Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?

  • 272 Replies
  • 112660 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #50 on: 18/11/2010 06:05:48 »
Are you familiar with a more successful site called ''sciforums''?

Are you familiar with Dale Carnegie's book  - "How to Win Friends and Influence People"

http://www.dalecarnegie.com/golden_book.jsp?keycode=google06_Brand&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=G_Brand&gclid=CPGXiNfYqaUCFQULbAodYh--Zw


Quote:

"You will learn how to:

Communicate with diplomacy and tact
Become a more persuasive communicator
Be an effective leader
Reduce stress
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #51 on: 18/11/2010 20:43:14 »
Not at all.

Are you familiar with a more successful site called ''sciforums''?

a) What's your definition of successful, exactly? Are talking quality or quantity? Should 'sciforums' now be recognised as a peer review body?
b) If you've got some amazing 'new' evidence that the whole of the respected scientific community doesn;t know about why not reference it here for us ignoramuses.

Well by successful, I mean with the amount of people who attend. Maybe not so much quality of posts.

There was a competition where a member BenTheMan who is a string theorist asked how matter could not be made of light. Something must of happened because he soon changed his mind and apologized saying matter can be made of light. There seems to be no mathematical reason why they can't.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #52 on: 19/11/2010 11:58:57 »
Well by successful, I mean with the amount of people who attend. Maybe not so much quality of posts.

There was a competition where a member BenTheMan who is a string theorist asked how matter could not be made of light. Something must of happened because he soon changed his mind and apologized saying matter can be made of light. There seems to be no mathematical reason why they can't.

Regardless of what a user on another forum decided, mainstream science does not accept that all matter is made of light.  Also, this thread in particular was making a lot of very non-standard speculations on the nature of matter.  We have let threads linger on in the mainstream sections of the forum because they were good debate on the nature of matter and whether it could be made of light.  This wasn't a debate so much as a new theory being developed, so it was moved here. 

If you want mathematical reasons why such theories are a problem:

Light doesn't interact with itself; matter interacts with light.

The apparent sizes of particles and the wavelengths of light pose some problems (i.e. point-like particles).

The all-light theory would have to explain non-E&M forces, such as the weak and strong nuclear forces.

These are all experimental observations that are described by the standard model, but as far as I know cannot be explained by an all-matter-is-photons theory.  I'm sure there are others, but those are just off the top of my head.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #53 on: 19/11/2010 12:50:17 »
There was a competition where a member BenTheMan who is a string theorist asked how matter could not be made of light. Something must of happened because he soon changed his mind and apologized saying matter can be made of light. There seems to be no mathematical reason why they can't.

As JP has stated referencing (well just implying actually) another forum is not a respected source.
As for "BenTheMan who is a string theorist" - Are you having a laugh? Is that the renowned BenTheMan, PhD of CalTech???! [;D]

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #54 on: 19/11/2010 12:59:23 »
Yes it is. Does it sound like I am joking?

As for speculative comments on other matters, I was not referring to those. I am referring to the well-applied concept that matter is made from light, and that scientists do recognize this. How exactly matter is made from light is not exactly known. But that is a matter of experiment.

You can make matter from light, and the light used to make that matter can be extracted. No matter what way you percieve it, matter is made from light.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #55 on: 19/11/2010 13:00:46 »
And I don't see how the Photon Theory would need to answer the strong force. That is a strange statement. Electro-strong theory has already been unified into a theory, so there is no correlation required further.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #56 on: 19/11/2010 13:11:46 »
You can make matter from light, and the light used to make that matter can be extracted.

That's the argument that's constantly, and erroneously, made in these threads.  The more accurate statement is that matter is made from energy, and that in certain circumstances the energy in light can be changed into other particles.  In some cases, I can break light into an electron and a positron, but this hardly means that all light is made of electrons. 

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #57 on: 19/11/2010 13:11:47 »
Here is a seperate link if you don't trust BenTheMan

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #58 on: 19/11/2010 13:25:19 »
Some quotes from the article:

"Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter"

"Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists."

"The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced."

