The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Is Photonic Theory possible?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Is Photonic Theory possible?

  • 77 Replies
  • 43091 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vern (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2072
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #60 on: 09/06/2009 17:41:10 »
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.

« Last Edit: 09/06/2009 17:43:06 by Vern »
Logged
 



Offline jerrygg38

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1033
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 34 times
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #61 on: 09/06/2009 23:04:48 »
Quote from: Vern on 09/06/2009 17:41:10
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.



 That seems like a very small difference. You will have to explain your square of the shells rule. Where is it posted?
Logged
 

Offline Vern (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2072
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #62 on: 10/06/2009 12:08:19 »
Square-of-the-shells rule: Take the mass of the neutron's outer shell as the difference between neutron and proton mass in units of electron masses. This is shell one. Each successive shell mass is then the square of that of the next shell out. Proton mass then is s2 + s3 + s4. Neutron mass is proton mass plus s1. This comes to within .00948 MeV to being exact.
Here is the source code in C
Here is the output of the compiled program.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 16:16:50 by Vern »
Logged
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1033
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 34 times
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #63 on: 10/06/2009 14:22:43 »
 I see your name is Vernon Brown. That is strange.
  I went to Brooklyn Tech HS Class of 56 and used to eat lunch with a Vernon Brown.
Any relationship??

  PS I will study your data.
Logged
 

Offline Vern (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2072
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #64 on: 10/06/2009 16:15:32 »
No; that wasn't me. In 56 I was in Japan until December.

The neat thing about taking electron mass and electron charge as unity is that the charge magnitude of the strong nuclear interaction is s2 + s2 + s3 + s3. In order to get the correct dynamics, shells 3 and 4 need to be inside shells 2. Then like charges repel to hold the union. The like charges must get closer together on separation. This causes the increase in force that is seen as the cores separate.





« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 17:04:09 by Vern »
Logged
 



Offline Vern (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2072
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #65 on: 03/10/2009 18:17:54 »
The graphics in the above post are models of two protons locked together by the force of electric charge originating at the circumference of shell 3 and shell 2 of the protons. When you consider that charge magnitude is inversely proportional to shell size and shell size is determined by the wave length of the trapped photon, the charge magnitudes add up to the value of the strong nuclear interaction. This is shown in the square-of-the-shells rule. 
Logged
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 963
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • Carnivorous Plants
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #66 on: 20/10/2009 13:52:14 »
Hey Vern,
A very interesting theory, and i find it much more likely than the 11 dimensions of M-theory and whatnot, but please answer me these:

How does your photonic theory explain that there seems to be more matter than antimatter in the universe?
Where does this inequality come from? Because for me it seems that matter is always created in the same amount as antimatter when photons collide.

If PT turns out to be real, does that mean we can give up traveling to other galaxies over reasonable amounts of time due to theoretically not possible? (No black holes means no wormholes either)

Oh, and me being a layman: with the photon being 2 saturated points, do you mean the wavefront of the electrical wave and the wavefront of the magnetic wave?


PS: If the LHC excludes the existence of a graviton or Higgs boson, you should contact the string theorists [;)]



« Last Edit: 20/10/2009 14:29:03 by Nizzle »
Logged
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Most poems rhyme,
but this one doesn't
 

Offline Vern (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2072
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #67 on: 20/10/2009 21:57:27 »
I have been dwelling upon the inequality of matter and antimatter the last few days. The thing I favour right now is that it is because protons are comprised of three things; I call them shells; if you like you can call them Quarks. These three components of protons are created in equal amounts. But it takes three of them to form a stable proton. Anything left over quickly decays back to radiation. The two to one ratio assures that whatever type of matter happens first by chance, it will dominate.

I think the mainstream physicists theorize that it may be due to CP violation. If they are right, CP violation works just as well with a photon-only construct for matter as for the magical particles that can transform to energy.

A single photon moving through space has a positive half-cycle and a negative half-cycle. The points of electric and magnetic saturation would be at midpoint of each half cycle. These points of saturation are sensitive to all radiation visible or no and reach saturation with an offset toward increasing field strength of the radiation. That is gravity. [:)]

This Wiki article explains CP violation.

