[witsend]

I understood that the E-mc squared somehow precluded anything exceeding light speeds.  The second equation modified this first to accommodate photons?  Are you saying that there is nothing, in fact, to preclude something exceeding light speed?  I'm holding my breath here for this answer.

[jerrygg38]

Jerry, I'm getting back to this point from your thread, only because it's relevant to this topic.

The mass of the photon is zero.  So.  If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any mass at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.

GG:
I haven't done much work on the photons. My main effort is the dot theory, gravity, the time of the universe since big bang, the red shift.
I only did the proton & neutron recently. In doing that it appeared to me that mass consists of three planes which would be photonic.

  Therefore I do not agree that a photon has zero mass.If you could spin it around a sphere like an electron it would have mass. The regular photon traveling at light speed has mass perpendicular to the direction of travel. However since the photon is traveling at light speed, the mass per unit distance is very small.
  A proton has a huge mass per unit distance because it is stationary. In a split second the photon mass is distributed over 186,000 miles. In effect it appears like zero but photons are attracted to the stars. Yet the calculation whould have to take account of the mass per unit distance rather than a point mass.

[witsend]

JerryGG38 - you've missed the point.  I'm trying to find out what principle in physics precludes superluminal speed.  Is is classical - or is it just a widely held opinion?

[jerrygg38]

Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.

But we have studied photons relentlessly. Some are spin polarized so that they spin around an axis in the direction of their travel. This spin carries angular momentum that is conserved and conveyed to any impacted particle. Experiments testing this are very well documented. Some photons are not spin polarized and move through space with little or no spin.

GG: I haven't done much thinking on the photon as related to my latest theories. Most of my prior knowledge was that photons spin. Why they have a spin of 1 rather than 1/2 is a question.
  From your knowledge do you have photons with spins of 1/2?

  If the spin is 1 or 0, then to me we have a dual photon with the positive and negative dot-waves spinning in the same or opposite directions. Therefore they can sum up or cancel spins.

  However I have no information at the moment to study.

[witsend]

Thanks Jerry - don't worry.  Maybe Vern can answer this. 

[jerrygg38]

JerryGG38 - you've missed the point.  I'm trying to find out what principle in physics precludes superluminal speed.  Is is classical - or is it just a widely held opinion?

As far as I am concerned I believe in the multi-lightspeed universe. Therefore I have coexisting universes from light speed zero up to light speed infinity. We live on a spherical surface at out light speed. As we move toward a common center the light speed is less. As we move outward the light speed moves upward toward infinity.

  As far as our light speed is concerned, there are two different solutions to the red shift from the far stars. One solution is that the light speed is constantly changing.

  Therefore there is no reason to believe that we do not interact with higher light speed photons and particles. All that we can say is that most of the stuff we interact with is at our light speed.

[Vern]

I understood that the E-mc squared somehow precluded anything exceeding light speeds.  The second equation modified this first to accommodate photons?  Are you saying that there is nothing, in fact, to preclude something exceeding light speed?  I'm holding my breath here for this answer.

According to my speculation, mass can't exceed the speed of light because it is made of light. [] E = mc² implies that the energy required to accelerate matter to light speed would be infinite. Since the equation seems to work for everything else, we find it useful.

I think that according to your speculation, matter should be limited to twice light speed.


BTW, E=mc² alone doesn't preclude matter from light speed. It is the Lorentz transformations that preclude it, and the transformations seem to work for everything else as well.

[witsend]

Many, many thanks Vern.  I'm just not sure how you got to 2c but I love it.   

[Vern]

 If the spin is 1 or 0, then to me we have a dual photon with the positive and negative dot-waves spinning in the same or opposite directions. Therefore they can sum up or cancel spins.

I think photon spin is taken as one to satisfy symmetry rules. Its spin is related to its polarization, but is different than a spin polarized photon. Spin polarization of a photon comes from the spin of its source, and it is conserved. Electron spin is measured. It shows that there are two states of an electron. This is how they get the spin 1/2. It is as if there are two sub particles spinning about a common axis at the speed of light.