I guess you could say energy in the form of photons can be turned into matter in some special cases, but saying matter is made from light is misleading given what "made from" is usually taken to mean that if you zoom in with a microscope you'll see photons zipping around inside of any particle of matter.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #59 on: 19/11/2010 13:36:15 »
I guess you could say energy in the form of photons can be turned into matter in some special cases, but saying matter is made from light is misleading given what "made from" is usually taken to mean that if you zoom in with a microscope you'll see photons zipping around inside of any particle of matter.
Quite!
Especially in the context that we are in a thread called "Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?", don't ya think?!

Q'Clue,
Following the reductionist principle, physics supposes that the mechanism that makes both light and matter observable phenomena in our universe is one where (it is postulated that) at high enough energies all particles (matter, photons, et al) visible to us will be shown to coalesce into a common elemental genesis.

This is a long way from saying matter is, at its heart, light (photons).
« Last Edit: 19/11/2010 13:58:05 by peppercorn »

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #60 on: 19/11/2010 15:15:19 »
W
Some quotes from the article:

"Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter"

"Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists."

"The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced."

I guess you could say energy in the form of photons can be turned into matter in some special cases, but saying matter is made from light is misleading given what "made from" is usually taken to mean that if you zoom in with a microscope you'll see photons zipping around inside of any particle of matter.

Well let us address this. This is not a special case. All matter can be made to reduce back to the photon energy which created them, which is part of the conservation of charge. Photons are just an energy, and it is this same energy all matter can be created. Those particles which are borne of photon energy still ''carry'' the information about the photon even in their material states, or photon energy could not be conserved.

Matter transmutating inton light, and light into matter shows a direct correlation. The material required to make matter is simply energy, and as current physics seems to be hinting at, a photon is simply required for such a transformation. Question yourself exactly how all matter can in fact be reduced to gamma energy? It is not a coincidence. It is because the photon(s) required to make the matter is in fact the energy used to create new types of particles, which under the shadow of it all, behave and act differently to photons. This is why it is not always immediate to think of matter being made from photon energy, but the fact of the matter is that this seems to be correct.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #61 on: 19/11/2010 16:04:39 »
You know, Dirac once modelled the electron against his own theory. The electron would found to contain a zitter motion due to negative charge interacting with it from the vacuum. He also found that the electron was really a photon, but appeared to move a lot slower because of this zig zag motion through space - I know this is a little different, but its very plausible to find some kind of motion given to a photon to give the appearance of another particle. This is in regards to the comment about it being a fundamental constituent of all matter.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #62 on: 22/11/2010 12:01:26 »
So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #63 on: 22/11/2010 12:09:11 »
So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?
No.
To say 'reduced back' is misleading - and wrong.

Mass-energy_equivalence

'Equivalence' is an excellent mathematical description of what is really, physically observed.   Anything else is just word play on your part.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #64 on: 22/11/2010 18:07:48 »
So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?
No.
To say 'reduced back' is misleading - and wrong.

Mass-energy_equivalence

'Equivalence' is an excellent mathematical description of what is really, physically observed.   Anything else is just word play on your part.

Reduced back is not misleading. All material objects in the universe was borne of energy. Matter is but a concentrated energy, while energy is a diffused matter. Equivalence mearly states that they are fundamentally the same, that from matter you can get energy and energy from matter.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #65 on: 22/11/2010 18:08:53 »
Not to mention all matter can indeed be reduced back to photon energy in arrival with their antipartners. How else would one word this? I'd like to be taught.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #66 on: 22/11/2010 18:12:46 »
I did a little search on google. A result did come up.

This scientist does indeed proclaim all matter is made from light, and he says he explains why in his book. His name is Fred Alan Wolf

http://www.fredalanwolf.com/

''It will take us into the world of fundamental particles and how they are actually made from light. ''

Well, there is one scientist already. I have also linked to the page where scientists made matter from light, not light from matter, but is nothing but a consequence of E=Mc^2.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #67 on: 22/11/2010 22:42:49 »
Yet another circular thread, I see.  That's why I was pointing out your playing with words.
What, beyond what mainstream fund. physics already describes (including Equivalence), are you trying to claimed is not yet explained?  I can't see the ultimate point of all your arguments....  (?)

