Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?

  • 272 Replies
  • 109910 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #250 on: 07/03/2015 05:16:23 »
there is no photon. light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26362.275

a matter/mass/charge has force/gravitational field, if the matter moves, the field follows. if the matter vibrates, the field follows.

if the sun has a big ejection/quake, we should be able to detect it 500 seconds later. we might even have a earthquake.

atoms, each has mass, when atoms exited, their fields exited, within that field, you feel light.


*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #251 on: 09/04/2015 02:09:52 »
Just a precision: The minimal relative energy of a photon may possibly be dynamical and not fixed, even though it still represents a real physical boundary.

Olbers’ paradox debunked:
“The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.”

It is simply not true. The brightness depends on the average density of radiation (temperature). The paradox disappears if you understand the implications of infinite space and discrete photons. If a star is far enough, you may have to wait a very long time before one of its photons hit one of your retinas.

I don’t think we will ever know if the Universe is finite or not, but I guess it is… According to my theory, the universe may be finite or not. The universe is made of discrete particles of energy, but the quantity of these particles is still undefined.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2015 23:08:41 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Spring Theory

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 29
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #252 on: 19/05/2015 14:05:43 »
You're on the right track about photons being the fundamental "particle" but you assumption that the speed of light is constant should be reconsidered.

If we are made up of photons then if their speed changes, we could not notice it or measure it since our own photons orbitals would change in cycle time also.

This is what appears to be time dilation.  Einstein just had it backwards. Time is constant. The speed of light is variable.

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #253 on: 20/05/2015 05:15:42 »
Time dilation is demonstrated in longer half lives of particles in accelerator and cosmic rays. What about GPS and other experiments? It is in agreement with Einstein's theories.

Time rate is constant locally but relative for different localities. The speed of light is only constant locally because it is defined by the speed of time. The flow of time depends on relative speed and relative gravity potentials.

In my theory, I defined a locality as being a single elementary particle. There is no structure of space. Space is the result of all interactions between particles. It is misleading to talk about specific coordinates in vacuum like an arbitrary point in space between you and the screen you are looking at right now, unless you put yourself in relation to a particle of air... There is no Euclidean or Newtonian space. The only absolute and common space is the Planck Length.

I have an unpublished article about it that I wrote a few months ago. I will transcribe it on the forum soon.
(I found the ISW effect in my theory but from a simple and different interpretation than the main one: there is no disconnection possible between particles)


 
« Last Edit: 20/05/2015 05:23:57 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #254 on: 20/05/2015 06:30:41 »
Quote from: Spring Theory
]
This is what appears to be time dilation.  Einstein just had it backwards. Time is constant. The speed of light is variable.
That's quite incorrect. Where's your proof or an argument to justify your assertion?

*

Offline Spring Theory

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 29
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #255 on: 20/05/2015 12:37:44 »
Time dilation is demonstrated in longer half lives of particles in accelerator and cosmic rays. What about GPS and other experiments? It is in agreement with Einstein's theories.

Time rate is constant locally but relative for different localities. The speed of light is only constant locally because it is defined by the speed of time. The flow of time depends on relative speed and relative gravity potentials.

I am not arguing with the time dilation effect - I agree it exists, but simply disagree with the mechanism behind it. Consider that instead of time slowing down in a gravity well, the speed of photons is reduced.  Since particles are made of photons, the particles that compose our bodies and our time measuring devices will also slow down, creating time dilation.

The time dilation effect is equivalent from either perspective. The major difference is that Spring Theory explains the nature of space time rather than making an assumption that "time slows down".

*

Offline Even2

  • First timers
  • *
  • 6
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #256 on: 22/05/2015 04:15:50 »
Hi my model of the simple universe posits that the electron or rather the electro-positron is the only basic particle.
All particles including the photon which in this case would be an expanded electro-positron are formed from this one particle.
Mass in this model is a product of both positive and negative static electric fields.
Compressing these fields increases mass, and expanding these fields decreases mass.
So a photon would be an expanded electro-positron.And when the photon is compressed in a collision it gains mass and becomes either a positive-electron or a electro-positron.

even2

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #257 on: 17/02/2016 02:41:20 »
An idea about Dark Matter

I won't talk for quite a while about a cosmological model including the ISW effect.

