0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I was unclear that photons bouncing back and forth can lose energy (probably wave length) and and contribute to increasing mass withing the closed system. That is a nice piece of mince-meat pie to digest.
The electric and magnetic fields that drive the photon through space can not be symmetrical in the bend. This asymmetry presents itself as electric charge. This electric charge has an additional action that bends the path of a photon more. The amount of the additional bending of the path is equal to the original bending. The result is a bend radius of twice the amount.
Most things in nature are connected by a sequence of events that we recognize as cause and effect. For at least a century now, we have abandoned that concept in the physical sciences. We seem to have abandoned the concept of cause and effect so that we can have a wide latitude in our guesses about nature. Since we are not constrained by the need for cause and effect our guesses can be as weird as we like. Maybe it is time to question this abandonment of cause and effect. Lets review some of the basic things we know about nature and see if we might assign causes for the effects that we notice. When we do this we might get a better insight into how nature works. We might even discover that great principle that John Wheeler talked about. He said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."First lets think about Planck's Constant and how come the quantum.
Cause and effect can survive quite well without Quantum theory. However, Quantum theory can not survive if we demand that it adhere to the reality of cause and effect. So you are correct; quantum theory would not work.
So there is a critical degree of bending required for a photon to enter to positive feedback loop?
And once a photon passes this critical degree, it will either close it's path to a circular wave and become a particle, if the frequency is right, or do what exactly if the frequency is not ok??? Fly straight again and continue to exist as a photon?
The problem I'm having here is understanding in what happens to the photon when it's bent enough to enter the positive feedback phase, but does not have the right frequency to become matter...
PS: interesting would be to predict the frequency required and then test it somehow
Hi Vern,The more I read about your photon-only theory, the more you have me convinced.
Is it also possible that the photon's path, when bent from it's usual straight line path, also induces a charge? If so, then the bending of this path is responsible for the charge and has more to do with the character of space itself and less to do with the energy or matter involved in the process.
We await the great influx of wisdom that you may insert into this discussion. 
Henry Cavendish in 1784 (in an unpublished manuscript) and Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801 (published in 1804) had pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will bend around a massive object. The same value as Soldner's was calculated by Einstein in 1911 based on the equivalence principle alone. However, Einstein noted in 1915 in the process of completing general relativity, that his (and thus Soldner's) 1911-result is only half of the correct value. So Einstein was the first to calculate the correct value for light bending.
The bent path of a photon must produce electric charge.How so?
Even when I try and model both the electric and magnetic forces contributing to the positive feedback,What do you mean when you say, ''positive feedback..''? What is the feedback?
I suspect that you can not get to the photon construct within Quantum theory. A photon has no apparent charge because the electric and magnetic charges that comprise it are equally balanced. Your description does not match the vision of a photon that I see. I'm not sure whether it is because I have not communicated the vision well, or you need to modify it to fit a view you can accept.The photon I describe is not my own invention. It is the way photons were depicted before Quantum theory came along and reduced the photon to a wave function. The photon I see is the same as is described by Maxwell's equations. It is comprised of electric and magnetic amplitude potential. It is charge neutral, but comprised entirely of charge. It has zero mass, but it is mass when it is confined in a local area.I suspect that you can not get the vision unless you can somehow avoid trying to mix Quantum theory with Reality theory. Hey; that's an idea!I think I'll start calling the photon-only universe scheme Reality Theory. 
We can build Reality Theory as we go. It should incorporate as much Quantum theory as possible, but still maintain strict adherence to cause and effect. That doesn't mean we must discover the cause for every effect, it just means that we know there is a cause, we may just not know exactly what it is.As in the original photon-only universe theory, we can base Reality Theory on just two postulates:(1)Space-time is flat and non varying in the classic sense.(2)The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.When I apply cause and effect while adhering to those postulates, I get Reality Theory 
Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 13/11/2009 02:01:51To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.Could we proceed with this without assuming the need for a Big Bang? It is possible that the so-called, "Big Bang", is only an invention that attempts to explain expansion when there are other explanations for the observed red shift.
Quote from: Mr. ScientistAre you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:Forces should balance resulting in the appearance of neutral charge in a photon. When the path of the photon is bent, the balance is interrupted, the field areas can not be symmetrical in the bend, charge is the result.QuoteTo do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.We have an easy out on this one. There could have been no big bang within Reality Theory. The natural rules of nature apply, we can not suspend them to allow for a creation event.