Quote from: the link
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.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2009 23:06:29 by Vern »
Logged
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 963
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • Carnivorous Plants
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #68 on: 21/10/2009 09:09:15 »
Quote from: Vern on 20/10/2009 21:57:27
That is gravity. [:)]

So Physics is unified [:P].
What are those string theorists doing in fact? Except wasting tax payers money of course.
Logged
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Most poems rhyme,
but this one doesn't
 



Offline Vern (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2072
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Photonics
Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #69 on: 21/10/2009 11:45:36 »
I am not sure why mainstream physicists have dismissed the photon-only construct of the universe. We have known about that construct since Maxwell suggested it and Poincare wrote out equations now known as the Lorentz transformations, that describe how matter must distort when it moves in such a universe. To me it is the most simple and elegant way any deity, if one exists, would construct a universe. [:)]

Quote
What are those string theorists doing in fact? Except wasting tax payers money of course.
Maybe it is not such a waste; it is a good exercise in mathematics.


Edit: to add Henri Poincare citation.

Quote from: the link
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.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2009 13:08:15 by Vern »
Logged
 

Offline mad aetherist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 791
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #70 on: 26/03/2019 23:04:46 »
Quote from: Vern on 30/01/2009 21:04:25
The photon exists as an electric and magnetic disturbance moving through space. It consists of two points of electromagnetic saturation surrounded by electric and magnetic fields that extend outward through space forever.  The fields change in amplitude in accordance with James Clerk Maxwell's equations and this drives the saturated points moving them through space.

Photon points moving through the fields of other photons reach their saturation amplitude mostly due to their own electric and magnetic fields. However, the fields of all other photons contribute toward this saturation amplitude. This causes the points to reach saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength of the other photon fields. This gives rise to the attractive force known as gravity.

When photons collide their fields interact. This can cause the path of each photon to change so that it follows a curve in a local area. When the path of a photon is bent, the electric and magnetic fields cannot be symmetrical in the bend. The area outside the bend is greater than the area inside the bend. The result of this asymmetry is a local electric and magnetic field. The strength of the field is related to the bend radius, such that the tighter the bend the greater the strength of the field. This field causes the path of the photon to bend more in the same direction, so it provides positive feedback to the bend. This causes the bend to be twice as tight as it would be without the feedback.

The path of a photon can be bent so strongly that it forms a complete circle in the space of one wave length. When so bent one polarity of the electric field remains on the outside of the bend so that the circle exhibits an electric charge. When in this condition, the photon is in resonance with itself. This resonance adds to the positive feedback and tends to hold the photon in the circle for an instant. Most circles formed this way are unstable and instantly unfurl so that the paths of the photons become straight again.

There is one certain photon frequency that when curled into this complete-circle pattern, the pattern remains stable. We call this kind of pattern an electron or positron depending upon which polarity remains on the outside of the pattern. This gives rise to the electromagnetic forces.

There are four other frequencies whose complete-circle patterns can be stable when they are combined together so that they form shells such that successive smaller shells are inside the larger shells. Each smaller shell is more massive than its neighboring larger shell. Starting with the mass of the largest shell, the mass of each successive smaller shell, when taken in terms of electron masses, is the square of the mass of the next shell out. The sum of the masses of all four shells is equal to the mass of the neutron. The sum of the three inside shells is equal to the mass of the proton.

The strength of the electric force on the outside of the shells follows the same square of shells rule. Starting with the outside shell, we have 2.5, 6.5, 42.2, and 1787.3 electrons worth of force. Although these forces are much stronger than an electron's force, they must diminish in strength as the inverse square of distance. So, when seen at any distance greater than the radius of an electron, they are exactly the force of an electron.

The strong and weak nuclear forces develop from the electric charges of the three outside shells. When two protons merge so that their outer and next to outer shells interact there are four forces at work. The sum of the forces of these four shells is 6.5 + 6.5 + 42.2 + 42.2 equals the strong nuclear force.

When nucleons merge this way the smaller shells are trapped symmetrically inside the larger shells at a distance inside so that forces balance. Any movement away from this balancing point produces a greater force until the smaller shells break through to the outside. This gives rise to the well known nuclear dynamics of the strong force.
Edit: I changed the title to be a question to help search engines find it.
What a wonderful posting. Photons form loops, which are our elementary particles.
Vern must have gotten this from Williamson & Co. I doubt that Vern invented this idea.
Back in about 1900 Jeans mentioned that matter was bottled light.
Newton reckoned that light made matter.

Vern was concerned about making neutrinos fit his model.  I could have told him that a neutrino was a doubled photon, joined axially, ie their helixes sharing the same axis, their fields being 180 deg out of phase & hencely cancelling (Ranzan).

Vern mentions the electron as being very large, ie protons can fit inside. I forget who came up with that idea in say 1980.

