Ron, what do you mean by outside the universe?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: JP on 21/10/2010 12:36:01
My business card reads,

Dr. JP
Defender of the Orthodoxy
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 21/10/2010 17:16:36
Ok pepper, our electrons have a diameter something like vern's. The electrons that could have created our Universe are trillions of times larger than our Universe. Our Universe is part of this other Universe except our clocks run trillions and trillions of times faster than their clocks. Universes created by our electrons or protons would have clocks that run trillions( a googolplex ) of times faster than ours.

jp, the mainstream claims the Universe has no center because space and time were created at the BB therefore nothing could exist outside our space/time.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: JP on 21/10/2010 18:42:54
jp, the mainstream claims the Universe has no center because space and time were created at the BB therefore nothing could exist outside our space/time.

But that's just what I keep telling you isn't true.  Mainstream physical theories (unless you consider string theory or other theories-of-everything mainstream) describe things within our universe.  They don't try to describe what might or might not exist outside of it. 

You're attacking a straw man here.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 21/10/2010 22:20:06
Whatever jp, who cares. It's not pertinent to the issue.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: JP on 21/10/2010 23:32:03
It's part of your argument against "mainstream" science, even if it's not the main point.  How is it not pertinent that it's fallacious?  [???]
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Geezer on 21/10/2010 23:56:35
Whatever jp, who cares. It's not pertinent to the issue.

Ron,

I'd remind you that you raised the point. If it's not pertinent, why did you even raise it in the first place?
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 22/10/2010 00:03:19
Ron Hughes, I really appreciate you staying focused on the topic. You have asked a very good question, however,  I am not aware of anyone that can answer this with definite answers. But just for fun, I will be brief, and even now I am hesitant to post. I have written a book on "The General Theory of Relativity" and General Relativity addresses the "Big Bang" model to some degree. Now in my book I chose only to focus on what we can calculate based on current models of cosmology and what we are measuring with the WMAP experiments. And these calculations do not address what happened before the big bang or even right after the big bang.

The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe. Since we know nothing about where the energy came from to create our Universe, and it had to come from someplace, we can't claim to know anything past the fact that something supplied that energy. Since we know that certain collisions of EM creates matter why wouldn't we think the energy was electromagnetic in nature?

Mainstream uses an inflationary model proposed by Alan Guth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
And even in the inflationary model we can only go back so far; and can't go all the way back to the origin of the beginning. With our mathematical models we can go back to ~10^-43 seconds. Earlier than this there is currently no math model. We can theorize what happened before this time, but it would only be a theory, because mathematically we can't go back further than the ~10^-43 seconds.

Ok pepper, our electrons have a diameter something like vern's. The electrons that could have created our Universe are trillions of times larger than our Universe.

That which I call the Vernon Brown Electromagnetic Radius does predict that the electron spatially is very large relative to the spatial size or Electromagnetic Radius of the proton. However, mainstream models predict that these particles were created very much later in time than the big bang. The universe would have to have cooled down after the big bang for Leptons and Hadrons to form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang


Theoretical picture of when Leptons and Hadrons formed
http://www.southernmaineastronomers.org/Images/meetingPhotos/BigBang.jpg

Theoretical picture of when galaxies formed
http://firstgalaxies.ucolick.org/timeline.html

I am no expert in early big theory, but in my book the equations are there, that open the door for new ways of thinking about these concepts and making the calculations!

Best to you, and once again thanks for keeping a perspective for topic.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Geezer on 22/10/2010 00:25:53
Enough already.

The next poster who uses "mainstream" as a pejorative directed at those who happen to disagree with their pet theory, or who is using TNS as an opportunity for free publicity for some commercial venture (e.g. a book) will, at the very least, cause this topic to be locked.

If you have a theory that you can support with some evidence, please post it.

Fair warning.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: SuperPrincipia on 22/10/2010 00:28:38
Geezer, Jealousy is not becoming!
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Geezer on 22/10/2010 00:40:39
You're right. Verdigris is nasty stuff.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 22/10/2010 03:09:38
Wow, how impressive. I'm quite certain that I can shout about the virtues of the standard model anyplace on this forum. The standard model a THEORY that had to invent the Higgs, graviton and virtual particles in order to make itself acceptable. A THEORY that doesn't have a clue as to what makes up the electron. A Theory that can't explain mass, or gravity or inertia. You can kick me out geezer because if we can't discuss alternative ideas then I don't need to be associated with this forum anyway. The truth is not here nor will it ever be.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Geezer on 22/10/2010 03:50:58
Ron,

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm all for exploring alternative models because I think we still have an enormous amount to learn.

I just don't think it's in any way productive to disparage the work of those who have gone before by trying to put them in a box with  prejudicial connotations. A new theory should not be established on the failing of a prior theory. It should be established on its own merits.

Personally, I happen to believe that all matter is a manifestation of energy that is somehow encapsulated in space (which may not be very different from String Theory), but, as I'm not capable of proving any of that, I can only hope that others with the right skills will unravel the problem.

Shout at the establishment if you must, but you might find it more satisfactory to collaborate - just my opinion.

However, TNS does have some rules. Please try to abide by them.
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: imatfaal on 22/10/2010 12:01:39
Ron - the standard model did predict various quarks and the τ-neutrino - all of which have been experimentally verified.  the standard model is not a single theory - but a group of theories, some more tenuous than others.  proof of one theory by disparaging another is no proof at all. 
Title: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
Post by: Ron Hughes on 23/10/2010 19:47:22
You a right but using that success to tell me I'm wrong is also not proof.