Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?

  • 272 Replies
  • 110016 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #100 on: 23/02/2011 00:01:46 »
Thanks William for your encouragement...

Phractality : F=ma should work at the event horizon if the black hole keeps only the equivalent of the rest mass of a particle. Relativistic energy is mainly created by the gravitational field and is reciprocal for both the black hole and the particle and it vanishes in an almost perfect inelastic collision at the event horizon. You should start your own discussion so we can have more details about your theory. It is very interesting...

I use "m" for energy to mass equivalence, not for rest mass of the photon... Sorry for being misleading.

m in mc^2 is the generated mass by the charge rotating at the speed of light...
« Last Edit: 27/06/2016 00:28:16 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #101 on: 23/02/2011 01:18:23 »
ArkAngel,

The way "relativistic mass" was taught when I was in university (1967), was like this: If the particle has relativistic velocity in a particular reference frame, it would have its unchanged rest mass plus relativistic mass in that frame. The relativistic mass was the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy. I believe that the modern explanation is that the particle has only one mass in a given reference frame, and that is the result of applying the Lorentz transformation to the rest mass and velocity. So the modern term for mass is the sum of rest mass and relativistic mass. The term "relativistic mass" is no longer used. I am trying to use the modern terminology. Obviously, I could be wrong, since I haven't sat in a university classroom for several decades.

I don't know much about black holes, and I don't know why f = ma should work there. The point I was making is this: For a constant force acting on a given particle, the acceleration decreases because of the increased mass, and also because the force is generating additional mass. According to f = ma, the change of momentum should be dp = mdv. In fact, the change of momentum is dp = mdv + vdm. This presents no problem if you use the formula, f = dp/dt, which works for both rest mass and for photons. A photon has no rest mass because it cannot rest, but it does have both inertial and gravitational mass in Euclidean space. I am not competent at using general relativity, but those who are tend to swear that a photon has no mass...period, exclamation! To say otherwise is heresy.

I have posted a summary of my Fractal Foam Model of Universes for discussion on this forum. 
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 02:44:24 by Phractality »
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #102 on: 23/02/2011 02:11:38 »
I totally agree with you except that Einstein said that any energy momentum will produce a spacetime curvature.

Photons travel in the basic curvature of space. My event horizon is the basic curvature of space. The kinetic (relativistic) energy momentum due to the gravitational field is perpendicular to the curvature of space and it is reciprocal...

Rest mass is a scalar and relativistic mass is vectorial, that is why we should differentiate them. They both produce a gravitational field, one absolute, the other relative... But they both can be unified in a vectorial field (and their gravitational effects as a tensor).

Einstein was a real genius, he thought about it a 100 years ago, at a time where communications were mostly talking and exchange of letters!!!
« Last Edit: 25/02/2011 16:27:38 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #103 on: 23/02/2011 03:41:00 »
ArkAngel,

The confusion is over the different kinds of space. Euclidean space is not warped by gravity, and light bends around a black hole. Inside the event horizon, the light is trapped and goes around in loops. In Minkowski space-time, the path of light is the definition of a straight line. So those loops are actually straight lines in Minkowski space-time. The politically correct party line is that the warp of space-time causes gravity. I believe in the heresy that gravity plus the redefinition of a straight line is the cause of the warp.

I have to chuckle when I hear people talking about light bending because of the warp. That is a mixture of terminologies from the two types of space. In general relativity, light does not bend around a black hole. Instead, light may intersect on one side of the black hole, follow two straight lines on opposite side of the black hole and intersect again on the other side without bending. Also, the internal angles of a triangle around the black hole add up to more than 180.

I think Einstein said mass, not momentum, is responsible for the warp of space-time. I believe energy in the form of light also contributes. As I said before, light has both inertial and gravitational mass in Euclidean space. The gravity of a star bends the path of the photon with a force equal to the rate of change of the photon's momentum. For momentum to be conserved, there must be an equal and opposite force attracting the star to the photon. I also believe that the gravitational mass of a moving particle is the mass that you derive from the Lorentz transformation of the rest mass.

You should get the same result by applying the Lorentz transformation to each of the orbiting shear waves that constitute the particle. The momentum of the particle is the sum of momenta of the orbiting shear waves. From m = f/a, f = dp/dt and a = dv/dt, we get m = (dp/dt)/(dv/dt) = dp/dv. So you have to apply the Lorentz transformation to the momentum, p, for the increment, dv. And that should demonstrate that the momentum of the particle is the sum of momenta of the orbiting shear waves. The math is complicated by the fact that the orbits precess. I am somewhat daunted by the math; we can't all be experts at everything, you know.

I don't quite get your meaning about relativistic mass being a vector. As for inertial mass, I suppose you mean that a force applied to a particle in a given reference frame will produce different amounts of acceleration depending on the angle between the force vector and the velocity vector. However, I was under the impression that "force" is not in the lexicon of general relativity. I don't know what force is in Minkowski space-time.

As for gravitational mass, I suppose you mean that a moving particle's gravity field is not spherically symmetrical. That is plausible to me when I think of the gravity field as having substance; it should be affected by length contraction and time dilation. However, I am not convinced that relativity can be applied that way to a gravity field. I believe all the forces propagate at a finite speed, namely the speed of dark energy pressure waves, which are at least 20 billion times faster than light. That being so, there must be a preferred reference frame in which gravity fields are spherically symmetrical, and in other reference frames, the Lorentz transformations apply. (But I am overstepping the bounds of my understanding, here. In other words, I am speculating wildly.)

I have fixed some of my links. I was putting the url in quotes, as required on a different forum.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #104 on: 23/02/2011 04:13:28 »
Now i understand your claims. If you read entirely my theory you will see that i considered that light for itself travels in a straight line. The way you see it is of a relative importance, what is the most important is the consistency regarding experience. If photons are the true elementary energy quantum, it means Minkowski spacetime is more fundamental. But i try to separate time from space just to get a better view of it. Space and time are certainly "entangled" but do they have the same origin? I don't know... probably...

In my theory, everything is made of photons and photon's rotation forms particles and generates gravity. The only model it can logically produce for a black hole is a ring, if light always goes at the speed of light... Light always traveling at the speed of light is the main consistent experience for my theory...
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 13:19:55 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #105 on: 23/02/2011 05:07:44 »
How can we work together on a Tower to Heaven with me speaking Babylonian and you speaking Egyptian? I am modeling a particle as an pair of shear waves orbiting in tight circles, and for you, those same shear waves are following straight lines inside a sort of black hole. When space-time is warped to that extreme, how can there be a transformation formula to reconcile it with Euclidean space?

I shall try to look thru your eyes. It is difficult for me to envision an infinitely long straight line being confined inside the radius of an electron. Besides, the warp of Minkowski space-time is supposed to explain gravity, not the strong force. (Actually, I think it is another force stronger than the strong force; maybe it is the Higgs force. But for now, let's just say "strong force".) If the strong force causes shear waves to orbit in such a small space, then the warp must have more causes than just gravity. Perhaps a particle could be described as a tiny black hole. With the strong force warping space-time, it shouldn't take that much mass to form a black hole. Are we still talking about Minkowski space-time? I don't think Minkowski envisioned any force other than gravity associated with the warp of space-time.