I want to describe the gravitational tail of particles, which is exactly the gravitational correction I have voluntarily neglected in my calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. With the recent discovery of gravitational waves, I found answers I desperately needed... And it is quite a revelation for me. It is in agreement much more than what I expected. It fills the voids... literally...

Just a last and quick thinking about the possibility of a universe made of multiple big bangs, each having a different finite value of PI fixed at a big bang... PI is related to the longitudinal mode (or dimension) which is inertia and it determines its wavelength. While Gravity is the transversal mode and has a wavelength in multiples of the Planck time without the direct relation to PI. Electric charges necessitate connections between both the longitudinal mode and the transversal mode to explain the two polarities. These connections were fixed by the value of PI at the big bang. But if there are other big bangs with different values of PI, what will happened? Invisible Matter, only perceived by its gravitational interactions.

It is a bit a spooky idea and a very long stretch, I must admit...

You might think there is a flaw in how matter may interact gravitationally with Dark Matter and produces its motion. You must know that Dark Matter would have charges of its own, where the Dark longitudinal mode is connected with gravity (the transversal common mode).

The magnetic field is a mixture of both dimensions...


« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 04:45:25 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #258 on: 18/02/2016 23:42:01 »
No sterile or Majorana neutrino

Asymmetry is the cause of the big bang expansion. It is the cause of the multiplicity of the particles. If you considered that the perfect symmetry is the number 1 and the maximum entropy is zero (0), then no two particles can be perfectly symmetrical. The interactions between particles are the leftovers of earlier forms of particles; which, on average, had a lower entropy than their products. At the Big Bang, the entropy was at its lowest point but it was not 1 (no entropy and perfect symmetry). You need a string or a tail between particles to make them interact. This string is the asymmetrical result. Together, the particles symmetry is nearer the value of one. From this, it is unlikely to have a product which is of much greater symmetry than its genitors.

My model of elementary massive particles is determined to be two concentric circular waves because it is asymmetrical and absolutely necessary to explain spacetime and interactions between particles...

You should read: "The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time" by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin
Lee Smolin's part is essential because he provides another perspective and he identifies general principles I follow without defining them. These are essential general principles to achieve a unifying theory. I agree with all of them, except maybe one.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2016 08:40:08 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #259 on: 17/04/2016 22:45:51 »
Copenhagen vs Everett, Teleportation, and ER=EPR
By Leonard Susskind

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.02589

I’ve learned a lot from Susskind. The basic concepts of entanglement and the holographic principle are those that come to my mind. I disagree on the fringes but it is normal as the fringes are ‘where people disagree’ by definition… You can find Susskind courses on entanglement on the WEB.

It seems I’m entangled with Susskind… But how?

When you discuss with someone, you become entangled with this person. The information is physically exchanged by the dynamical process of entanglement through time. This information is filtered by the brains and then stored in memory. It is a reciprocal process but time gives it a direction, at least for purely local interactions (further considerations are necessary to establish the order of the causality chain).

When you read someone writings, you become entangled with him or her. Your brains are entangled. By particles associations, you could in principle, have access to all contents, though the information is limited by the fact that the other person is entangled with his environment and that time has elapsed since the actual writing process. But the brain, obviously, has a capacity to maintain a high degree of entanglement in a selective memory using multiple particles and keeping the order. Many scientific studies show this but without explanation: This looks more like a magic trick.

Can we acquire information faster than the speed of light? The memory could be like a battery: you have to get physically entangled with someone to re-establish the link in analogy to the charge of a battery. You lose gradually your connections to a person as you and the other become entangled with other things and other people. There might be a preferential network of wormholes and/or space-time connections between all the brains on Earth due to their special abilities (your pets included). Anyway, FTL or not, information is exchanged by entanglement and the more macroscopic the information ensemble is, the greater is the multitude of entangled particles necessary to conceptualize it and to store it in memory. The level of entanglement can explain why our memory is not perfect but still very efficient...

Sometimes, it may be necessary to disconnect yourself from parts of your environment and connect to some other people to be enlightened (thinking out of the box). Thus, differences are necessary. Respect and honesty are the keys to maximize the validity of the information exchanged… I hope someday, not too far, we will all understand that it is a real physical process and no one can escape it! No one should escape it! If you don’t respect other people, don’t expect respect from others.

Fear is not respect!