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #68 on: 23/11/2010 11:39:02 »
Yet another circular thread, I see.  That's why I was pointing out your playing with words.
What, beyond what mainstream fund. physics already describes (including Equivalence), are you trying to claimed is not yet explained?  I can't see the ultimate point of all your arguments....  (?)

If I am playing with words, then the scientist above is dabbing it with holy water.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #69 on: 23/11/2010 11:44:48 »
My point is however, scientists are catching on to the idea that matter is made of light. I am not playing with words here - that was a job of the OP when talking about ''fundamentals'' - my statement is clear, all matter when it comes into contact with antimatter turn into light, or reduce back into light, suggesting at one point all this matter was, was but energy. This is not a trick. A clown or Hawking is not going to jump out from behing the couch. I am deadly serious when I say this is what science is progressing towards. And HAS progressed to.

Radiation from light is a lot more complicated than E=Mc^2. In fact the equation is trivial in the sense you take into account all of matter - and how they can be made to reduce back to photons. These little bits of matter never started their lifetimes as matter. At one point somewhere there was enough concentration of energy which gave life to particles. Just so happens like a symmetry in nature antiparticles are created alongside normal particles, and every particle no matter what kind, subjected to their antipartner will reduce to photons.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #70 on: 23/11/2010 12:12:05 »
My point is however, scientists are catching on to the idea that matter is made of light. I am not playing with words here - that was a job of the OP when talking about ''fundamentals'' - my statement is clear, all matter when it comes into contact with antimatter turn into light, or reduce back into light, suggesting at one point all this matter was, was but energy. This is not a trick. A clown or Hawking is not going to jump out from behing the couch. I am deadly serious when I say this is what science is progressing towards. And HAS progressed to.

Radiation from light is a lot more complicated than E=Mc^2. In fact the equation is trivial in the sense you take into account all of matter - and how they can be made to reduce back to photons. These little bits of matter never started their lifetimes as matter. At one point somewhere there was enough concentration of energy which gave life to particles. Just so happens like a symmetry in nature antiparticles are created alongside normal particles, and every particle no matter what kind, subjected to their antipartner will reduce to photons.

I apologise for inadvertently 'throwing-you-into-the-same-boat' as the OP (which I kind'a did) - I see that you are looking at this with a rational eye.  I  would say, however, that you have (in places) given the impression that mainstream science has still to accept that the most likely form of the very early universe was one of a sea of energy, but by my understanding, this is by far the preferred view in the astrophysics community.

I am uncertain what extra development of these theories you are proposing we should consider - This is, afterall, the 'New Theories' board.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #71 on: 23/11/2010 12:17:47 »
My point is however, scientists are catching on to the idea that matter is made of light. I am not playing with words here - that was a job of the OP when talking about ''fundamentals'' - my statement is clear, all matter when it comes into contact with antimatter turn into light, or reduce back into light, suggesting at one point all this matter was, was but energy. This is not a trick. A clown or Hawking is not going to jump out from behing the couch. I am deadly serious when I say this is what science is progressing towards. And HAS progressed to.

Radiation from light is a lot more complicated than E=Mc^2. In fact the equation is trivial in the sense you take into account all of matter - and how they can be made to reduce back to photons. These little bits of matter never started their lifetimes as matter. At one point somewhere there was enough concentration of energy which gave life to particles. Just so happens like a symmetry in nature antiparticles are created alongside normal particles, and every particle no matter what kind, subjected to their antipartner will reduce to photons.

I apologise for inadvertently 'throwing-you-into-the-same-boat' as the OP (which I kind'a did) - I see that you are looking at this with a rational eye.  I  would say, however, that you have (in places) given the impression that mainstream science has still to accept that the most likely form of the very early universe was one of a sea of energy, but by my understanding, this is by far the preferred view in the astrophysics community.

I am uncertain what extra development of these theories you are proposing we should consider - This is, afterall, the 'New Theories' board.