I don't want to give the impression that Minkowski space-time is any less valid than Euclidean space. I think both are legitimate, and each has its uses. Einstein's GR formulas are written for Minkowski space-time, so they are not valid for Euclidean space. I believe it is possible to solve GR problems in Euclidean space by means of numerical analysis, applying the transformations of SR to small enough increments of space and time. The two approaches will not yield the same numbers, but they should agree on such things as whether two objects will collide or not. I'm no expert, but I suspect the numerical approach would require several orders of magnitude more computer time than Einstein's approach. The advantage of Euclidean space is that it paints a more intuitive picture of the underlying causes of forces and particles. My model would be incomprehensible in Minkowski space-time.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #106 on: 23/02/2011 06:00:20 »
I don't say that gravity is the same as the strong force. I just say that gravity and electromagnetism are generated by the electric charges, though they are not the same. As for the strong force, i just say there is a possibility that it is purely magnetic. After all, all elementary particles having a nuclear field are supposed to have been created shortly after the BingBang. The energy density was so high that gravity was at that time an important factor.

I will read your theory more carefully and comment it later.

look for "magnetar" it might interest you.

And about Einstein saying that any energy momentum will produce a spacetime curvature, i heard it from Einstein himself on an audio file somewhere on this forum. He does not say that all energy momentum is in the curvature (for example, a simple photon or an exchange of nuclear energy for nucleons).

I must add that if you look at time as the bearer of gravity information and time is localized for a particle, Euclidean space might be the best solution but i need to think about it seriously... But it does not change my equations.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 08:16:01 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 21
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #107 on: 25/02/2011 14:42:39 »
What I really like about this theory is that it seems to explain many things, although Im not smart enought to follow it all it looks really interesting. Do you think there is any way to test this theory in the future by some experiment?

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #108 on: 25/02/2011 16:10:47 »
see this:

1- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/nature07245.html

More explanations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.1105v1.pdf

look page 6, right column: "Upper limits upon Ra/D are found directly via the radio
VLBI observations collected in Table 1. These are
shown in Fig. 5, with their 3–σ upper bounds (again
denoted by the hatched regions) together with the combined
infrared limit. The recent 1.3mm detection is the
strongest, and excludes Ra/D > 27 μas at the 3–σ level."

My prediction is half Schwarzchild radius ~26 μas

page 7, right column: "As a consequence, we
cannot yet say that Sgr A* is described by a GR black
hole despite being able to conclude that a horizon must
exist."

2- Would a ring shape be more fitted???!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40097454/ns/technology_and_science-space/

http://www.astronomy.com/News-Observing/News/2010/01/Peering%20into%20the%20heart%20of%20darkness.aspx

« Last Edit: 25/02/2011 16:28:22 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #109 on: 25/02/2011 22:13:10 »
ArkAngel,

Your arxiv link illustrates a problem with Minkowski space-time, namely the impossibility of illustrating it in terms that the human mind can comprehend. The light-ray diagram, Fig 1, shows curved paths for photons. Evidently, this figure is drawn in Euclidean space, or something like it, because light does not bend in Minkowski space-time. I suspect that discussions of the shape of a black hole are describing its shape in Euclidean space, or something like it. If you are talking about mapping the warp of space-time in space-time, that is a different matter, and one which does not compute in ordinary human minds, at least not in mine.

To me, this is another Tower of Babel. Even the Babylonians don't speak Babylonian all the time. They're speaking Babylyptian without knowing where one language gives way to the other.

To change the subject slightly, my understanding is that Minkowski assumed only gravity can bend the path of light in Euclidean space. What if other forces can do so? What if the effect is many orders of magnitude stronger than that of gravity? We know that light is not bent by a strong electric field in a vacuum, at least not so we can detect it, but the effect on electric charges is about 44 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. 

If the path of light is the definition of a straight line in Minkowski space-time, and if the strong force can bend the path of light in Euclidean space, then space-time should be warped to a far greater extent in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus. A proton could be a kind of black hole, with photons trapped inside, not by gravity but by the strong force. Those photons could be moving at the speed of light in an infinitely long straight line inside the proton. Seen in Euclidean space, that same photon is orbiting in tight precessing circles.

As I explained in my first response to this topic, below, we should make a distinction between photons, which obey the formula, E = hc/λ, and the orbiting ethereal shear waves that constitute fundamental particles. What is the difference? If you modify general relativity to account for the stronger warp of space-time inside a particle, then perhaps length contraction makes the photon fit is a tighter space. But then, why wouldn't relativity also increase the mass-energy of the photon by the same proportion? I'm just thinking out loud; I don't pretend to know the answers.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #110 on: 25/02/2011 23:20:58 »
Regarding your last question, it does increase the mass. This explain Einstein 's Equivalence Principle... The mass increase is useful and real in a particles collider like the LHC. And it generates gravity, a relativistic one... Meaning it depends on the observer's referential frame.

A proton is smaller and has more mass than an electron.

A photon, as an electromagnetic quantum and unlike particles, has no mass and has a constant speed. It has no timerate but a frequency. Only its frequency is affected by the referential clock of the observer.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2011 21:03:34 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #111 on: 26/02/2011 02:53:52 »
Regarding your last question, it does increase the mass. This explain Einstein 's Equivalence Principle... The mass increase is useful and real in a particles collider like the LHC. And it generates gravity, a relativistic one... Meaning it depends on the observer's referential frame.

Combining the formulas E = hc/λ and E = mc, you get mc = hc/λ, so m = h/cλ, and λ = mc/h. Applying that last formula to the mass of an electron yields a wavelength about 1000th of the classical radius of the electron.

I'm trying to imagine a pair of photons having a total energy equivalent to 1/1000th of the rest mass of an electron. Somehow, as they near one another, traveling in opposite directions, a mysterious force (perhaps the strong force) pulls them into a potential well so deep that they end up orbiting with a mass-energy at least 1000 times greater than what they started out with. At the same time, length contraction shortens their wavelength to fit inside an electron. (That figure of 1000 comes from the classical radius of the electron. Other estimates of the electrons size are 10,000,000 times smaller; some even think the electron is a dimensionless point.)

So the photons would still be photons, still matching the formula E = hc/λ to a hypothetical nano-observer inside the potential well, but 1000 times more energetic (massive) to an observer outside of the the potential well. I'm talking about a potential well produced, not by gravity or electrostatic potential, but by the potential of whatever force causes the photons to orbit one another. It might be the strong force or the Higgs force.

Quote
A proton is smaller and has more mass than an electron.

Correct. The proton's charge radius is 0.877 fm. There is much more uncertainty over the size of an electron; some claim it is a dimensionless point; some claim to have established an upper limit of 10^-22 m; the electron's classical radius is 2.818 fm. Accepting the largest electron size, the proton is still about 3 times larger in radius. With nearly 2000 times as much mass, the proton's size is much closer to a match for the equivalent wavelength of a photon with the same mass-energy.

However, it is doubtful if a proton is a fundamental particle. For all we know, the quarks may be thousands of times smaller than electrons, and orbiting each other to fill the size of the proton.