The concept of success in our society is mostly related to our profound desire for freedom and the need to have an example to follow, without understanding the actual history and further consequences. In our society, money is power, power represent “freedom”.  Truth is only important if someone realizes he can make a buck out of it… We all know that truth should be more important than money because truth is the only way to fulfill one’s dreams… It is the only way to minimize uncertainty while maximizing freedom by following the best paths accordingly. This is a dynamical process that must be continuously maintained.

Just open your eyes and stop giving power to those who don’t deserve it so we can all connect our heart to our brain and continue to evolve… So it becomes true to say that truth is more important than money… Money is just paper and its value is in your head… It has more a tendency to maximize uncertainty than the other way around…

The word “honesty” and all its derivatives seem to be vanishing from many people’s vocabulary these days, often from powerful people’s vocabulary. In fact, if you are honest and speak openly of your desire for honest and opened relations within a business, political or law context, you will probably face expulsion and you will be exposed to ridicule. Those people don’t seem to understand that they are a part of the play. The concept of constant evolution is absent from their narrow mind, though from a monkey and beyond, we have evolved…

PS.: I still think that space is the result of the causality chain and that there is a preferred direction to time, simply because it is our daily experience.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2016 22:17:27 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #260 on: 24/04/2016 14:01:51 »
There are several problems with your discussion. You have curved space-time. Where did that come from? Then you have a photon. What is that? Is a photon an entity in itself or is it merely a perturbation in the gravitational field. thus it is a quanta of the light wave which interacts with matter and transforms into spherical energy (mass) and or linear energy (momentum).
   As I see it, the fundamental particles are spherical dot-waves which are positive, negative and bi-polar dot-waves. They come in three different forms of momentum. Linear, angular, and spherical. It is the spherical form which causes gravity.

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #261 on: 24/04/2016 20:04:33 »
I leave for two weeks, then I will have more time to give you more explanations. You should read all my theory and keep only the last conclusions.

About binary black holes merger:

Each black hole, being in a degenerative orbital motion, represents a dipole because my black hole model is two concentric rings separated by the Planck length bound by the strong interaction which is gravity (at the planck length). Two black holes having the same mass and merging will produce only gravitational waves (gravitational quadrupole: each black ring is a dipole). A single particle like the proton or the electron falling toward a black hole, will spiral around one side of the ring before merging with the black ring. As the mass of the ring is much higher, this produce only a dipole i.e. only one particle oscillating from the point of view of an outside observer. As gravity is suppressed only in the middle plane of the black ring, this is where two photons in opposite directions will be launched, considering that the momenta for the black hole and the particle are reciprocal. This will produce gamma ray bursts and jets when sufficient number of particles will fall in. Thus the difference in mass for a two black holes merger will produce photons. See latest FERMI possible photons detection corresponding to LIGO black hole merger observation.

This produces Dark Energy too... in the long run...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/04/all-the-light-in-the-universe-is-it-coming-from-an-exotic-unknown-source-weekend-feature.html#more

Black holes recycle the energy of expansion!

« Last Edit: 23/06/2016 12:24:30 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #262 on: 26/04/2016 02:12:25 »
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
taken partly from another of my post:

A quantum of light (a photon), may possess an infinitesimal energy and always travel at C in vacuum.
What is an an infinitesimal energy? I don't wish to be nit-picky but I'm concerned that you may not know that there are more than one definitions to this term. The context tells me that you might mean it to be extrmely small. Is that the case here?

The mathematical meaning of the term infinitesimal has a meaning only when it is applied to differentials. It cannot be used to refer to a finite quantity since it would be meaningless in that context. Please see the definition of that term at: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinitesimal.html
Quote
Infinitesimal: An infinitesimal is some quantity that is explicitly nonzero and yet smaller in absolute value than any real quantity. The understanding of infinitesimals was a major roadblock to the acceptance of calculus and its placement on a firm mathematical foundation.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory.
Where did you get that notion from? The conversion of matter into light and vice-versa is from special relativity and elementary particle physics (EPP). EPP is not the same thing as quantum theory and the conversion has little to do with waves. It's unclear to me what you mean by the term "model" here. What is it you mean by that term in this context?

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything.
That is not the case whatsoever.

Quote from: CPT ArkAngel
For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy?
It's unclear what the two have to do with each other. And the energy of a photon is frame dependent. While a photon may have an extremely small amount of energy in one frame it will have an extremely large energy in another frame which is  moving extremely fast in the direction the photon is moving.

