[peppercorn]

Are extra dimension not somewhat similar to having things "curled up in space"?

Or indeed necessary for??

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

I don't need 10 or 11 dimensions. I just need 4 or 5 dimensions. String Theories are interesting but they did not predict anything proved yet... Until now, String theories seems to emerge from a common mathematical framework. They are defined by data from experimentation within the Standard model of particles. Maybe someday, this mathematical framework will lead to new discoveries...

I just need the four dimensions of space and time and maybe a fifth for the charges. The rotating photons are in space and their effects in time and space and maybe a fifth dimension for the charges...

See this!!!

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein_theory

This theory has never been disproved. Einstein and his colleagues stop investigating it when they found no mathematical solution. But i think i know why, because gravity and electromagnetism are mutually exclusive (duality wave-particle)... I am working on it...

[Geezer]

That was really my only point. They both rely on additional dimensions.

If there are additional dimensions, why would a smaller number be necessarily any better?

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Less dimensions is not necessarily better but it is simpler...

There is no string in my theory but there is minimum quantum length and energy. I still have to find how quantization of particles appears in spacetime.

The key point is that Gravity and acceleration are the same as Time rate... If you have no change in acceleration or gravity, you have a fixed timerate. The zero timerate line of the particles explains the Relativity Theory.

 

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Follow the links

http://fora.tv/2008/07/23/Leonard_Susskind_-_The_Black_Hole_War#chapter_05

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~nipoplaw/PLB_687_110.pdf

[QuantumClue]

I don't think this should have been moved from physics.

It has been proven in experimental physics that all matter is made from light. Light is also a fundamental particle, which would make it the fundamental consituent of all matter. No physicist argues with this, so why was this moved? Or atleast, no credible scientist argues with this.

[JP]

I moved this thread because the claims being made were highly speculative and not based on mainstream physics.  The main purpose of this forum is a science Q&A forum and if speculative posts are left outside of New Theories, it can confuse and mislead those who show up to ask questions.

I think what no credible scientist would argue with is energy is the currency of physics, and light and all other particles can be created from energy (as long as certain conservation laws are kept in mind).  As for particles literally being made up of photons, that's certainly outside of the mainstream.

[peppercorn]

It has been proven in experimental physics that all matter is made from light.

That is simply nonsense.
Ypu may be getting confused with this: Mass-energy_equivalence

[QuantumClue]

It has been proven in experimental physics that all matter is made from light.

That is simply nonsense.
Ypu may be getting confused with this: Mass-energy_equivalence

Not at all.

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

[peppercorn]

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.

[Geezer]

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

[QuantumClue]

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.

[JP]

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.

[peppercorn]

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???! []

[QuantumClue]

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.

[QuantumClue]

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.

[JP]

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. 

[QuantumClue]

Here is a seperate link if you don't trust BenTheMan

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

[JP]

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.

[peppercorn]

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).