I am still thinking in terms of Euclidean space. If gravity is not the only force that can bend the path of a photon in Euclidean space, and if the path of a photon remains as the definition of a straight line in Minkowski space-time, then gravity is not the only cause of the warp of space-time. A force that makes photons orbit one another inside an electron has to be many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity; so it must warp space-time enough to create black holes with the size and mass of electrons. Perhaps this can be the unifying principle to marry GR with quantum physics.
________________________________________________

Getting back to your insistence that photons are fundamental and their straight-line paths are the best description of space:

In a way, you are right. Shapes of small physical objects, seen by local observers, don't change in Minkowski space-time (so long as the size is small enough to avoid tidal stress). In Euclidean space, the curved path of light may alter the shape of the object. The effect is extremely small, except in extreme environments, like the event horizon of a black hole or inside the nucleus of an atom. Perhaps Minkowski space-time is best for describing particle systems larger than atoms. I still think Euclidean space is best for describing a fundamental particle. There is a gray area in between those scales.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #112 on: 26/02/2011 06:52:56 »
Phractality, please start other discussions because you're diluting the comprehension of my theory.

The size of particles from my equations are right as far as the last experiments on the subject. The size of an electron is quite large and well known for quite a while... It is not an accurate value, though.

You haven't read my theory from the beginning. A photon is an electromagnetic wave with an electromagnetic energy momentum associated. Its total charge is zero but it is truly made of a half charge + and a half charge -. Due to the speed of light and Heisenberg Principle, the charges appear to be zero. When two photons occupy the same space, they may change into gravitational lightwaves in certain circumstances, explained earlier. The charges become static and their momentum are changed into gravitational lightwaves. So gravity is generated by the charges. Black holes will not appear so easily, in fact, according to my theory, the LHC will never produce them because it cannot produce enough relativistic energy. The only possibility comes from Dark Matter, simply because i don't have enough info to make a well defined model of it...

If you want to understand my theory you have to read it all, including most of the hyperlinks. Everything works fine, though i have a better description of what can be verified in a matter of a few years. I don't want to go too far. I can even explain Heisenberg Principle (later)... In fact, my model is underlying quantum physics. For practical reasons, physicists have developed probabilistic models around experiments and the uncertainty principle. But, they went too far in this direction, in my opinion. Physics needs desperately a new perspective...
« Last Edit: 07/03/2011 05:22:18 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #113 on: 27/02/2011 20:16:58 »
My model ain't that different from yours. We should help each other out, instead of arguing over whose model is right. Discussing your model has helped me to refine my own.

The momentum of a photon is p = E/c = h/λ. The energy of a photon is E = hc/λ = mc, where m is the mass of the photon in Euclidean space. A photon has no mass in general relativity, but it does have both inertial and gravitational mass in Euclidean space. So the mass of a photon in Euclidean space is m = E/c = h/λc.

Newton's law of universal gravitation applies to all masses, including that of photons. f = G(m₂m₂/r). You can't use the formula f = ma at relativistic speeds, or at the speed of light; instead, you must use f = dp/dt; i.e. force is the time rate of change of momentum. As a photon passes near a star, its direction changes in Euclidean space, and a change of direction is a change of momentum. To conserve momentum, the star's momenum much change by an equal and opposite amount. This proves that a photon has gravitational mass in Euclidean space. In Minkowski space-time, however, the direction of the photon's momentum does not change because it follows a straight line (by Minkowski's definition of a straight line). This is why it is said that a photon has no mass. If you ask them about Euclidean space, they'll tell you that Euclidean space does not exist in a gravity field. That's a lie!

Now, I've laid the foundation of my argument to refute one of your claims. Stop talking about "energy momentum of photons". A photon has energy, and it has momentum; an increase in one is an increase in the other. 

Gravity is proportional to mass, not momentum. You don't see momentum in the universal law of gravitation, do you? Momentum is a vector, so momenta in opposite directions cancel. The gravity of masses moving in opposite directions does not cancel; it increases in proportion to the kinetic energy. Angular momentum isn't in the gravitation formula, ether. Spinning increases mass in proportion to the spin energy, not the angular momentum.

If a photon could spin fast enough to "catch its tail", it would keep its energy and lose its momentum. Something very similar happens in my model. A particle is a pair of photons orbiting one another; their momenta are equal and opposite, so the momentum of a particle at rest is zero, even though the individual photons still have their momenta.

Do you have an explanation for what causes a photon to spin and catch its tail. Can you relate the cause to the Higgs field?

Also, it should be obvious that a photon cannot spin or orbit in Minkowski space-time, since it must follow a straight line, by definition. So a particle in your model or mine would translate to a tiny black hole in Minkowski space-time. Such a black hole would be a warp of space-time not related to gravity. Anything that bends the path of light in Euclidean space contributes to the warp of space-time. Einstein's GR assumes that only gravity can bend the path of light in Euclidean space. I believe the Higgs field can do so, and the effect is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
« Last Edit: 27/02/2011 20:30:42 by Phractality »
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #114 on: 05/03/2011 22:21:00 »
I don't want to conclude anything about spacetime. Would it be Euclidean or Minkowski's or something else, it should be, at best, the conclusion of a unified theory. It is better to let your mind opened. Definitely, space, time and photons are all we have...

I don't want to argue about definitions, it is futile.

The problem with the Higgs field is that there is a specific particle (Higgs boson) associated to it. You can't dissociate rest mass and particles, this would lead to photons. Though, some might argue that a boson is a photon in transition, it still cannot be dissociated.

For the rest, you did not understand me. I am not clear enough, obviously. Don't forget that gravity is caused by elementary charges from a fifth dimension. The charges generate a constant gravitational lightwave angular momentum of h/2π. Their relative oscillating frequency is their relative energy and determines their spacetime dimensions: Space by the radius of particles and time by their mass...

Please... Please, start a new discussion if you want to discuss with me. Most of your questions are already answered or are just misleading. I don't say you are wrong, i just say, i am going north and you are describing south. Everything should be explained at a specific time and space to be well understood.

« Last Edit: 07/03/2011 23:14:08 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #115 on: 07/03/2011 23:13:27 »
G*Mp^2/C = Mp*C*Lp = h/2π

This is certainly not a coincidence, in fact, it is just a more basic information about the origin of the elementary angular momentum quantum h/2π.

 
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/Bohr_Atom/Bohr_Atom.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

This is a proof that matter is made of photons!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: 07/03/2011 23:16:24 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #116 on: 08/03/2011 00:28:28 »
You don't have to convince me that matter is made of photons. You're preaching to the choir on that matter.

Mp & Lp are defined in terms of h. The surprise is that they bear a peculiar relation to G. I'm curious about the precision of this relationship. If it is better than 5 decimal places, then it is probably not coincidence. If it is 12 decimal places, then it is definitely not coincidence.

I'm struggling to understand the physical meaning of your equations. Could you write a descriptive paragraph or two describing what they mean in knuckle-head terms.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2011 01:00:50 by Phractality »
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #117 on: 08/03/2011 03:56:09 »
It is precise enough to be considered as not being a coincidence. Experimental values of accuracy are always smaller than in reality.

GMp^2 is like e^2/(4πξ0) and it is produced by the charge, the same way the electric field is. But, unlike the electric field, it does not create directly a gravitational field but it generates a gravitational lightwave (or as you see it, a shearwave) having a constant angular momentum of h/2π. The frequency of the two oscillating half charges in a photon determine the mass and radius differentials when interacting with particles or when involved in a creation of particles (2 particles, matter and antimatter particles, which mean that 2 photons, minimally, are needed).