Vern i think was an Einsteinologist. Vern never mentions aether, i wonder whether Vern believed in aether. And whether he was happy with SR & GR.

Anyhow finding this old thread has made my day. There are/were some smart scientists around.
Anyhow i will go back to what i was doing, looking for info re the bending of light.
« Last Edit: 26/03/2019 23:12:01 by mad aetherist »
Logged
 

Offline mad aetherist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 791
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #71 on: 27/03/2019 00:02:08 »
Here is Vernon's youtube footage. I had forgotten this. Brilliant.  But it would have been better if Vernon included aether. Vernon has 21 videos -- i must have a good look one day.

Vernon Brown – Photon Theory of Matter – youtube – 14Oct2013.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19935.0
« Last Edit: 27/03/2019 00:05:44 by mad aetherist »
Logged
 

Offline mad aetherist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 791
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #72 on: 27/03/2019 00:32:24 »
Ok the following footage says that Vernon doesnt like SR & GR & the silly bigbang. Good.
Vernon gets this stuff from Dr Hofstadter (1961 Nobel), ie electron is largest elementary particle, nucleus has 4 shells, the electron is outer, the inner are proton & neutron. Wonderfull stuff.  Did Williamson get his stuff from Hofstadter?  Did H get his from Jeans?

Vernon Brown – Someone Somewhere knows it – 10July2015.
Logged
 



Offline mad aetherist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 791
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #73 on: 27/03/2019 01:03:28 »
Vernon struggles with neutrinos. Its a pity that he didnt know that neutrinos are doubled photons, sharing the same helical axis. 

In fact i am starting to think that it is the other way round -- photons are a halved neutrino.
Here the primary  building block is the dark photon (the neutrino), which makes dark matter (the primary form of matter)(predominant form praps). The luminous photon is secondary, & luminous matter is secondary.

The luminous photon is in a sense semi-luminous (semi-dark), u cant see a photon, except when it hits your eye. Not important, just saying.

And Vernon struggles with gravity. Gravity is due to the acceleration of the flow of aether into mass where aether is annihilated.  And all quantum things have mass. Vernon thinks that gravity is due to an interference refraction kind of interaction process of em radiation waves or something.

Nowadays i am starting to think that em forces are due to gravity. Likewise the so-called strong force & weak force.  All forces are due to gravity, but that is another story.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2019 01:07:55 by mad aetherist »
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #74 on: 28/03/2019 22:03:50 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/03/2019 01:03:28
Its a pity that he didnt know that neutrinos are doubled photons, sharing the same helical axis. 
That's still wrong, for a number of reasons which have been pointed out to you.
The most glaring is that two photos sharing the same helical axis is what gives plane polarised light.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/03/2019 01:03:28
The luminous photon is in a sense semi-luminous (semi-dark), u cant see a photon, except when it hits your eye. Not important, just saying.
That's not a sense you will find in any textbook or dictionary.
But you are right- it's not important.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #75 on: 28/03/2019 22:06:29 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/03/2019 01:03:28
Nowadays i am starting to think that em forces are due to gravity.
Yes, that's because you don't consider evidence to be important.
Science, on the other hand knows that em forces and gravity are different.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline mad aetherist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 791
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #76 on: 29/03/2019 00:55:59 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/03/2019 22:03:50
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/03/2019 01:03:28
Its a pity that he didnt know that neutrinos are doubled photons, sharing the same helical axis. 
That's still wrong, for a number of reasons which have been pointed out to you.
The most glaring is that two photos sharing the same helical axis is what gives plane polarised light.
I dont understand polarised light. Can u give me a link to a good a paper re photons sharing the same axis. I dont believe in polarised light, i dont believe an ordinary photon can be changed in some way to become polarised.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/03/2019 22:03:50
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/03/2019 01:03:28
The luminous photon is in a sense semi-luminous (semi-dark), u cant see a photon, except when it hits your eye. Not important, just saying.
That's not a sense you will find in any textbook or dictionary. But you are right- it's not important.
I have never seen a photon going by.
Logged
 



Offline mad aetherist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 791
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Is Photonic Theory possible?
« Reply #77 on: 29/03/2019 01:03:13 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/03/2019 22:06:29
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/03/2019 01:03:28
Nowadays i am starting to think that em forces are due to gravity.
Yes, that's because you don't consider evidence to be important. Science, on the other hand knows that em forces and gravity are different.
Science hasnt any theory re the nature of em forces. Especially re the transmission of em forces.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.21 seconds with 67 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.