Here is a physicist who describes an electron as two sub particles spinning at the speed of light.

[witsend]

Here is a physicist who describes an electron as two sub particles spinning at the speed of light. Vern

Not sure why the emphasis or the relevance?  Is'nt widely understood that an electron moves at light speed in its orbit around the nucleus?  And, equally, there are many many proposals that the electron is a composite.  Some say doublet - others triplet.  But it's not a unique concept surely?

I sort of understood that the whole wave/particle duality was based on the irreconcilability of knowing all states of any particle at any one time?

[witsend]

Sorry Jerry, I missed your post.  Well - from what you and Vern say, 2c may be acceptable. Why then is it not reasonable to propose that a magnetic field comprises these zipons?  The only thing that mitigates against is that they're not visible.  But actually, I think Sophicentaur may have inadvertently helped.  You see - my model says that energy levels comprise these zipons.  And energy levels are distinctly evident.

Then - back to the casimir effect.  If these little numbers in fact 'bind' amalgams - they would not be evident as their charge is neutral - their fields are neutral - and they would respond to other similar fields as any one magnet would respond to another. And the casimir effect has definitely been proven but on a really small scale.

Come on Vern.  You've got an encylcopaedical knowledge of these things.  Help me here.

[witsend]

Sorry I should have referenced the fact that I'm proposing that these fields are extraneous to the atom.  They are NOT the atom's energy levels.  They're introduced when amalgams form - however and wherever.

[Vern]

Not sure why the emphasis or the relevance?  Is'nt widely understood that an electron moves at light speed in its orbit around the nucleus?  And, equally, there are many many proposals that the electron is a composite.  Some say doublet - others triplet.  But it's not a unique concept surely?

The emphasis is a link. I haven't seen the triplet proposal. It is widely understood that an electron does not move at light speed. And the orbit hypothesis of the electron going around a nucleus is going out of favour. Now we think of an electron probability cloud in which an electron may be found. I suspect though that the position is more determinate.

Edit: Maybe it would be more clear if I said that contrary to popular belief, I suspect that the electron's position is more determinate.

[witsend]

 A positron?  How on earth is a positron stable?  Is it proposed to explain the fact that it would then not 'nose-dive' to the proton?  Golly Vern.  The cloud image I know.  As I understand it - it's the eternal expression between particle and wave.  Both evident but never together.

But my question?  Please answer it.  I'm on bended knees here at the back end of Africa.

By the way - I'm not married to an electron's light speed.  I don't need it.  But am entirely baffled at the thought of the positron in those energy levels.

[Vern]

The word was position. I'll add the answer to your question after a little research.

[witsend]

Sorry  [:X]

Edit (I'm slowly learning this protocol)  Regarding your proposal that the electron's POSITION is more determinate - I'd love to know what you mean.  But - on second thought - let it wait until you've worked out the possibility of my little zipons causing that casimir effect.

[Vern]

Then - back to the casimir effect.  If these little numbers in fact 'bind' amalgams - they would not be evident as their charge is neutral - their fields are neutral - and they would respond to other similar fields as any one magnet would respond to another. And the casimir effect has definitely been proven but on a really small scale.

Well; in a zippon universe that might work. []

[witsend]

Well.  Let's suppose we've got such.  I'm feeling ridiculously happy.  It's intoxicating to think that maybe, just maybe - we've got that 10 dimensional binary system.

Vern.  You're a star.

Edit ... [] [] [] [] [] []

[Vern]

Why is it that you need 10 dimensions? Why not just use the three spacial and one time dimension?

[witsend]

Vern - I have to go out.  I can't answer this as much as I'd like to.  I'll get back to you on this.  It's huge.  Can you plough through my model?  Or is it too obtuse?

But I'll get back to you.  Our time's are plus/minus 7 hours I think.  Whatever.  I'll get back to you, but probably will only manage it tomorrow evening.  I am so so grateful for your help. 

By the way the link was re-instated after I re-instated.  Not too far down this post.  I haven't got time to look it up and post it here.