Kaluza and Klein viewed the charge as being in a fifth dimension, having an interaction with other four dimensions of a fixed and very small dimension. They found that Maxwell equations are General Relativity's equations but with one more dimension. The problem is that the charges produce a quantized value for the angular momentum, so that the classical mathematics used could not solve it (adding terms to Maxwell equations). On the other hand, Einstein has concluded that his Gravity equation of General Relativity does not describe anything smaller than the Planck Length...

To produce a blackhole, you need an energy greater than Mp*C^2. Even if there is enough energy to produce a gravitational field stronger than the electric field, a particle will need energy from surrounding particles to collapse into a minimal blackhole of Mp. Which is not a problem inside a collapsing star. Two charges cannot occupy the same space, so it means radiation will be emitted.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2011 19:42:47 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #118 on: 08/03/2011 07:37:18 »
On second thought, there is nothing surprising at all about this; it comes directly from the definition of the Planck mass. Mp ≡ √(ħc/G).
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #119 on: 08/03/2011 09:14:11 »
or Mp = h/(C*2πLp) , but i have never seen anywhere an expression like G*Mp^2 = h*C/2π = Mp*C^2*Lp = e^2/(α*4πξ0).
« Last Edit: 08/03/2011 09:19:52 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #120 on: 29/03/2011 20:09:51 »
Errata, spin, gravitational wave and nuclear force


ERRATA:

The electron classical magnetic moment (or Bohr magneton μB) is given by

μB = I * S

Where I is the current and S the surface inside the circular current

μB = [(e * C)/2πR] * πR^2 = e * C * R/2 = e * h /(4π*me)

Where e is the electric charge
R is the rotating charge radius and is given by

R = h/(2π * me * C)

Dirac's equations involve a small relativistic correction

μe = -1.0016 * μB

Thus, we have to conclude that the charge is not in the middle of the electron but rotating at a radius R.

It implies that the charges always move at the speed of light and never stop.  But the charge has an acceleration toward the center of the particle and it does not emit Bremsstrahlung radiation. The electric charge does not change at relative speed. I still think, the charge is an interaction from a fifth dimension and its acceleration produces a gravitational wave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_magneton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung


Proton and neutron sizes

Protons and neutrons are made of 3 quarks which are necessarily lighter than protons and neutrons. The protons and neutrons sizes cannot be determine solely by their masses. The size of each quarks (if quarks are elementary particles) should be about 3 times larger than the equivalent proton or neutron sizes (calculated as an elementary particle). The true masses of quarks has never been measured and appear smaller because of their Strong binding energy. The experimentally measured sizes of particles are their electric charges rotation sizes...


Spin and gravitational wave

G*Mp^2/C = Mp*C*Lp = e^2/(α*C*4πξ0) = h/2π

Earlier, i said that the spin of an elementary particle is given by

m*C*R = h/2π

We know that the spin is a multiple integer of h/4π (or 1/2). What is wrong? I was implying that the gravitational wave has the same radius as the rotating charge and all the particle's energy mc^2 is kinetic energy. I was wrong, the gravitational wave has either,

1- half the rotational radius of the charge (the spin would be equal to 1 when the charge is in the middle of the gravitational wave and they both have the same radius only).

or

2- half the total energy mc^2 is in the kinetic spin and the other half is potential binding gravitational energy (the energy needed to generate its intrinsic spacetime).

I will go further by saying that the gravitational wave is generating spacetime and even further, the Strong Interaction is, at least, mainly, if not completely, gravitational in nature. It is not magnetic as i thought (though magnetism has certainly a relation to gravity: it is a relativistic effect).


Nuclear Force

The term G*Mp^2 seems to be the Strong Interaction

G*Mp^2 = 137 * e^2/(4πξ0)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

Here is a simple model for the purpose of understanding, only:

Two particles with a very small difference in sizes are concentric, the smaller one is in the middle of the larger particle.
Virtual particles (pi mesons?) are constantly exchanged between both particles so that their difference in radius becomes effectively 2*Lp

The gravitational attraction becomes

Fg = G*M1*M2/(2Lp)^2 = G*Mp^2/(R1+R2)^2 = 137 * e^2/(4πξ0*(R1+R2)^2)

You can verify it, it is correct.

The binding energy is given by

GMp^2/(R1+R2)

For the Nuclear Force between protons and neutrons, you can see their binding energy in the following graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg

For a concentric model of one neutron concentric to a proton (just for the purpose of understanding) the binding energy calculated is about 470 MeV... Proton and neutron energy MC^2 is about 940 MeV, which is twice the calculated binding...

N.B.: virtual particles are necessary for the standard model of the Strong and Nuclear forces too. Their cause is probably in part electromagnetic and they certainly need very specific reasons to appear. I don't really believe in spontaneous virtual particles, but i can't be sure of that. It looks like a quantum pervertion...
« Last Edit: 07/05/2011 09:01:14 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #121 on: 05/04/2011 13:31:51 »
Here is a quote from Einstein:

"This objection would be justified if the equations of gravitation were to be considered as equations of the total field. But since this is not the case, one will have to say that the field of a material particle will differ the more from a pure gravitational field the closer one comes to the location of the particle. If one had the field equations of the total field, one would be compelled to demand that the particles themselves could be represented as solutions of the complete field equations that are free of irregularities everywhere. Only then would the general theory of relativity be a complete theory."

From http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-08/6-08.htm
 

*

Offline kornbredrsqar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 22
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #122 on: 22/04/2011 20:54:18 »
WOW, there is a lot of info in this forum, and most of which is above my pay grade, but what I do comprehend of it seems to fit in with an idea I have on this subject that was posted earlier,
and after watching a short explanation of string theory it to had properties that fit in as well. If photons are dark matter then the energy they possess is dark energy, and light is waves that travel through them and each photon might be connected electromagnetically in a multidimensional gridlike structure that somehow permeates all other matter and at the same time makes up that matter. I also wounder if the fact that light waves of different wavelengths are more easily refracted then others could be why the farther away an object is the redder it appears to be. has there been any calculations or studies to disprove this idea?. To me this makes more sense than the phase shift theory, but then that would cause an uproar in the big bang comunity wouldn't it. From what I learned the whole expanding universe theory hinges on this one single peace of evidence, to me it is like hanging a 500 pound panting on a thumb tack and expecting it to hold up. Has anyone ever observed a faze shift of light on earth as an object passes by, like for instance a light on an SR-71, as this plane is capable of very high speeds, it seems like a likely candidate for recording an actual change in light frequency as it passes the point of observation.
« Last Edit: 23/04/2011 15:39:29 by kornbredrsqar »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #123 on: 24/04/2011 08:43:43 »
Dark Matter:

The studies of gravitational lensing produced by Dark Matter showed that it is localized and it does not propagate at the speed of light. It does not seem to interact with the electromagnetic field but only with gravity and maybe the weak force. It sounds pretty much like particles to me... But what is bothering me about this is that we should see the effect of it in our solar system, unless there is not much around here.

