0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"Essentially, are all forms of matter but differential types of trapped energy in the form of photons?"Since matter has mass and photons don't it follows that matter is not composed of photons.
Although 'virtual photons' don't.But then, on the other tentacle they're outside Plank scale?So?
So that 'photonic' universe may exist but I don't think so as all processes creating 'photons' starts as interactions with matter, ah, as far as I know?
First, quantum mechanics isnt incompatible with relativity. No matter or information is transmitted faster than the speed of light when a wave function collapses, even if two entangled particles are measured at events outside each others light cones.
The inflationary period is a theory. It is an absolute requirement for QM. QM requires the BB to be a soup of quasi-phantom particles because a BB of pure radiation destroys their standard model.
A photon moving through radiated fields (photon flux) of other photons must then reach its positive and negative amplitude limits taking into account the existing photon flux. Because of this each photon's point of maximum amplitude is offset toward increasing field strength of the photon flux. That is the cause of gravity. It cannot possibly be otherwise.
A photon has certainly zero mass; two photons...it depends! If they don't travel exactly in the same direction,
It kind of seems like we're tripping sideways into an alternate explanation/rendition of string theory here.
Quote from: lightarrowA photon has certainly zero mass; two photons...it depends! If they don't travel exactly in the same direction,If two electrons separated by some distance continuously pass a single photon back and forth for some period of time, doesn't that photon contribute to the mass of the system during that time?Edit: Assuming that the two electrons are considered as a system. This would be the same as a mirrored box IMHO. 
I would never presume that I might teach anything.  I am also here to learn. When I first started investigating the photon-only universe concept, my greatest surprise was that I could not find any experimental evidence that refuted the concept. The concept is so restrictive that if it is not real there should be easy-to-find evidence to show that it is not real.Just do a Google search for Photonic Universe, photon theory of everything, and combinations of that phrase and you will be rewarded with many photon-only hypothesises.As far as I can determine, the photon-only universe concept began with Maxwell. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN is the target of the link. The Square-Of-The-Shells rule is the most satisfying for me. It shows how the nuclear interactions are electromagnetic processes.
The beam collision I spoke of above is meaningless?
The inflationary period is a theory. It is an absolute requirement for QM. QM requires the BB to be a soup of quasi-phantom particles because a BB of pure radiation destroys their standard model. The proof that the BB could have been pure radiation occurred at the Standford linear accelerator in 1997. They collided two beams of radiation that turned four photons into an electron and an anti-electron. The assumption that gravity did not exist during the first stage of the BB is based on another assumption that we understand gravity. As far I know, no one knows the mechanics of how gravity works. I have an idea that explains gravity based on changing frames of reference but that would be for another thread.
But the neutrino causes problems no?
Quote from: Mr. ScientistBut the neutrino causes problems no?Yes; a particle made of a photon trapped in a repeating pattern would have an electrical charge. Only by sandwiching the shells can we make a neutral particle.I speculate that neutrinos might be spin polarized photons if they exist.
Thank you, ttn, for your criticisms of that silly elementary wave theory.Id like to throw a few things out there regarding quantum physics, though.First, quantum mechanics isnt incompatible with relativity. No matter or information is transmitted faster than the speed of light when a wave function collapses, even if two entangled particles are measured at events outside each others light cones. No particle is transmitted between the events. The system as a whole happens to be in one state or another, and as a whole is irreducible to the two separate particles. Since the outcome of a measurement is random, theres no way to influence the outcome and use it as a sort of code to send information to the other measurer. Anyway, to use better jargon, local causation is still possible in theories. Local hidden variable theories arent. Non-local hidden variable theories would violate relativity, and are extremely speculative anyway because they assert the existence of unknown properties of a particle for which we have no way to test. Quantum physics, with its random, non-deterministic results, and its relativistic with local causation version, quantum field theory, work just fine.Another thing is that classical mechanics, on the observable scale, emerges from quantum mechanics, not the other way around. Its extremely naive to try to interpret physical entities on a very small scale as being entities on the big scale but shrunk. I think this is where people have the most trouble with quantum physics. It doesnt look like what they see, so they reject it. And the difficulty with which one pictures QM probably messes up some concepts in their heads.A wave is something that propagates as a wave, can be built from sine/cosine functions, and experiences constructive/destructive interference. The fundamental particles satisfy this. They do, in fact, propagate as waves. And they come in discrete packets of energy--that is, if you have a wave of electromagnetic radiation with frequency f, you can only have E, 2E, 3E, etc. as the energy of that wave. Each packet of E in the wave is called a photon. And the packets we observe in real life tend to be localized in space--something localized in space with a set energy. Its convenient to think of it as a particle. Though I should also say that since its localized in space, its really made up of waves of multiple frequencies. But is still only a single packet/particle. So rather than have a set energy, its A a wave with one such energy, B with another energy, etc., and has those probabilities of interacting with a charged particle as though it definitely had that energy. And this is what theyre typically called: "particles".On the large scale, we observe waves that are due to the dynamics of particles. This is because the conditions needed to result in wave motion are extremely simple and general, and appear in many places throughout nature. That doesnt mean the wave motion in quantum physics is due to smaller component particles, or ropes, or disturbances in an aether, or anything of the like. For others here who are still attracted to fringe theories... ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
Quote from: Linda_olFirst, quantum mechanics isnt incompatible with relativity. No matter or information is transmitted faster than the speed of light when a wave function collapses, even if two entangled particles are measured at events outside each others light cones.There is no evidence that entangled particles assume their measured state at the time of observation. That they do is only assumed because Quantum Physics predicts it and Quantum Physics is good at predicting other things. In the real world, entangled particles assume their reality state at the time of their creation. When the state is measured (observed) we can know what that state is.