There remains a problem. There is no model to date in the standard model which suggests the universe appeared in a flood of photons. To say photon is fundamental is like saying a quark-gluon sea did not occur. It's tit for tat between the two ideas. Personally, I think there was certainly a phase transition from photons into matter post big bang. When is open to speculation.

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 363
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #72 on: 23/11/2010 18:20:05 »
Doesn't that assume the standard model is the only answer? It seems to me there must be a possibility that it is entirely wrong if it must depend on the existence of the graviton, Higgs and virtual particles.
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #73 on: 23/11/2010 18:25:09 »
Doesn't that assume the standard model is the only answer? It seems to me there must be a possibility that it is entirely wrong if it must depend on the existence of the graviton, Higgs and virtual particles.

That's exactly why millions is being spent on looking for the Higgs.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #74 on: 23/11/2010 20:07:31 »
Doesn't that assume the standard model is the only answer? It seems to me there must be a possibility that it is entirely wrong if it must depend on the existence of the graviton, Higgs and virtual particles.
Yes.

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #75 on: 24/11/2010 03:06:34 »
Ron, about your now old question about how the collision of 2 photons would create a particle, it is just a matter of just the right amount of relative energy of the 2 photons colliding and about the symmetry of the collision of the charges. The best way is a frontal collision, if the 2 + or the 2 - charges collide and merge together, the other 2 opposite charges will merge automatically. For dark matter particles, the charges annihilate each other. For matter created shortly after the BigBang it is much more complicated. That is why the LHC is so important. But i guess they won't find the Higgs boson...

About black holes, dark matter and dark energy, i urge you to watch "Through the wormhole" with Morgan Freeman, specially "The Riddle of black holes" and "Beyond the darkness" episodes. You will see how my model answers so many questions... It is so well made and actual...
« Last Edit: 04/12/2010 17:12:33 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #76 on: 24/11/2010 10:33:12 »
But I guess they won't find the Higgs boson..

Is your 'guess' based on anything?

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #77 on: 24/11/2010 18:37:11 »
But I guess they won't find the Higgs boson..

Is your 'guess' based on anything?

Perhaps it's based on a desire to be able to say something like "See! I told you so."?

The question is, will we ever hear anything to the contrary if they do find it.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #78 on: 25/11/2010 00:53:23 »
I am not this kind of person. [:D]

I just think the photon is the sole elementary particle. According to this thinking, there is no Higgs field. The LHC still might produce heavy dark matter particles looking like Higgs bosons, but that would be a mislead. I found too many answers from this theory to think it is just a matter of chances... I don't say i am totally right... I need time to work on it.

"Unfortunately if you try and write down a theory of particles and their interactions then the simplest version requires all the masses of the particles to be zero. So on one hand we have a whole variety of masses and on the other a theory in which all masses should be zero. Such conundrums provide the excitement and the challenges of science. "

from: http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs2.htm

I understand why sometimes you have a bad perception of me and i will try to behave myself accordingly. We all need devil's advocates. I really don't hope or expect to get fame or anything glorious of it... But it would be nice to meet in person people who participate on this forum.


« Last Edit: 02/12/2010 04:20:38 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #79 on: 25/11/2010 06:50:22 »
I'll go one better than you. Personally, I believe that all matter is simply a manifestation of energy encapsulated in space/time. This might be the same as, or a variation of, String Theory.

However, as I'm in no position back up my opinion with anything other than anecdotal evidence, there is little point in me saying much about it.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #80 on: 25/11/2010 15:52:22 »
This looks like another way to see the same thing (maybe a wider perspective). Are photons particles travelling through empty space or are they waves of energy travelling in the fabric of spacetime? I think both points of view are valuable.

If anyone think my evidences are anecdotal it is because they did not read it carefully and or they did not take my point of view in analysing actual problems of Physics. I posted a small fraction of all the evidences i have found...

The String theories seem to be very promising in the long term.
« Last Edit: 25/11/2010 17:53:32 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #81 on: 26/11/2010 05:24:33 »
Well, Hawking does not beleive we will find it... He outranks us all.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #82 on: 26/11/2010 06:29:47 »
Regardless of whether we find it or not, the useful thing about the theories that predict it is that they predict it. In other words, they make concrete, testable predictions that can be checked.  If we don't find it, we know they're wrong.