It could be heavy virtual particles forming by the interactions of very high energy photons. Their decay could feed the creation of other virtual particles and this process could continue for a while without being fed by an external agent. According to my theory, Dark Matter particles of a fixed mass energy should be easier to produce than ordinary particles because they would be made of opposite charges. The problem with the virtual particles is the quantity needed and maybe no mass produced at all... Maybe they are not so virtual... Is it possible that they have been created at the BigBang and their generating process has been sustained for so long? Instability would explain why there is not much around the solar system, due to the sun's radiation. But they could be more stable between stars, in deep space, and produced by the interactions of stars photonic radiation.

For the redshift, the classical redshift by moving light sources or particles has been proved a long time ago and the distance has no consequence.

About Dark Energy, I see 3 general possibilities:

1- It is the negative pressure of true vacuum. Spacetime has been released from confinement in this vacuum at the BigBang.

2- Dark energy is simply gravity from matter outside what we can see of the Universe. A possibility we should consider if Dark flows are real. Maybe Dark Matter?

3- It is a new Force. All attempts at a measurement of it has been unsuccessful until now. The solution does not seem to be here. But who knows?

4- The cosmological model on which dark energy is founded is wrong...
« Last Edit: 09/06/2011 09:07:57 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline kornbredrsqar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 22
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #124 on: 25/04/2011 16:27:00 »
I guess gravity is a better explanation of the forces having to due with photons rather than electromagnetic, bad choice of words I suppose,but it still seems to me that an individual photon being emitted from a source and traveling the enormous distances that they do is not logical, the immense number of them that would be required to emit light in all directions from a star for the millions of years that a star lasts does not seem possible to me, and if this is possible then there should be a measurable transfer of mass from the source to the observer or whatever serfice that is absorbing the light. This is the main reason for my theory that individual photons only moving a short distance and transferring there energy from one to the next much like sound waves that travel through air.   

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #125 on: 27/05/2011 07:46:05 »
Some people on the forum, including me, have already thought about the fifth dimension as being a grid of electric charges (having a radius of the Planck Length) in the 3D space. It sounds a little reductionist but it is not impossible. [:-\]

Here is a very good summary of classical attempts at a Unification Theory. The most interesting part for my theory is the one about Klein's theory (unification of gravity and Maxwell's equations, see section 6.3):

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2

Here is an article about the concentric rings in the Cosmic Background Radiation (R. Penrose and V.G. Gurzadyan):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf

« Last Edit: 29/05/2011 04:21:52 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #126 on: 07/06/2011 03:58:08 »
Euclidean Space and Relativity

In my opinion, we are in an Euclidean space, but as we are made of light (all matter and energy), we cannot perceive a speed higher than the speed of light. So the Newtonian Doppler shift of the frequency becomes relativistic... Timerate really slows down with acceleration and increase of gravity. The length perception contracts because of the variation of timerate and frequency. There is no black holes but there is black rings. I would bet anything on it... Mass, gravity and time are strongly related.

Spacetime is real for us, but there is a true Euclidean space. The limit of spacetime is the Planck length because gravity is caused by the electric charge having a radius of the Planck length. A charge can produce a maximum mass of Mp (the Planck mass). Beyond the Planck length, space appears Euclidean again... This is it, i nailed it...

A particle having a mass of Mp is a charge spinning on itself, it does not rotate anymore, so there is no relativity anymore...

(the charges of quarks are not 1/3 (+/-) and 2/3 (+/-) but -1 or +1, they just appear to be like this: I have a working model of the proton and the neutron, i found the muon in it, with  pions, size, confinement, magnetic moment, beta decay; the Strong force looks like a unification of electromagnetism and gravity).
« Last Edit: 16/06/2011 01:05:10 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #127 on: 08/06/2011 05:13:02 »
Here is a graph of the Relativistic (black) vs newtonian (red) doppler shifts.

The y axis is fobserver/femitter.

The x axis is relative v/c of the emitter to the observer, a positive v is toward the observer.

« Last Edit: 08/06/2011 06:57:10 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #128 on: 10/06/2011 07:10:33 »
Relative timerate is directly related to the rotation period of the charge around an elementary particle. This period is relative to each particle. The apparent timerate is real and it is regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe... This may seems farfetched but it is not...

In their own frame of reference, each type of elementary particles has the same timerate. What can regulate time? Only something with no timerate: Entanglement.

See page 4 for my entanglement explanation.

Recent experimentation: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193

Wave pilot theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #129 on: 10/06/2011 09:47:01 »
I don't find the arrow uncertain, I find it a constant, inside your own frame. The idea of conceptually defining time when comparing frames is, conceptual. The real truth is that your arrow of time never change.

And furthermore, we're all carrying our personal SpaceTime with us. Which makes it incredibly difficult to define where a 'frame of reference' starts and ends. If I expect every 'point' to be slightly different gravitationally, and then include relative motion/acceleration I now have two good reasons for that definition. So where do you think your 'frame of reference' is situated? The one I, and you too actually, expect you to have? and how do we join them?

I don't need to define a 'time dilation' to any specific 'locality', can you see what I mean? It's a relation, nothing more.
==

How about accelerations? They are all defined by one thing as I see it, or two actually.
They all have 'gravity', and they all expend 'energy'.



The arrow of time is a constant in its own frame, i agree. But what makes, for example, all electrons, with no relative movement to each other, having the same unrelativistic properties. And what about the differentiation of acceleration and deceleration like in the twins experiment, which must be true differentiation in terms of information...

You could say that it comes from a reference point, a singularity, the usual bigbang. I just don't believe in that, if you unconditioned yourself to this point of view, you will find that it is highly improbable. You should look at its history and how it came to be and think about other possibilities.

In my understanding of entanglement, it conveys instantly informations about the spins between two entangled particles. The timerate information is in the spin according to my theory, it is the rotation period of the electric charge or frequency, if you prefer (in my model, it is two halves of an electric charge).

Thanks Yor_on, it is a golden question that i needed!
« Last Edit: 16/06/2011 00:59:38 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #130 on: 10/06/2011 22:59:36 »
Ahh CPT, now you're discussing two, or, maybe more things :)

We have matter as your chair. Then we have its constituents, which are the 'particles'. The particles seems to be both loosely defined as well as being able to 'pinpoint' depending on your view. For an electron that can express itself under certain circumstances, as the same electron apparently is able to exist in two orbitals, simultaneously. That's not what we expect of our chairs.

Then there is the definition of a charge.

Do you define a charge to a photon? If you do you better know that there have been no experiments I know of defining such a thing. The only idea existing, as far as I know, is the theoretical definitions of its limits, if it would exist.

And yes, you can see a entanglement the way you do, as a form of 'information' but information imply a communication, and all 'useful' communications known takes time. The other variant is to define it as those two particles in a way is the exact same. Just like the idea of a wave plastered out through SpaceTime. Some call them 'clones', but the principle defines as you say something 'instant'.

"The apparent timerate is real and it is regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe"

I've been wondering about that one too, if all photons to some degree could be defined as entangled. Although you lose me when defining the 'timerate' as regulated? We're talking entanglements I presume, and then you can not have any 'useful' information.

How do you think there?
==

Another thing worth thinking of. In a entanglement the particle(s) defined always will have a opposite 'spin'. If they are the 'same', why does this differ?

A symmetry?

Keep it on CPT. All ideas change with reflection, but the longer you think of it the simpler it should be. If you find yourself going the other way, finding it to becoming increasingly complicated, then it's time to draw back to test the assumptions.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2011 13:11:06 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #131 on: 14/06/2011 01:09:46 »
There can be 2 electrons with opposite spins on the same orbital, they are not on top of each other, they just orbit on opposite sides of the nucleus.