*

Offline poiesis

  • First timers
  • *
  • 5
    • View Profile
    • Quantum Metaphysics
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #263 on: 11/05/2016 10:45:50 »
Your theory has some similar points to my theory, Quantum Metaphysics (QuMe), which states that photons do not travel at all but are more like relay stations that push out information to other particles. In this way, a photon is the medium through which information propagates. It doesn't move in spacetime but the information it sends out has a velocity as it propagates through space. A photon provides information to other photons that are near it, but there is only resistance with those types of photons that don't have its type of information. When there is no resistance, there is no result from the interaction and we can therefore say that it wasn't sent to those photons at all.

QuMe postulates light either carries information about relationships or about interactions. When it carries information about relationships we call it time (and mass). When it carries information about interactions we call it space (and velocity). When it carries both, the information appears in the form of energy.

Further, there is no real 'spin' of a photon but simply the way the information is relating to other particles.
Founder, Quantum Metaphysics (www.qmetaphysics.com)

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #264 on: 09/12/2016 21:56:38 »
ENTROPY AND THE UNIVERSE

If we postulate that the universe is finite and that there are a finite number of possibilities in the universe, it means the entropy is constant for the entire universe but it is increasing in any locality and any subset…


CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

According to my theory, there is an absolute time connecting everything in the universe. In this now, energy is conserved. That is why, energy is always conserved locally and that the speed of light is a local constant. The now is local only, for any observers or interactions. It is the connections of all localities. What we see is not what it is, but what it was! Though we live in the present, everything we perceive is in the past.

Time may be real in a block universe… Though the laws of physics may change over time, the number of possibilities must be finite if we want to keep the unitarity of the universe.


DIMENSIONS, PHOTONS AND MASSIVE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES

A photon is made of two electric charges (probably half charges), one negative and one positive. A charge is an intersection between the two dimensions of time. The two charges are connected in a one dimensional space for each of the two time dimensions.

The first dimension of time is transversal to the relative motion and is based on the Planck time. This dimension produces a contraction of space. Thus it implies a transversal separation of the Planck length between the two charges or intersections.

The second time dimension is longitudinal, meaning it is in the direction of the relative motion. It is based on the Planck time multiplied by a fixed and finite value of Pi. This dimension produces an expansion of space. Thus it implies a longitudinal separation of the Planck length multiplied by Pi between the two charges or intersections (possible error of a factor of 2).

The two transversal components rotate independently around the longitudinal spacetime axis according to the local connections to the rest of the universe (attractive and repulsive). This produces a three dimensional spacetime.

If the charges are connected in two one-dimensional spaces how do we have three dimensions of space and a four dimensional spacetime? Something is obviously missing.

For massive elementary particles like the electron and the quarks, the two charges are connected in a two dimensional longitudinal and expanded space for their transversal components which is the strong interaction between the two charges. This produces three dimensions of space and a four dimensional spacetime by their relations to the rest of the universe.

All this is local and limited by the speed of light. Only the Planck time and quantization is non local. The two charges of a particle are probably non locally correlated in the two dimensional longitudinal space to keep a quantized spin and form a ring. This ring is then correlated to all other particles of the universe in a three dimensional space.

« Last Edit: 02/01/2017 07:13:06 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #265 on: 10/12/2016 00:41:18 »
The ring is what we call a local frame. Any charge (intersection), move at the speed of light relatively to any local frame.

This is only a basic frame of the theory. A full description of the connections between the two type of charge is necessary.

« Last Edit: 10/12/2016 01:09:58 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 430
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #266 on: 10/12/2016 14:24:30 »
 CPT ArkAngel

   I have been on your path. There are some inconsistencies with your interpretations. Space being curved is a 2d explanation of a 3d process (dilation). A planet to space is also an atom to space relativity. You are missing what gives the electron motion in the first place. You are trying to give explanations in terms of the standard model and that causes a conflict in the minds of your readers. You have to realize your understanding while I agree is on the correct path needs to readjust the mindset of your audience in order to project your thoughts. And drop the metaphysical drivel. Entanglement is created at the creation of light. It is a mirror image in the spectrum not faster than the speed of light, just a trick on the standard model. You might be ready to grasp what causes the electron to move. This is ignored by main stream and the next step in the evolution of understanding.