The problem with a lot of all-matter-is-photon theories is that they don't do this, so they're not of much use to physicists.


*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #83 on: 26/11/2010 08:16:46 »

The problem with a lot of all-matter-is-photon theories is that they don't do this, so they're not of much use to physicists.


Doesn't that rather depend on what type of physicist one is? Personally, I find them quite useful.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #84 on: 26/11/2010 11:11:46 »
The problem with a lot of all-matter-is-photon theories is that they don't do this, so they're not of much use to physicists.
Doesn't that rather depend on what type of physicist one is? Personally, I find them quite useful.

They could potentially be quite useful (along with pretty much any 'flavour' of theory) if they made testable predictions - but where are these predictions (predictions that can be described as a set of equations)?

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #85 on: 26/11/2010 16:47:22 »
we predicted the sizes of any particle if we have its mass... It totally agrees with recent measurements, size is inversely proportional to the mass (for elementary particle).

I predict many things about the Bigbang, blackholes, dark matter and dark energy, but we have to wait...

For more maths, i need much time which i don't have. But instead of being lazy critics you could help... [;)]
« Last Edit: 27/11/2010 03:39:46 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #86 on: 26/11/2010 20:07:12 »
I predicted many things about the Bigbang, blackholes, dark matter and dark energy, but we have to wait...

When you say "I predicted", I can only take that to mean that when, forty plus years ago, when you wrote up your completed (mathematically descriptive) physics paper (that you, for some reason, chose not to publish), you had a full theoretical model predicting all these phenomena that pre-dated the works of Harking, Penrose et al.

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #87 on: 03/12/2010 04:12:26 »
Concerning the Doppler effect, it is interesting to look at how the conservation of information may occur. The original frequency of the photon at its creation, convey the information about the particle it comes from. The original frequencies of photons have to exist in finite and specific quantum possibilities in order to have the possibility of retrieving the information... Quantization is thus necessary for the conservation of information. This is an important link between Quantum Theory and Relativity. This is a clue toward the understanding of the quantization phenomenon. It has a profound implication: nothing can have an infinite acceleration (thus impossible infinite gravitational force)... In the contrary, information would be lost forever... This is why we need the relativity of mass and a finite maximum velocity of C.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2010 16:54:14 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #88 on: 11/12/2010 08:04:56 »
Model for Black Holes using the Planck Length

Three observations i made attracted my attention recently.

The first one is that many galaxies possess two black holes at their center. These black holes seems to have a relative motion to each other, similar to those observe in particle physics.

http://www.jannalevin.com/science.html

See "Through the wormhole", "The Riddle of black holes" episode.

The second observation is that according to the most recent computed models for a star going supernova (hypernova),  the explosion is still unexplained. All models finish in the total mass going into the generated black hole.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/180/1/012022/pdf/1742-6596_180_1_012022.pdf


The third observation is a theoretical one. According to the Holographic Principle, some kind of holographic image of everything going inside a black hole should be stored in 2D at the event horizon (for the conservation of information).

With these three observations in mind and that the elementary particle is the photon, it seems that a black hole should be a multiple wavelengths (or photons) particle. For a symmetry reason, all wavelengths should be of the same length, the Planck wavelength. In a supernova, the first black holes should appear from single particles collapsing around the center of the star. They should collapse to a particle of a size 2πR=2πLp=ʎp (for a circle approximation). If all photons collapse into a single particle of this size, there will be no explosion, only an implosion and nothing will be left.  The photons (or any way you want to call it) collapsing will connect into a ring that , when enlarging, will cause the explosion of the supernova.

The Planck Length = 1.616 x 10-35 m

ʎp = 2πLp = 1.0154 x 10^-34

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html

Supposing the quantization is based on a minimal wavelength λp = 2πLp.