Far from an electron, it is perceived as a point particle, but its gravitational and electromagnetic fields comes from a ring shape. The charge appears smeared around its rotation, because it has a velocity of c in its own frame. I see a particle as being a strong entanglement of halves of photons. With MRC = h/2π and E=hν, it forms the uncertainty principle.

In the same way, a photon is made of two halves of a charge (to account for a possibility of dark matter made of +1/2 -1/2) of +1/2 and -1/2. The charge is smeared and it produces an effective charge of zero.

All energy of the universe is made of one wave of light in an Euclidean 3d space. Particles and photons are the strong entanglement relations and entanglement between particles and photons is the weak one. A part of the weak entanglement regulates time (and gravity) by relativity. You can see it like a coil spring between two entangled particles, but you must replace space dimension x by the velocity v component dx/dt (Δx -> Δv). Vectors of acceleration and gravity corresponding to true inertial force between two particles are stored in the entanglement.

Some information travels at the speed of light, some are instantaneous but are limited between the two entangled particles.

According to what i have read, some researchers are trying to experiment with multiple levels of entanglement, they want to reach a higher than 50% certainty on the switch of the spin. An up spin changes by 90 to 270 degrees, making it a down spin with 50% of uncertainty...

An excellent explanation of some properties of the spin that gives a good idea of how it works:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html


About Relativity and Minkowski spacetime:
According to Einstein Theory of Relativity, our four main dimensions should be indivisible spacetime. Simultaneity is relative to the observer and there is no possible true simultaneous related events, because nothing can have a velocity greater than the speed of light. In this model, relativity is explained by the properties of spacetime itself. The problem is that it does not allow simultaneity and non locality. This is why Einstein disliked so much the idea of entanglement.

http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTheory/OtherRelativity.doc
« Last Edit: 24/06/2011 11:24:57 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #132 on: 16/06/2011 14:39:57 »
Evidence of a ring black hole...?


http://journalofcosmology.com/SchildLeiter1.pdf

If you look at figure 7 page 39, the yellow dotted lines look much like the gravity equipotentials of my ring black hole. The black ring is somewhere between the center and the white color ring.

The size of the ring seems to agree with their conclusion, Rg is about half the Schwarzschild radius (see page 4 of my theory for my description of a black ring).

About MECO: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0602/0602453v1.pdf

Here is dipole measurements in the CMB radiation map (courtesy of yor_on :):
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

Anomalies in the spin of galaxies:
http://128.84.158.119/abs/1104.2815
« Last Edit: 28/06/2011 02:40:14 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #133 on: 28/06/2011 03:15:02 »
It is now clear for me, that there is no true Spacetime as Einstein conceptualized it. There is only one giant wave of light (or many) in a Euclidean space (Phractality was right about Euclidean space).

The laws of Entanglement and the laws of General and Special Relativity come from properties of the lightwave as a whole, "propagating" through 3D space.

Spacetime is only apparent, there is no true curvature of spacetime, but there is curvature of light in space. The lower limit of apparent Spacetime is the rest mass and the higher limit is the Planck mass. The ultimate proof lays on the present and future observations of black holes.

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html (another gem discovered on the net by Yor_on)
The most interesting paragraph is "Objections", a must read!!!

A little secret:
The strong force is what maintain the two half charges in an elementary particle. The two half charges are the virtual particles needed (they are inside h/2π) and they are bound by GMp^2/(2R)^2, energy = MC^2 = MC^2/2 + GMp^2/2R (kinetic + Strong potential) where MCR = h/2π. Remember, the charge has no mass, no inertia, but it creates it by rotating. All dimensions except space dimensions expand from the charges...

Why photons have no timerate and no apparent charge:
Photons can be viewed as a dipole of one -1/2 and one +1/2 charges, rotating at the speed of light and propagating at the speed of light. In analogy to a wheel, the distance it covers in a one rotation period is equal to its circumference without any shearing (in a particle's rest frame). Thus, you can replace the time dimension by a fourth space dimension for photons. For an elementary particle having a mass, there is a shearing of the wheel and you need something linking mass and space: this is Time... Here ends the analogy of a shearing wheel because it is not shearing in any medium other than its own, it is just rotating at the speed of light in its rest frame, which is not the case for a photon (no rest frame). And you can't measure the charges of something propagating with no timerate...

Viewed in this way, there is only a small difference between photons and neutrinos...



« Last Edit: 01/11/2011 22:03:24 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #134 on: 20/07/2011 21:24:49 »
In very short, the HUP (uncertainty principle) is caused by:

A- Entanglement between all elementary particles of the universe (1st level=50%, 2nd=25%, 3rd=12.5%, ...); There is a 0 level or ground state of entanglement for the particle itself but it is a special case for later.
 +
B- the electric charge is equally the mass charge, it always propagates at the speed of light;
 +
C- an elementary particles possess an angular momentum of h/2π and a spin of 1/2.

The whole universe is totally causal excepted, probably, living entities, naturally... This would be the cause of evolution, or rather i should say: this is a process that enables evolution...

Elementary particle
An elementary particle (EP) with mass has a spin of 1/2, it has an annihilating antiparticle with perfect geometrical symmetry (circular and spherical for EP) and opposite electric charge (not mass, same mass). The photon is the ultimate elementary particle, but i don't use the term elementary particle for it anymore.

The charge always propagating at the speed of light solves so many problems that it may be the best solution. No experiment deny it, in the contrary, it is the best bet, it is simply an ultra basic property, even more than relativity. In my model, you have space and charges, that's all! All dimensions but Euclidean space are in the charge... The wave of energy is an expansion of some of the charge's dimensions. (note: fractal and superfluid links)

There is many circumstantial proofs that the charge rotates at the speed of light.

My first assumption is that everything is made of light and particles are made out of photons. The end of all decays is the photon. My second assumption is that there is a deterministic model underlying the probabilistic interpretation of QM, at least for the dimensions of the purely "material" world.

The magnetic moment of the electron using the compton wavelength indicates a rotation size in agreement with many experiments. Meaning the charge has a speed of C.

The Compton wavelength is used in the QM wave models of massive particles.

The spin has fixed values that represent an inertial angular momentum with a probability distribution for its direction. If you look at it in a relativistic point of view, what can possibly produce a fixed (quantized) inertial angular momentum? Something propagating at the speed of light with no mass, no inertia (superfluid?)... The charge...

Gravity is like an only attractive DC component of the electromagnetic field. AC and DC unified form the Strong Force, which is not a field but the binding of subatomic particles. It is a conclusion, not an assumption... (you can still see it as a one dimensional circular field!)

I have made an extensive research on the net.
If you look only at the basic verified properties of particles, discarding the purely theoretical, and you forget the artificial separations of the standard model due to the lack of knowledge about the Strong Force, you find that the elementary massive particles are all a rotating charge with a spin of 1/2. Electron, muon, Tau, quarks and neutrinos. Bosons are a special case because my theory denies the Higgs. Of what i understand, if there is no Higgs, the actual models of W and Z bosons are not correct.