I don't see anything to challenge in your last post. The information remains with each photon in their trapped state. The trapping mechanism is the charge itself plus the power of resonance as the photon completes its entrapment pattern in one wave length.There are several different ways to view the pattern of entrapment. It seems that everyone except me sees the pattern take the shape of a toroid, twisting as it goes through the pattern. However, I have difficulty modelling the toroid while keeping the maths consistent. Even if we attribute half of the entrapment force to the magnetic plane and half to the electric, the resulting pattern is still a circle with a composite flat wise spin to form a sphere.
Vern, what are you saying here? That entanglement exist, or not?Entanglement is defined as a 'instant' connection breaking the law of lights speed in a vacuum. Alike our photons 'instant acceleration'. If it won't do that then it's no entanglement at all, and neither will it be a photon
I have seen studies where animals seem to know that they are looking at images of themselves in a mirror. I'm not sure that would be a good indicator for lower animals such as insects etc.
The mirror test is a measure of self-awareness developed by Gordon Gallup Jr. in 1970, that was based in part on observations made by Charles Darwin. While visiting a zoo, Darwin held a mirror up to an orangutan and recorded the animal's reaction, which included making a series of facial expressions. Darwin noted that the significance of these expressions was ambiguous, and could either signify that the primate was making expressions at what it perceived to be another animal, or it could be playing a sort of game with a new toy. There are nine species that pass the mirror test, including magpies and elephants but mostly primates. Most human babies do not pass the mirror test until several months of age.
Although i don't agree to the conclusions of the IBM experiment Brian Clegg alludes to by writing " By interacting the particle with one half of an entangled pair, and then putting the other half of the pair through a special process, a bit like a logic gate in a computer, it’s possible to make an identical particle at a remote location. We can only do this because the entanglement transfers the quantum information without us ever knowing what it was. In the process, the original particle loses its properties. Teleportation isn’t copying, it effectively destroys the original."That as they were using/providing information obeying speeds light in a vacuum by their manipulations of it to get their 'result'. And presuming that it is that experiment he refers to?
Essentially, are all forms of matter but differential types of trapped energy in the form of photons?It seems no accident of nature to not assume that photons are the origin of all matter, with the discovery of the antiparticle. A particle when it comes in contact with its antiparticle it can transform back into massless radiation. In fact, all types of antiparticle-particle collisons ultimately resort their intrinsic proponents back to photon energy.If all matter where to be forms of photon energy, (or trapped light), then it would mean that in the very beginning, the universe did not begin in a quark-soup of ionized particles, but rather an electromagnetic appearance of the fundamental unit of energy; in fact, a massive cloud of these particles would have been a major gravitational influence very early on in the universe, and it wouldn't be until after the inflationary phase of the universe would their gravitational influence be dilluted within the framework of spacetime. What are peoples thoughts on a photon-only universe?
I don't believe in a photonic universe (yet). If the universe once consisted only of photons, matter and anti-matter would have been created in equal quantities. This is not what we observe.
Since the energy of the proton is much higher than the electron we can assume that the protons and anti-protons would have been created first with the ensuing big annihilation.
I could have sworn that I was agreeing with your idea that the Universe started as photons. You are making the assumption that your design of the proton is correct and it could be but, to knock down the idea of someone else on the basis of your assumption seems a little unfair.
Protons are made up of three shells. Two curl around to produce a positive charge and one curls around to produce a negative charge. The ratio is two to one. So you do not have an equal chance of matter anti-matter accumulation. Such a proton could take out an anti-matter electron and keep on chugging. I suspect it is just chance that matter dominated. It would be the same if anti-matter dominated IMHO. We could still exist and wonder why matter did not dominate.