A circular black hole having a circumference of N*ʎp and a mass m, will have an energy of

E = mC2 = N * h * C / ʎp

For N = 1,
m = Mp = 2.1916 x 10^-8 kg (Planck mass)

R = N * ʎp / 2π
Where N = m / Mp
R =(m/Mp) * (ʎp / 2π)
R = m * 7.374 x 10^-28

For a one solar mass black hole,
R = 1466.6 m, in comparison, the Schwarszchild radius is twice as large at about 2951 m.

For the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, evaluated to approximately 4 million solar masses,
R = 5.867 * 10^9 m or a diameter of 1.173 x 10^7 km.

Again in comparison, the Schwarszchild radius is about 1.18 x 10^7 km, twice as large.

For a sphere made with this kind of rotating wave at a speed of C, the simplest solution is
R(sphere) = R (circle) / √2
For a diameter of about 0.929 x 10^7 km

Validation:

At the event horizon, all particles are transferred into light and travel at the speed of light. At the speed of light, there is no relativity. Once a photon has reach the event horizon, there is no relative movement... Before and after, equations must have a continuity... Relativistic energy due to gravity is perpendicular to the ring and it is reciprocal for both the particles and blackhole, so it just vanishes... (in gamma ray burst)

F = GM1M2/R^2 = M2 * a

Where
G is the Gravitational constant
M1 is the black hole mass
M2 is the mass of the particle
R is the radius of the event horizon or the size of the black hole
a is the radial acceleration of the particle as a photon rotating at the event horizon and is equal to v^2/R = C^2/R.

=>  GM1/R^2 = C^2/R

=> G/C^2 = R/M1

R = GM1/C^2 (or half the traditional Schwarszchild radius)

Thus a prediction of maximum event horizons sizes of half the sizes of the Schwarszchild radius.

The black ring is made of two concentric rings separated by the Planck length. The rings are made of multiple photons, each having two wavelengths of 2pi*Lp, one wavelength inside and one outside. There is no gravity in the middle.

If the Big Bang was the breaking of a black hole, the space in the middle of the ring(s) would look like a faster than light expansion from the point of view of the actual Big Bang Theory...
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 08:56:40 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #89 on: 13/12/2010 06:23:11 »
What happen if two black holes become concentric? The more massive black hole is the outer one. If the black hole inside is large enough you will have a BigBang and two concentric halos in the background radiation (WMAP)!!!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-evidence-of-time-before-big
« Last Edit: 14/12/2010 05:06:09 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #90 on: 13/12/2010 08:13:35 »
What happen if two black holes become concentric? The more massive black hole is the outer one. If the black hole inside is large enough you will have a BigBang and two concentric halos in the background radiation (WMAPS)!!!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-evidence-of-time-before-big

Um... that article has nothing to do with two concentric black holes causing big bangs...

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #91 on: 13/12/2010 17:49:25 »
No, but they confirm concentric halos in the WMAPS.

Where do you see a true explanation?

The standard model of the Bigbang is a fairy tale...

The more people will study the WMAP, the more people will find the flaws of this fairy tale...


http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1486

http://www.physorg.com/news154627589.html

To be correct, i must say that the fairy tale end, somehow, with the end of the faster than light inflation...

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/060915_CMB_Timeline150.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity
!!!
« Last Edit: 17/12/2010 03:16:00 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #92 on: 30/12/2010 01:36:22 »
According to Relativity, any observer in an inertial frame of reference will measure the speed C for all vector components of a beam of light. According to my theory, gravity and time are the same. Time is propagating at the speed of light, so light always has a zero timerate. Photons have different time but they always have a zero timerate.

For a black hole, light at the event horizon is rotating at a maximum curvature of spacetime for a maximum energy density. For an outside observer, the energy is the same as the energy of a particle, E=MC^2. For a photon at the EH (event horizon), there is no mass and the energy of the black hole is E=NhC/λ. Light at the EH has to be the source of gravity and time. It is the source of the spacetime curvature...
« Last Edit: 10/01/2011 17:48:49 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #93 on: 09/01/2011 06:05:23 »
Supposing an electric charge has always a size of the Planck Length and supposing the mass (and gravity) of any particles including black holes is produced by the charges, I have just found the solution to a unification theory... A black hole must have many charges to produce a stronger gravitation field than a minimal black hole of r=Lp and m=mp. So a black hole is not a singularity but grows with its mass... The total charge may be zero but the charges are still there...