N.B.: for neutrinos, we must differentiate the inertial spin from the electromagnetic spin due to its neutral electric charge...
« Last Edit: 09/09/2011 07:39:03 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #135 on: 26/07/2011 22:42:45 »
A good news : "Was the universe born spinning?"

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

another one? : No time travel possible?

http://www.inquisitr.com/129162/hong-kong-research-proves-time-travel-impossible/

Even if i did not say it explicitly, mass and time is the circular motion of the charges, so implicitly, there is no negative time and no negative mass, not as far as my theory goes...

« Last Edit: 02/08/2011 02:25:06 by CPT ArkAngel »


*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #137 on: 02/08/2011 09:38:41 »
CPT - dunno if you can read the actual nature article; but the techniques involved in the measurement are stunning.  I presume this is just inertial mass and no necessarily gravitational mass that has been measured.  Personally I think the chances of a variation between gravitational and inertial mass - even for antimatter - are very slight (ie reulsive gravity between matter and antimatter).  I would be fairly happy if I was you and your theory predicts no negtive mass
Theres no sense in being precise when you dont even know what youre talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #138 on: 02/08/2011 18:33:24 »
I understand that they have measured the mass-energy of the antiproton. It is true that it is not an absolute proof of positive gravitational mass but it is nonetheless a good circumstantial proof of it.

I am amazed to find so many great experimenters in Physics...


About Dark Matter, now i tend to think it could be simply stopped neutrinos between stars. Supernovae produce mostly neutrinos!!! What if there is no true expansion of space, spacetime expansion could be included in the kinetic expansion, no faster than light. How old is the Universe then? The major problem is that time is relative...  How can there be so much energy in neutrinos form? They are produced by supernovae, stars and probably matter near black holes. Dark Energy could simply be kinetic energy: there is no acceleration (no acceleration has really been measured yet), the bigbang could be a real explosion of a black ring in Euclidean space, so farther the objects are from the central point, the more kinetic energy they possess... Space is not spherical, we will never see the same object from two opposite sides of the Universe. The Universe is at least 26 billion years old at our actual timerate, not 13.5 billion years. We see the edge of the Universe in the past at 13 billion ly, assuming a constant velocity, this means the edge is now at 26 billion ly from us.

Spacetime creation and conformal coordinates expansion is not the fruit of Relativity but the fruit of the Theory of the creation of matter and spacetime from nothing...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13792-cosmic-time-warp-revealed-in-slowmotion-supernovae.html
This article talks about the proof of the expansion of space, but in fact, it's just a proof of larger redshifts related to higher relative velocities according to Special Relativity and time dilation ...

http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/ps/unified_force.pdf

Hints from the past: The largest black holes in the Universe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW7BvabYnn8

My black ring model is based on Kaluza-Klein Tower Equation:
http://everything.explained.at/Kaluza%e2%80%93Klein_theory/
« Last Edit: 09/08/2011 11:06:20 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #139 on: 05/08/2011 09:22:28 »
Not convinced yet? Watch this!

Through the Wormhole: Are There More Than Three Dimensions?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-there-more-than-three-dimensions/

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #140 on: 09/08/2011 11:31:48 »
See this articles and related articles
http://physics.about.com/b/2010/04/22/could-quasars-disprove-time-dilation.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/553/2/L97/fulltext

The redshifts observed of visible matter around Quasars are standard relativistic redshifts. But the regular timing of the variations in intensity observed must be related directly to the black rings. The black ring (black hole) being the upper limit of relativity at Lp and Mp, it explains its absolute property of time dilation.

My theory is the only viable solution... simply because there is no other...!!! And i did not have to change it to solve the problem...
« Last Edit: 13/08/2011 22:06:26 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #141 on: 18/08/2011 17:03:47 »
Though i am not sure about space expansion due to a lack of information on the big picture of the universe and a good explanation of the CMB, i am convinced that matter is made entirely of light. Everything inside the HUP is smeared and unmeasurable in space, time and energy. A photon is entirely inside HUP, having an electromagnetic origin, it must possess charges or it must travel through a grid of charges.

I am reluctant to reveal my next conclusion because many of you, specially those who haven't taken much time to think about my theory, will see it as a religious conclusion, which is not. It is a logical conclusion... Here it is:

Matter is made of light. Light does not exist in time. We perceive time. Conclusion: consciousness is outside matter (or light). Thus consciousness is from other dimensions than the dimensions of simple matter. There is a possibility that "near death experiences" are true... I just hope i won't regret to have written it down...  [:o)] For now, take it as a grain of salt...
« Last Edit: 26/10/2011 10:49:16 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #142 on: 30/08/2011 20:47:03 »
The fact is that the Strong Force is the electromagnetic and gravitational forces united (including the weak force). There is no proof for a fifth force, though there is a possibility according to the Dark energy theories.

The Strong Force unifies all forces into a black ring. If there is conservation of information, it is the lowest form of entropy.

Half or more of the Strong energy after a bigbang is transformed in part to other forms of energy: electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and kinetic. Kinetic and gravitational energy are relativistic. It is the gravitational link to mass that makes the kinetic energy being relativistic. You must see objects as a whole...

The only way to go faster than light is to be completely disentangled with the rest of the universe. But is it possible?

About Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB), it is probably only thermal radiation absorbed and emitted back and forth between massive particles in the universe, we just see it from the past. Its origin is still the bigbang.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2011 10:32:33 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #143 on: 31/08/2011 22:46:50 »
Very interesting properties about GR and SR from GPS clocks measurements:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

It means the Earth was mainly liquid at its formation and the resulting shape produces a flat timerate everywhere on it at sea level. Certainly not a coincidence. Now, the Earth has cooled down and surrounding mass like mountains modify the timerate.

Escape velocity produce and equal amount of slow down of timerate (SR) compared to the increase in timerate at infinite distance due to gravity (GR).

For GR
T0/T = 1/(√(1-2GM/RC2)

For SR
T/T0 = 1/(√(1-V2/C2)

Vescape= √(2GM/R)

N.B.: Escape velocity means zero velocity at infinite distance...

My theory doesn't need aether, even though there is an origin (the bigbang or our bigbang is a possible absolute reference). Relativity is a property of the Wave of light (our entire "apparent" universe) with itself...
« Last Edit: 02/09/2011 10:53:07 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #144 on: 28/09/2011 14:06:02 »
Do neutrinos travel faster than light?

We know neutrinos can have velocities below the speed of light.

Why the speed of photons is constant and not for neutrinos?

They both have an average electric charge of zero but the neutrinos have a nonzero mass charge. Neutrinos have a relativistic energy coming from its mass. Thus, neutrinos can be slow down to a alt in any referential frames, depending of proper gravitational force acting on it.

But can neutrinos travel faster than photons?

Even having an average zero electric charge, the photon is still bond by electromagnetic entanglement which convey the property of the speed of light to be constant. Relativity of light's frequency is only within the mass and timerate of a massive observer. Photon's charge is truly constant to +1/2 and -1/2 = 0. The electric charge seems to be more fundamental as an electric charge than a mass charge.

Depending on the unknown proper masses of the neutrinos and possibly the fine structure constant (or coupling constant=1/137), it is possible that the minimal strength of their gravitational entanglement is lower at their creation compare to the strength of photons electromagnetic entanglement. This would allow the neutrinos to have a higher momentum and speed

According to my theory, the only possibility for neutrinos to have a speed limit beyond C implies that their electromagnetic entanglement is changed ,in this case, in an enough quantity to a weaker gravitational entanglement as a proper mass charge. The neutrino's electric charge being equal to the photon's charge, it would mean neutrinos momentum increases by being bond in part by gravity rather than entirely by electromagnetism.

