[Spring Theory (OP)]

What is a photon orbit in a particle decay scenario?

The weapon used by gauchos to catch game consists of two or three bolas (balls) held together by a string or strings. Centrifugal force stretches the string(s) because the balls have angular momentum relative to one another.

Whatever force holds a pair of photons in orbit can be thought of as the string between a pair of bolas. If the string snaps, the two bolas fly apart, relative to one another, along lines which are tangent to their previous circular orbit; they are parallel, but not collinear; the two parallel paths are separated by the diameter of their previous orbit. The center of mass of the pair continues to move at its previous speed in a straight line, while the individual bolas keep their velocity relative to that moving center of mass.

What makes photon pairs different from bolas is that the individual photons lack proper mass. Only the photon pair can have proper mass. You can derive the proper mass of the pair by adding the individual energies and multiply by the speed of light squared.

Adding momentum to the pair is like boosting the forward moving photon more than the rearward moving photon (in a given coordinate system). If you add momentum to one side only, you get motion of the pair. (If I could persuade my brain's math coprossessor to come out of retirement, I'd derive E = mc² from this model.)

I'm glad to see that others are now talking about orbiting photons. This is the first time I've seen others discussing my orbiting photon concept, other than to say it can't happen. As far as I know, this part of my model was totally unique until now. I'd like to know if anyone else had this idea before I thought of it; I think that was about 8 years ago.

For the speed of light to vary, you must discard the definitions of time, distance and speed, since the meter and second are defined by the constant speed of light. We used to measure the speed of light in relation to the circumference and rotational speed of planet Earth. Now, we measure everything else in relation to the speed of light. Measuring something whose value is fixed by definition is like measuring the number one. "Hmmm, this number one seems to be bigger than that number one. The number one must be variable."

Photons can have any amount of energy, not just the specific quanta of energy that must be exchanged when electrons jump between orbitals. Yes; photons originate with specific energies, and a particle can only absorb specific energies, but the expansion of space gradually reduces the amount of energy that arrives in a distant reference frame; and this does not happen in quantum jumps. There is no smallest quantum of energy.

Any, yes; it is proper to say a photon has energy and momentum; not that it is energy or momentum. What it is is a disturbance of the aether; it takes a certain amount of energy to create that disturbance.

Great explanation on the reason for the offset when a particle decays into two photons.

[PhysBang]

Can we see the derivation of the path of an orbit given this theory?

[hamdani yusuf]

My theory is based on the fact that photons are not transverse waves, they are longitudinal with the closest thing in nature being seismic waves (particularly Rayleigh waves). 

Which experiment do you base your claim on?
I've seen many experiments clearly show that electromagnetic wave is transversal by showing linear polarization.

[Spring Theory (OP)]

My theory is based on the fact that photons are not transverse waves, they are longitudinal with the closest thing in nature being seismic waves (particularly Rayleigh waves). 

Which experiment do you base your claim on?
I've seen many experiments clearly show that electromagnetic wave is transversal by showing linear polarization.

I'm trying to explain the mechanism to make the longitudinal waves appear transverse.  By my theory, the measurements in experiments show dual traverse wave electrical and magnetic characteristics, but the physical mechanism the explains this is a longitudinal wave traveling in "space matter".

[Timedial]

I havent read through everything here yet, but I do like it. Theres alot to take in, so I'll do it in bite sized pieces, or I could start making my coffee stronger. But I've read enough to be satisfied, you have build up a literacy model in your mind which is consistent with many aspects of nature. So whether you're right or wrong, thats still a commendable effort. And even if you do turn up some problems within youre theory, there is no-doubt you are approaching real truths. I think the best evidence of things is found in the associations and interactions between various phenomena, and describing those in a self consistency, and that seams to be a focus of your considerations. I think you have good instincts, and nicely done.

[Timedial]

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot. Many dont like it when somebody plays around with sacred constants. Constancy of light for example. But in my opinion second guessing everything is a time honored tradition of those who eventually overturned and improved on conventions. And besides, rationalizing these dynamics and learning them for oneself, is far more effective within considerations of veriabilities and their variable consequences. In this respect, whether light is variable or a constant is not the point, but rather, consideration of the puzzles in this way teaches flexibility of thought. And is effective for teasing out the nature of associations between things. The difference between you, and a person who allowed their rationale to be corralled by convention without asking questions, is you will have learnt the underlying reasonings, having questioned the reasonings.

Its a puzzle. You grab a piece and jam it anywhere and everywhere, and even try to force a fit if you like. And even if a thing doesnt work, knowing why it doesnt work can be as illuminating as if it did work. Holding puzzle pieces sacred to convention only limits a persons chances of learning something new.

[Spring Theory (OP)]

I havent read through everything here yet, but I do like it. Theres alot to take in, so I'll do it in bite sized pieces, or I could start making my coffee stronger. But I've read enough to be satisfied, you have build up a literacy model in your mind which is consistent with many aspects of nature. So whether you're right or wrong, thats still a commendable effort. And even if you do turn up some problems within youre theory, there is no-doubt you are approaching real truths. I think the best evidence of things is found in the associations and interactions between various phenomena, and describing those in a self consistency, and that seams to be a focus of your considerations. I think you have good instincts, and nicely done.

I appreciate it.  It's allot to digest, but the pieces are starting to come together. It's refreshing to hear from an open objective mind.

[Spring Theory (OP)]

Another interesting model is the Neutrino:

Photon A charge, +1/2, (Negative belly 100%)
Photon B charge, -1/2, (Positive belly 100%)
Net charge 0
Opposite charged sides of photons are in synchronous orbit

In this case the magnetic fields and electrical fields of the orbiting photons alternate. The alternating fields explain why there is so little interaction between of other "particles" as there is a net charge of zero.  The model also explains why the neutrino is its own anti particle. Spin is the only difference.

[Spring Theory (OP)]

The formula for the speed of light is:

v = c/n

Where:
v = velocity of light
c = speed of light in a vacuum with minimal space compression
n = the compression of space where a value of 1.0 is no compression/decompression


Note that n is similar to an index of refraction, so as spaced is compressed or decompressed, the speed of light changes.  For space compression, the value of n < 1.0 and for decompression, the value of n > 1.0.


Here is a graphical representation of how a photon affects the space around it with hypothetical n values:




 
In decompressed space, the speed of light is less than c and in compressed space, the speed of light is greater than c.


If the photon has a small enough wave length, it can compress space enough so it can trap another photon in orbit.  If the two photons are the same wavelength, they will trap each other and remain in a stable orbit.

This is what creates matter.

[Spring Theory (OP)]

To create a photon pair, the space compression has to be so that the velocity on the inside of the photon has to be proportionally slower than the velocity on the outside of the photon:

Assuming the distance between the photons is the wavelength, the time it takes the inside of the photon, point a, to orbit must equal the time it takes point b to orbit.


Calculating the velocities for each:

v_a = π ½λ/t
v_b = π ³/₂λ/t

This results in:

v_b/v_a  = (π ³/₂λ/t)/(π ½λ/t)

Canceling like terms leaves:

v_b/v_a  = 3

or

v_b = 3v_a

The velocity at point b due to space compression must be 3 times greater than the velocity at point a.  In terms of space compression (n):

v_a  = c/n_a
v_b  = c/n_b

Substituting:

3c/n_a  = c/n_b

And canceling like terms leaves:

n_a  = 3n_b

Or the space compression at point a must be 3 times the compression at point b.


The interesting thing is this will happen at a specific wavelength based on the properties of space which explains the quantum nature of matter. If the wavelength of the photons are not correct, the "particle" will decay and the photons will spiral out of orbit propagating in opposite directions. Sound familiar?

[Spring Theory (OP)]

Can we see the derivation of the path of an orbit given this theory?

Let me know if this answers your question.

[Spring Theory (OP)]

Explanation of Dark Matter:

I wanted to shed light on another explanation of dark matter.  Since the Neutrino model is almost identical to the electron and positron, it must have the same effective mass.  That means its mass is significantly under rated.  Of course, how do you measure something with no net charge or net magnetic field?

This would explain all the extra "matter" in the universe the we cannot see - all those Neutrinos.