α*G*Mp^2 = e^2/(4πξ0) = α*h*C/2π

where α is the coupling constant = 1/137
and e is the elementary charge.

Later this week i will post more explanations about how i got there and how it agrees with my theory.
« Last Edit: 09/01/2011 06:07:45 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #94 on: 15/01/2011 03:23:11 »
Quantum entanglement explanation:

When two photons, having parallel polarization and a relative energy in a quantization range of a pair of elementary particle-antiparticle, exist in the same space (to be determined) but 180 degrees out of phase to each other, they create a pair of particle-antiparticle. These particles are made of half of each photons and have half the charge from both of them. For the particles, gravity and timerate appear from their own creation... Both particles are created simultaneously. This is just a model because curvature of spacetime maybe necessary. (According to the conservation of momentum, the photons have to travel in opposite directions for particles to be created.)

From its creation to its rebirth as being half of both particle and antiparticle, a photon travels in no timerate. For the photon, it existed from its origin A to its destination B in no time and thus had a length dimension from A to B in space.

The lightwave rotating around a particle never stopped moving at the speed of light and it is thus still linked to its origin A in no time... It is its spin...

The spatial polarization of photons is directly related to their spins and is unlimited in velocity, but it is limited in reach only by their mass energy quanta in specific spacetime coordinates. Again, a strong relation between time and gravity...

It means there is non local hidden variables. For two entangled photons, at their creation, they both have a dissociative common and dependent variable about their spin.

My theory says that the BigBang was produced by one or two unstable blackholes. A blackhole is a particle of multiple wavelengths Nλp. Thus, all energy of our Universe was once entangled!!! It does not violate causality in anyway. It just means we need to know all spins and their relations in the Universe to have a 100% certitude prediction. This is entropy growing... This data seems to be unreachable but the system itself may still be causal... There is still the possibility that Biological entities may input undeterministic data to a causal and mechanical system... More dimensions...?


Pilot wave theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

experimental evidence:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193
« Last Edit: 10/06/2011 05:29:47 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #95 on: 07/02/2011 03:01:12 »
According to the Kaluza-Klein Theory, the charge is a fifth dimension. If the photons are made of charges (but having a total of zero), time and gravity can be an effect of the charges going at a slower speed than the speed of light. All particles have charges, even the neutron. So all particles have their own referential clock associated to their charge. The charge has a radial dimension of the Planck Length. This is my assumptions. Dark Matter particles must have a total charge of zero, but the charges do not vanish; they still interact by creating a gravitational field.

General Relativity equations are not valid for sizes smaller than the Planck Length and it doesn't explain what happen to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces beyond that in a black hole... Here is the link between Relativity and Quantum Theory...

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

Where the first term contains the gravitational angular momentum, the second term contains the electrical potential angular momentum and the third term is the space time geometry (subscript p is for Planck).

The gravitational lightwave angular momentum of a rotating photon at a radius of the Planck Length is

G*Mp^2/C = h/2π = Mp*C*Lp

This equation is valid for all elementary particles:

G*Mp^2/C = h/2π = M*C*R

from E = M*C^2 = h*ν = h*C/λ

Where
M is the particle's mass,
R is the particle's radius.

Erratum: A charge always propagates at the speed of light. 6/03/2011
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 20:53:08 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #96 on: 09/02/2011 09:09:33 »
An electric charge travelling at the speed of light (as a photon) is in the fifth dimension, but not interacting with the dimension of time. Is the charge really going at the speed of light? Is it really in the dimension of space? For now, we can only say that it appears to travel at the speed of light and thus in space, according to what we see from its interactions with matter.