Different mass generation for neutrinos than ordinary matter? I think it is rather unlikely...


« Last Edit: 29/09/2011 05:04:34 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #145 on: 10/10/2011 08:38:56 »
About curvature of light by a gravitational field and the shape of the universe.

Curvature of light by a gravitational field is due to the transversal gravitational entanglement of photons.

see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html#c4

Something important to note in this case is that the beam of light emitted by the star and received on earth is not the same as the one we would receive without the gravitational field of the sun. Thus, the light path has shortened. The rate of curvature maintains the speed of light constant locally.

This effect is produced by the pulling of all elementary particles of the sun on the photons by gravitational entanglement. Light has no mass because it does not depend on the energy of the free photon and light has no rest frame. Light has inertia in its direction of "propagation" when absorbed or reflected in a rest frame but it has no mass because of its constant velocity which is directly related to length and timerate. If gravity and light have the same velocity, photons just can't possess gravitational mass in its velocity direction! There is a kind of gravitational mass in the transverse direction though...

We observe from earth a longer path due the curvature, but locally it is straight due to the length contraction of the higher gravitational pulling nearby the sun. This is why all very massive objects in the universe are spherical (or circular in the case of a black ring).

In Euclidean space, a black ring would first expand in a donut shape, then in an ellipsoid (oblate spheroid) tending toward a sphere over time. The differential of the equatorial radius and the polar radius decrease over time. The black ring expands at the speed of light from a ring having a thickness of twice the Planck length and a diameter equal to half the Schwarzschild radius.

Light rays on a large scale are relatively straight but still length contracted in the middle of the universe and they have a higher curvature inward as they travel along the edge of the universe but certainly not enough to form a loop around the universe. It is a quite a simple explosion (expansion) in Euclidean space. In this case, a uniform expansion would produce an expansion of the ring shape only. My first proposition is an expansion with velocities proportional to the square of the distance. The universe we observe having a radius of about 14 billion Ly, the expansion could be quite linear in a first approximation in distances less than a billion Ly.

This way, it is highly possible that the expansion is due to the release of the kinetic energy of the black ring, half its total energy. The proof of that will come from observations of a non uniform and anisotropic universe.

Kinetic energy is relativistic energy without the rest mass energy (i prefer the term rest mass than invariant mass because of its reference to the rest frame).

Kinetic energy is energy which is not in a rest frame. It is energy in the form of momentum or free light (not a particle form having a rest mass). Free Light form does not exist in time. The more relativistic or kinetic energy a particle with mass possess (relative to another), the more it is in a relative free light form and the more its timerate is dilated.

About my black ring description, i said that in order to keep only the rest mass, the relativistic energy of a particle vanishes at the event horizon in an elastic collision due to the fact that it is perpendicular to the motion of the light ring. It should vanish in flashes of light... The universe being unbound, the photons loss by matter in the universe should convert mass into kinetic energy and causes a decrease in the deceleration of the expansion. Thus an expanded black ring cannot reform in its entirety in a big crunch (collapse due to gravity).

Its seems very likely that there is other black rings expanding or not outside our visible universe...

More to come!

« Last Edit: 27/06/2016 00:44:39 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #146 on: 10/10/2011 21:36:53 »
So, our point of view of the universe depends on our relative position to the center. Yes, there is a center. We are not necessarily at this center. Limited capacity of the instrumentation we use to observe the universe is limiting our capacity to observe that we are not at the center. If the universe is quite larger than our capable observations, then the most distant objects we observe in any direction will look the same in most aspects. Our perception of length and time depends on our position in the universe. If we look at an object having a recessive speed in the opposite direction to our speed relative to the central point, we will see this object farther into the past and nearer in distance than an observer at the center of the universe will (distance of the object from us).

See adding speed in special relativity on Hyperphysics website from my last hyperlink.

But now, what is the most interesting part is how entanglement enables relativity in Euclidean space. How spacetime is not needed at all? Kinetic energy is a relative free photon form of energy and it exists everywhere along its path at any time. Thus, one observer can see an object at a different place and time than another observer at an absolute instant. Two observers may have different timeline and timerate but they still share the same instant, only the relative distances between any two absolute instants are different. This is quite amazing...

Does it sound like Quantum Mechanics properties?
« Last Edit: 12/10/2011 07:04:43 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #147 on: 13/10/2011 08:00:29 »
Dark Energy

A black ring energy:

E = N*MpC2/2 + N2*GMp2/2R = N*MpC2
E = kinetic energy + strong force binding energy

Where
Mp is the Planck mass
N*Mp is the total mass of the black ring
R is half the Schwarzschild radius = N*Lp.

If the expansion is caused by the release of the kinetic energy at the bigbang and the velocity distribution is proportional to the square of the distance in Euclidean space, how much dark energy should be measured in the actual spacetime cosmological model?

In Euclidean space it is 50%.

In spacetime it is √50% = 70.7% (more explanations later)(in spacetime, acceleration is necessary, think of an inflating balloon in 2D).

It is estimated to about 75% for the moment...
« Last Edit: 13/10/2011 15:29:17 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #148 on: 13/10/2011 16:51:53 »
Casimir effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

The distance between the two parallel plates act as a wavelength cut off for kinetic pressure (in this case: thermal pressure). Theoretically speaking, if the distance between the two plates would be reduced to the Planck length, the only force left between them would be the Strong Force. But in reality, the geometry of matter and the fact that the plates are composed mostly of empty space render it much weaker for any distance.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2011 19:53:49 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #149 on: 31/10/2011 20:54:59 »
Gamma ray bursts

1- The sum of momenta of a rotating particle over a period is zero in its own frame.

2- A Black Ring (BR) is a particle.

3- Acceleration at a black ring is so strong that a particle will decay in to photons before reaching the event horizon.

4- Only the rest mass is kept turning around the BR. The BR should bite only in quanta of Mp (without it, the black ring wouldn't be stable).

5- The reciprocal kinetic energy must be emitted in the form of light (electromagnetic radiation).

6- The BR acts like a gravitational lens. The particles velocity represents reciprocal kinetic energy to the black ring's kinetic energy, due to gravity.  It's total momentum is zero. It should be ejected from the BR in opposite directions for conservation of momentum.

7- Any events synchronized at the event horizon is at a maximum possible time dilation. The local density of energy is constant for any BR at the event horizon. Its temperature is the Planck temperature divided by 2π, which is equal to Hawking-Unruh radiation temperature for a unitary BR of Mp wavelength = 2π*Lp... [:0]

http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/linearchannel.pdf

In Unruh radiation temperature equation, just replace "h/2π" by Mp*C*Lp
and acceleration "a" by C2/Lp

You get Planck Temperature divided by 2π.

In relativity, for the ring itself, curvature = acceleration = energy density = radiation temperature

It is true until the limit mass Mp and wavelength 2πLp.

For a larger BR, relativity is not a factor anymore
curvature = acceleration ≠ energy density = radiation temperature = constant.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2012 19:47:49 by CPT ArkAngel »