Here is a hint: E=mc^2 Here is another form E= m*c * Space * c.  Photons are a distortion of a grid pattern of c spin that give electrons a rotation in any direction of space. The jump of the electron is the photon distortion. Fundamental energy c is the only energy. Kinetic energy is a macro mass concept only. Electron and up to the black hole which is super macro mass or an electron in a different fractal universe.

The spectrum is just different distortion patterns of the separate fundamental energy system (quantum mechanics). Quantum mechanics is the cause of relativity.

You do not create positrons and negatrons (both electrons) only the representative wave form in the spectrum.

Fusion creates electron pairs to form protons and neutrons using flow patterns in a stable positron negatron complimentary spin state of flow and creating a radiation spectrum pattern.

Fission destroys the mass back into photon spin particles also creating a radiation spectrum pattern.

So yes everything evolved from fundamental energy.
 

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #267 on: 10/12/2016 16:29:36 »
GoC, you should write your theory.

I forgot to mention something very important: The two time dimensions produce collinear spacetime coordinates for a local frame. As relative speed increase, they separate and become perpendicular at the speed of light...

(Equivalence Principle...! And electricity and magnetism...!)

« Last Edit: 11/12/2016 01:39:12 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 430
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #268 on: 10/12/2016 20:17:02 »
CPT ArkAngel,

   There are only a few of us traveling our path. You are explaining things the general way I understand them. Not exactly the same but close enough to understand your position. You do realize to many others we speak a different language. Its a stepwise process so the leap is to challenging. We appear to be on the same stairway. Our theories shut most trained minds off and the untrained minds cannot follow some of the concepts of relativity.  It becomes an exercise in futility. But I can appreciate you Alex and Nilak.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 169
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #269 on: 11/12/2016 01:58:08 »
I have some ideas about the issue, but as most of them are in correlation with the seek of a new understanding of the same relativity, I prefer to keep absorbing information of yours, and thinking about simulations...
  I do considering my recent "alternative" self-inflicted looking over photon, to understand if different from the photons being sole elementary particle, if inst backwards... If is not the spinning "only of the photon" that shares its own mechanics of light(kinetic energy) onto a single photon, infusing it with "plus" quanta and than completing another incomplete photon, into a new created electron...
   I wondering if when the electron leaves if photons, not on void but on mater, immediately with no time, infuse one or more single photons with their own quanta in order to achieve new point of reference on that atom...

 It's hard to define cause here I'm assuming that particle are but packs determinate by C of space(happening on it), and that energy is something that I still not sure about...
 I can sort of understand the behavior of matter, but the "existence" of quanta, it's origins is at best uncertain...
 I do like the concept where the smallest configuration of quanta (photon) started everything...
  I terrified by some alternatives where space is not at C, but the only C that is happening here is the one of a constant photonic attempt..  Sort of photon is not the only thing that moves and spins at C, but where surety it was the first configuration to do that, and all the other come from it...
  One assumption makes me wonder the origins of a eternal space that is at C, the other that the impossible shape/configuration of the quanta on the photon takes it up to +50% the way towards a stable particle, it develops mass and looses the mass at C, letting behind the mass, the center of the photonic attempt would be happening at C, and C would be also it's "self propagation" ahead of its just created mass on the previous frame...
 My opinion on the issue than variate between two possible frames here, one where the creation and loss of mass on the photon propagates itself at C(speed of light) or the one where the attempt stays bellow -50% of a particle configuration, so never achieving mass to be lost at all, on this case the speed seems to be simple zero, and light is adrifting on C of space... Perhaps both, do not know, do not see...

  On this case I do prefer to save assumptions, and keep following the topic to observe what it takes...

*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 430
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #270 on: 11/12/2016 16:34:23 »
     A photon of course is a propagating energy packet. Which brings up the question what is energy. In the standard model there is a point source creating a wave tail behind. We only measure the wave portion hf as the photon. This makes the point source a moot point since relativity mathematics does not allow mass to move at c. This was overcome by the claim its a virtual photon. The hf is not virtual but a real observation propagation at c. How can relativity claim mass cannot move at c while claiming a point source entity carries this energy?