The Doppler effect on the frequency of a photon, ascending or descending a gravitational field, is caused by the specific rate of the referential clock of the particle it will interact with... So, if it interacts with a particle in a strong gravitational field, its frequency will be higher than if it interacts with a particle in a low gravitational field, due to the slower rate of the particle's referential clock...


http://vixra.org/pdf/1012.0006v2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909014v1.pdf
« Last Edit: 16/02/2011 07:11:17 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #97 on: 17/02/2011 05:40:54 »
Special Relativity and Equivalence Principle

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

According to Special Relativity, and it has been proved,

The Lorentz contraction formula is

L' = L/γ = L*√(1-v^2/C^2)

where γ = 1/√(1-v^2/C^2)

According to my theory, a length contraction will decrease the radius of the particle by the same amount. If its radius decrease, its mass will increase:


the gravitational lightwave angular momentum of an elementary particle at rest is given by

M*C*R = h/2π = G*Mp^2/C

For a moving particle along the x axis,

Mx'*C*Rx' = γ*Mx*C*Rx/γ = h/2π

Its gravitational lightwave angular momentum is unaffected by relativity. It shows that, it is, in someway, more fundamental than Relativity.

The photon rotating at a radius R', for a relativistic observer, generates a true mass of M'. Thus, the inertial mass should be considered to be equivalent to its gravitational mass. It is a generalisation, because they both have a different cause, as understood until now. According to my theory, they are both created by the rotation of a photon at a radius having a corresponding mass. The true gravitational mass depends entirely on the relativity of movement and the rest mass, it is thus the same as inertial mass. Einstein was right after all...

Last, I just want you to pay attention to the fact that timerate has the same "dilatation" or increase as mass and gravity...

« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 20:53:49 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline williampcochran

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 25
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #98 on: 22/02/2011 14:17:42 »
Ark Angel, i have been following your post with much interest. you truly are a genius...

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?
« Reply #99 on: 22/02/2011 21:41:21 »
I agree that what we can see of the universe is entirely made up of photons. Well, not exactly photons, but ethereal shear waves; a photon is a special kind of ethereal shear wave, and all ethereal shear waves propagate at the speed of light.

It is difficult for me to answer this question fully without explaining my whole Fractal Foam Model of Universes. One element of the model is like a solitary piece of a jigsaw puzzle. It makes no sense out of context. Nevertheless, I shall try to stay on point.

In my model:

Particles are made of orbiting pairs (or groups) of ethereal shear waves, which orbit one another at the speed of light. A photon is an ethereal shear wave which obeys the formula E = hc/λ. A photon having the energy equivalent of an electron's mass has a wavelength, λ, about 1000 times longer than the classical radius of an electron. So the shear waves that orbit one another to form an electron must have wavelengths at least 1000 times shorter than photons of the same energy. In fact, some claim to have established upper limits on the size of the electron as small as 10^-22 m, which is about 10,000,000 times smaller than the classical radius. So the shear waves that orbit one another to form particles are not, strictly speaking, photons.

Everything in our universe consists of ethereal shear waves (regular energy) and ethereal pressure waves (dark energy). All the forces of nature result from exchange of momentum between the two types of waves. The mix of shear waves and pressure waves is chaotic, and each species of particle is a strange attractor. The rest mass of the particle is energy-mass of the orbiting shear waves.

Yes, a photon has mass IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE. I must digress to explain why photons have no mass in Minkowski space-time. This truth is sadly missing from you classical education, and it may seem to contradict what you think you know. Try to see this as clarification, rather than contradiction.

In Euclidean space, there is mutual attraction between photons and other masses by the force of gravity. The formula, f = ma, doesn't work at relativistic speeds for particles with rest mass, let alone for photons. The correct formula for both is f = dp/dt; force is the rate of change of momentum. (For a rest mass, dp = mdv + vdm.) If the force of gravity is not parallel to the path of the photon, then the photon will change direction and follow a curved path.

In Minkowski space-time, the path of a photon is the definition of a straight line. Straightening the path of light by definition is the cause of the warp of space-time. The warp is caused by gravity, not the other way around. Minkowski's redefinition of a straight line tacitly alters the meanings of all the familiar parameters, including mass. This is why it is said that a photon has no mass; they’re not telling you that this is only true in Minkowski space-time. If you ask about Euclidean space, they tell you that Euclidean space does not exist in a gravity field. If you believe in Euclidean space, as I do, they treat you like a Flat-Earther.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 02:45:43 by Phractality »
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein