0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I view the photon as two points of electromagnetic saturation surrounded by electric and magnetic fields. The fields occupy a spacial area and propel the photon through space. Interaction is most probable at the points and exponentially less probable away from the points. An electron is a photon trapped in a resonant pattern. The fields are still present and can interfere when some of the fields go through one slit and some of the fields go through the other.This is a model of a neutron of this construct
What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.
However I like the quantum explanation ever since I split the electron into three equal parts for the neutron. Therefore from this theory, the neutron is really a different hydrogen atom. Instead of one electron spinning around the Bohr orbit we have three mini-electrons spinning around the neutron orbit. Think about that!
Quote from: jerrygg38What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.Yes; the photon is propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields. The propelling mechanism is the changing amplitude of the fields. The photon interacts at points because its construct is two saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude. The greatest potential for reaction is at the points, but it can react at an offset depending upon the phase dynamics of its reaction partner.
Do you mean put it in three dimensions? Yes; I could do it; it might take awhile.Here is the source code for the neutron modelHere is the class library for the source codeYou also need the SDL class library for Linux. Compile with g++ neutrons.cpp -l SDL
Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving.
What I would really like to make is a model of space. It is empty nothingness but with the properties of permittivity and permeability. Those two properties allow electric and magnetic fields to propagate. I would like to place a disturbance in that space and watch it propagate. This would be a model of all of nature comprised only of empty space and its two properties. I envision each point in space sensing its immediately adjacent point and responding in accord with it. The outcome must model the electromagnetic field, but must do so without any added input. It must simply be each point sampling its neighbour and providing a fixed response to its neighbour's action.QuoteWell you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving.The software actually produces animated schematics.
I saw your post; it was a very good analysis; I'm glad that you took the time to study it. It pains me very much to have to give a negative review of someone's hypothesis. But we owe it to them to be truthful. Elsewhere they may find more hostility. I was attracted to this forum because it did not seem to elicit hostility toward alternative ideas.
We've travelled similar paths. I've been investigating the electromagnetic construct since 1986 when I retired from AT & T. I enjoy the high you get when a complicated set of rules come together and match up with observations. When I built my first neutron model and discovered from it the square-of-the-shells rule, I was walking on air for a week.  It was a couple of years later that someone pointed out that the model's predictions of proton and neutron mass were off by .00948 MeV. That didn't bother me too much. I figured the difference could be due to binding dynamics.
In particle physics, CP violation is a violation of the postulated CP symmetry, the combination of C symmetry and P symmetry. CP symmetry states that the laws of physics should be the same if a particle were interchanged with its antiparticle (C symmetry, or charge conjugation symmetry), and left and right were swapped (P symmetry, or parity symmetry). The discovery of CP violation in 1964 in the decays of neutral kaons resulted in the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1980 for its discoverers James Cronin and Val Fitch.It plays an important role both in the attempts of cosmology to explain the dominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe, and in the study of weak interactions in particle physics.
That is gravity. 
What are those string theorists doing in fact? Except wasting tax payers money of course.
Poincaré introduced the modern principle of relativity and was the first to present the Lorentz transformations in their modern symmetrical form. Poincaré discovered the remaining relativistic velocity transformations and recorded them in a letter to Lorentz in 1905. Thus he obtained perfect invariance of all of Maxwell's equations, an important step in the formulation of the theory of special relativity.