   So lets concentrate on what we understand as energy. In our everyday lives we recognize energy in its kinetic form of work. This is mass level work. So we only recognize energy from mass. Relativity comes along and adds a layer to energy not considered previously but we cannot divorce ourselves from the idea of energy only coming from mass electron up. We just get started in suspecting something below the electron level and here comes the MMX. This proves correctly there is no stationary medium. Coupled with Einstein correctly saying a medium cannot have motion for relativity to be observed science closed the door on a medium. This makes things much simpler for the mind to accept. Relativity math becomes the reason for relativity with no mechanical reason needed. It becomes to difficult to find a mechanical reason so the postulates remain as the observed cause.

So we have nothing to work with for the cause. There is only one medium left to work with mechanically and at the same time create the mechanics of relativity observations. The same static uniform medium from the past spinning at c. This would allow electrons to move in the first place which is missing from the current model. To believe electrons are uncontrolled is a fiction created by the MMX. The MMX was a wonderful experiment with a terrible subjective conclusion made by scientists. We know the medium does not have velocity because the speed of light is the same in all directions. The same could be said about a spin state but there is a configuration of spin state that can cause electrons to move and photons to propagate.

Quote
The two time dimensions produce collinear spacetime coordinates for a local frame. As relative speed increase, they separate and become perpendicular at the speed of light...

I agree with this statement but in the form of grid spin states. They would have to be uniform positions and offset 90 degrees. We all understand (or not) time by our own passing through time. But relativity time is based on c spin as energy and propagation. The measure of time itself is the distance electron travels to cycle time of the electron. A frame is considered different when the distance the electron travels is more or less. Traveling through space takes energy from space by moving the electron through more space in SR. c is the total energy so the electron can only take the same distance per cycle as its rest state. The rest state is quicker because there is less space to navigate. At ~186,000 m/s ( if mass could go that fast ) the electron would quit cycling all together. And since our measure of time is based on that cyclic model we would consider time has stopped. So the speed we travel through space affects cycle time which also affects reaction time in the frame. Half the sped of light does not make your clock tick at half its rate vs. the compared rest state. This becomes a geometry based distance issue that follows relativistic observations. At 0.866 c your clock would tick at half its rate at comparative rest. I can show the Lorentz contraction in Euclidean geometry. The standard model claims you are in non Euclidean space and contraction is physical with relativistic speeds. I disagree and can show the mathematical equivalence to the Lorenz contraction in geometry. The standard model does not follow the postulate of light being independent of the source. The standard model suggests light has momentum. That is a violation of relativity by standard model design.

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #271 on: 02/01/2017 07:22:16 »
About an absolute time and its measurement

I have some subtleties to explain about the implications of an absolute reference of time.

If the universe is infinite, the necessity of an absolute time vanishes. In an infinite universe, time may be divergent and may have infinite dynamical references. The big question here is if the infinity of time alone is sufficient for this possibility to be real. There is still the possibility of fixed time references for subsets of the universe in this context, though these should not be permanent.
 
In a finite block universe, having a finite number of possibilities, an absolute reference becomes a necessity. I chose time because of its association to motion. It implies a minimal space dimension too. This could still be valid for a subset of an infinite universe but for a finite duration.

I expect a lot of criticism concerning the Lorentz invariance, so I have to explain how this is still a possibility and how it should be measured.

First, I must say you can’t measure it directly because it lays at the absolute zero and it exists only at the full scale of the universe or the subset we are a part of. But there is a way to find its convergence besides the absolute zero temperature (here I suppose it is not enough of a proof).

At the event horizon of a black hole (a black ring is considered to be the event horizon in my model), spacetime contraction converge toward the Planck length and the Planck time, though it should never truly reach it before another big bang would be created. This implies that a big bang cannot encompass all spacetime and matter of the universe. There is an exterior cause to the big bang: It needs and oscillation with exterior elements. A black hole cannot become unitary, that’s why there are bangs…

To measure the convergence of the Planck time, you must somehow circumvent Relativity. If you measure the frequencies of intermediary particles, you will still encounter Lorentz invariance by virtue of the relativistic principle. The frequencies of photons measured are still very far from the Planck length. It is only in measuring time intervals of events synchronized near the event horizon that it is possible to circumvent Relativity. But there is still the Relativistic point of view of the observer. An observer on Earth should find no relative motion in the timing patterns for different black holes and for events synchronized near the event horizon. An observer on the moon should observe the same patterns but at a slightly longer time intervals due to a slightly lesser gravitational potential on the moon.

You can see it as a mirror image of the observer own reference frame.

It should be easier to measure these timing patterns for supermassive black holes than for smaller black holes and it should be easier for event horizons of the same sizes.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 169
    • View Profile
Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #272 on: 02/01/2017 11:29:26 »
An idea about Dark Matter

I won't talk for quite a while about a cosmological model including the ISW effect.

I want to describe the gravitational tail of particles, which is exactly the gravitational correction I have voluntarily neglected in my calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. With the recent discovery of gravitational waves, I found answers I desperately needed... And it is quite a revelation for me. It is in agreement much more than what I expected. It fills the voids... literally...

Just a last and quick thinking about the possibility of a universe made of multiple big bangs, each having a different finite value of PI fixed at a big bang... PI is related to the longitudinal mode (or dimension) which is inertia and it determines its wavelength. While Gravity is the transversal mode and has a wavelength in multiples of the Planck time without the direct relation to PI. Electric charges necessitate connections between both the longitudinal mode and the transversal mode to explain the two polarities. These connections were fixed by the value of PI at the big bang. But if there are other big bangs with different values of PI, what will happened? Invisible Matter, only perceived by its gravitational interactions.

It is a bit a spooky idea and a very long stretch, I must admit...

You might think there is a flaw in how matter may interact gravitationally with Dark Matter and produces its motion. You must know that Dark Matter would have charges of its own, where the Dark longitudinal mode is connected with gravity (the transversal common mode).

The magnetic field is a mixture of both dimensions...

 Applying the sum of everyone else observations about the issue "Dark Matter".
  Dark Matter most likely is the lost mass of the traveling energy(photons).
 Accepting that a photon is a hybrid state particle/wave, and so that it is but a temporary "impossible" configuration,
 that is happening in time, and it is happening at C, in time...
  Dark Matter seems to be the PAST mass of the now future photon, that on an instant of C...
 Photon gaining mass but not becoming a particle, such mass would be happening outside the attempt,
 and also at the same time the lost mass on the previous frame of that photon(past), would bend space and "inadvertently" propel
the photonic energy trough time. The event would be happening at C, and not traveling at C...

  This is not only restricted to the mass of the photon, but of any other particle that is under great acceleration, such particle, would be able to
speed up it's own frame of existence, letting behind only the place and effects it was occupying on space...
  The so called Dark Matter effects that we have being observing out here and nonetheless the only proof for it's existence,
 I'm suggesting that are not effects at all, if photonic energy is the cause, the invisible effects of DM on gravity, are on themselves, it's own existence...
 For if "Light" is but a visible "past" image of the now, "future" photon, we are observing the mass of the photon there, back on time(distance),
but the photon itself, the cause has being long gone, at C, so fast that it able to sort of "extend" its own past, so it may come visible to us...
  One may believe that there is no light where there is no star or galaxy, and that would be correct, but that doesn't mean that dark matter is not there...
 The observable Dark Matter holding a galaxy, is but the mass of all the photons being left behind cause of C, in open space...
 Dark Matter, is than the "Ghost" of the previous dilatation of the past of photon as it is happening at C...
  I'm not meaning that the traveling photons are letting behind their mass, no. I'm wondering that the photon is but a shape, given to energy by and from the void.
 The speed in witch this configuration is "constantly" attempt, our C...
 C than being, as consequence, a speed for the energy, but only a state for the void...
Light moves at C, for C, is the very speed in witch space can "attempt" to quantify photonic energy...
 Photons must collide one with the other, in order to offer to themselves a point of reference,
doing so conserve their own mass into a virtual center, that would be the atom...

 C for energy = a speed
C from space= a state
Dark Matter = The lost mass of the now future photon happening on the past
Time = Distance (one has energy that has a speed that is finite. One has a medium that causes a infinite state that provide that speed.
 Although, the final product Light, does has a limited constant speed provided by both energy and space.
 Energy grants it the limitation on its vector, space grants it the constant for energy to grant that very limitation...
  In order to something to spin faster than the imposed limitation itself, something must get bigger...
 As smaller something gets more strong and rested it may become, exception for the quanta of the photon...

 In a simplistic version, if true that photon, is a hybrid state of energy, that for this very reason shares on itself, both:
 The C state of space, and the mass of a particle.
 I'm suggesting that the impossible shape of the photon is also doing the inverse,
 photon is giving his own mass at any given instant of C, to space.
 And that by doing so it is exchanging it for C of space.
 Both happening at the same time, at any giving instant at C...

   Photon by absorbing C of space to itself, results in light...
   Space by absorbing the mass of the photon to itself, resulting in Dark Matter(effects/cause)

 In fact all that consideration are aiming the past, the previous frame in witch we are observing it.
  In reality I believe that Matter is only existing in the past, this including us, the "Real" frame,
 the "now" where this events may be taking place, are not aware or related with our reality, the photonic energy on the now,
causing light and dark matter, do not acknowledge it's own pass...
  The impossibility on the wave particle configuration, seems to be forever "trapped" on a isolated instant "now",
 one that keeps not repeating itself trough space time, but maintaining itself trough space time happening at C...

 Photons themselves are simple energy "frozen" in a frame without the experience of time or mass...
  Photons are not real to us, they do not belong to our frame of existence and they never will, light does, it's mass does...

 Light may be as well at C, and constant, but photons are instantaneous, for they do not experience time, thus distances on it...
 
 I'm suggesting that:
 Photons are on themselves the gravitational waves, photons exists as gravity on the now, not crossing trough time, but instead not experiencing any existence of time/distances...
  Light is but the past trajectory of the future photon...
  Dark matter, the mass of the now future photon that is happening on the past...
   Sort of mass existing only on the past of energy.
    C being the maximum state of the speed in witch past(mass) is occurring...
   
     Photons should be mass less, for they are being self propelled by their own exterior mass happening on the past of their trajectory...
      Dark matter being the "lost" mass of gravity happening on a past frame of C as the energy is still accelerating towards the future...
     
      Photons do have mass only on their past, this being dark matter.
       Photons do not experience time, their are forever frozen on their own frame of existence (future/now).
         Mass of anything is given to energy(as matter) only when the photons find a center of mass to orbit(atom),
         only than photonic mass would be converted from dark matter mass into matter...
         
         That if one is able to produce a planet on the void, a point of reference, on that very moment the energy on that planet would be quantify by time, and will receive mass from inside out the atom, mass of the photons would be transferred to this virtual center...
         
         Dark matter is simple the mass of anything that is accelerating towards the future of XYZ, any of the three dimensions would always be considered as future, determinate by the virtual center, on the case of a galaxy, BH...
          If quantification of any energy was to become instantaneous, there would be no dark matter, for there would be no effects, for instantaneous C, would than require no existence of pass and no expectation of future, thus no existence of time...  Photons may do experience this frame of existence, as frozen energy outside of time...
          Light would be a event occurring at C, but only a gosth the photons themselves have instantaneously and constantly reached the destination, as gravitational waves... Reason why light operates on a straight line, light responds only to the dilatation, only to the past for it is occurring on it...
            My guess is that light is happening everywhere on this darkness, and that this gin-clear space we observe is light beyond the red shift, transparent...
           
             Light from galaxy A towards galaxy B arrives at galaxy A displaying red shift, but different galaxies moving at different speeds cause different red shift observations..
              Darkness out here does not need to be the absence of light but the state of light beyond the red shift... Photons that are instantaneously happening from A to Z, but with so much time in between that the light on the past of galaxy Z, will "never" be able to reach galaxy A, photons/gravity does in no time, but light wont be able to "find" with galaxy A...
              The occurrence of photons stimulate space to release energy wherever light is happening, gravity should be giving energy for everything, the presence of energy for it's turn is originating mass on the giving location...
               Mass being the past(and only on the past) as the dilatation on space time itself...
               
               Dark Matter= The "proportional mass" of light, happening only on the past of it.
               C being the self propagation of light trough time, by the existence of it's own mass on it's past...
               
               Light is than not real on our present, we can visualize it, observe it, but the reality seems to be that light is a past image, a previous product adrifiting at C due the the existence of gravity...
   The speed of light as equal as gravity, fro light is not fast by having speed, light as "seeming" to be fast for gravity is happening at C, light is but a previous frame that is borrowing gravity to move trough time...

 Our whole biological and scientific concepts about time and velocity have being based on the speed of light, this even before we start thinking about that...
 Gravity should be instantaneous, C of light but a limitation on it's occurrence...
 Gravity by being instantaneous is faster than the speed of light, the difference in between gravity state and the speed of light, resulting in distances, and the very limitation on the speed of light from A to B at "only" C, the existence of time...
« Last Edit: 03/01/2017 22:52:34 by Alex Dullius Siqueira »