[Pincho (OP)]

Just as a hypothesis could colour be a spin? Is it proven to be a wave 100%? For example a prism could just be slowing down the spin of the photons. How do we know that light is 100% a wave?

[CliffordK]

Color differences are due to differences in wavelength. 
Although, since we only have 3 color receptors, different mixes of colors might be perceived as the same.

The "waves" have been determined through interference patterns, which allows one to also calculate a wavelength.

[Pincho (OP)]

And a secondary physical wave can't be created from a spin? I mean in Quantum Physics one thing can become another thing. For example we identify the location of a planet sometimes by the perturbation in the orbit of another planet, but the bobbing effect has nothing to do with the physics of the other planet. Say a Frisbee turns around, and comes back, it loops like a wave, but is caused by a spin.

[evan_au]

One of the characteristics of a photon is its "spin", which only takes 2 values: +/-1.
These two values are not sufficient to generate all of the colours that we see in a rainbow.

However, these two values correspond to the two directions of circularly polarised light (ie left-handed & right-handed), which are used to deliver separate images to your left and right eyes in some brands of 3D cinema. In modern 3D movies, each eye is able to see the full range of colours, because the photon's wavelength/frequency is independent of its spin.
 
For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized_3D_system#Circularly_polarized_glasses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#The_photon_as_a_gauge_boson

[Pmb]

And a secondary physical wave can't be created from a spin?

No. That has no meaning. Recall that color is a physiological effect whereby radiation of certain wavelengths register in the brain in terms which we call "light". The different colors is a result of different wavelengths. In this sense "color" is not a real thing just as "length" is not a real thing but merely the measure of a real thing. Spin, however, is a measure of the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle. The two are not related and can't be related in the sense you want them to be. E.g. just as you can't change the measure of length into an angular mometum of a rotating object you can't change color into spin or vice versa.

I mean in Quantum Physics one thing can become another thing.

That's not true. Where did you get that idea from? At best you an have particles go into a reaction and a different set of paticles come out. That doesnt mean that one thing becomes anothe for any other thing.

For example we identify the location of a planet sometimes by the perturbation in the orbit of another planet, but the bobbing effect has nothing to do with the physics of the other planet. Say a Frisbee turns around, and comes back, it loops like a wave, but is caused by a spin.

Sorry but your anaology is quite flawed.

[CliffordK]

Keep in mind that your theory has to cover everything from radio waves, short waves, microwaves, IR, Visible light, UV, and Gamma radiation, which are all fundamentally the same, except with different energies, or frequencies/wavelengths.

[simplified]

Transparent environment can change length of wave, but it doesn't change photon energy and color.Energy is color.

[Pincho (OP)]

OK thanks. It's just that spin seems easier to store than wave, especially through space.

[simplified]

OK thanks. It's just that spin seems easier to store than wave, especially through space.

Your motion to light source increases  energy of the photons, changing the colours.Then it should increase quantity of spins per second,how?

[Pincho (OP)]

By taking on the spin of the electron, or the spin spin. The spin spin is a proposed secondary electron spin state. I'm thinking that all particles have an inner spin state.

[yor_on]

heh, first tell me what our original spin is, then you can develop this 'secondary spin'
'Spin' is a property needed for explaining some effects seen (Stern–Gerlach experiment), but nowhere have I seen it explained in its own.

[Pincho (OP)]

I would imagine that your first spin is actually a two ended spiral which is happening so fast that it throws mass around like a spin. Then the spiral powers the internal spin like a baby's spinning top, and like a Galaxy. The spiral would be created by three particle holes at the front, and 3 at the back which are inverted from the three at the front, and give polarity a meaning. Then 6 chambers inside the photon hold the spin. Then scalar particles vibrate on the outside of the photon, and convert the spin into a wave.

That's what I would imagine happens. But when are you allowed to guess in science?

[JP]

You can "guess" in science if your guess produce a falsifiable prediction.  This should almost always be based on mathematics so that it's a quantitative prediction.  Your prediction should also usually be sufficiently different from other predictions that you can differentiate them.

[Pincho (OP)]

You can "guess" in science if your guess produce a falsifiable prediction.  This should almost always be based on mathematics so that it's a quantitative prediction.  Your prediction should also usually be sufficiently different from other predictions that you can differentiate them.

Well I've never been taught Calculus. I wouldn't mind learning Calculus, but I'm more like Da Vinci, and I work with physics in my head. I can create the computer models, but I don't think it's worth the effort without anybody actually caring what I produce.

[syhprum]

The colloquial German for crazy is spinnen !

[Pincho (OP)]

The colloquial German for crazy is spinnen !

Nice to know that written language without maths actually means something then.

[simplified]

You can "guess" in science if your guess produce a falsifiable prediction.  This should almost always be based on mathematics so that it's a quantitative prediction.  Your prediction should also usually be sufficiently different from other predictions that you can differentiate them.

Well I've never been taught Calculus. I wouldn't mind learning Calculus, but I'm more like Da Vinci, and I work with physics in my head. I can create the computer models, but I don't think it's worth the effort without anybody actually caring what I produce.

I don't know any physics model of Da Vinci.Physics can tell about any mechanism.Any mechanism can't tell about physics.

[Pincho (OP)]

Well, if later it turns out that colour is a spin, then my way is better. I work physics out using my knowledge of physics.

[yor_on]

There are examples of physicists getting their ideas geometrically, as you want. Think I read about one guy, having some drinks one late night, to then dream about a problem he was trying to solve, watching it develop geometrically in his dream. And it gave him the expression he then translated into mathematics, solving the puzzle. A Finnish guy if I remember right

But to be precise you must learn the mathematics, to be able to translate it into mathematical notation. There is no way around that fact I'm afraid. As for spin it would have to be faster than light to translate directly to a ordinary spin. It also would need to be explained why a full rotation takes twice 360 degrees, if you translate it into a ordinary rotation of some spinning top on the floor. So it's a really mysterious property to me. Doesn't mean that you should stop imagining, but you need the mathematics to prove your ideas.

[Pincho (OP)]

There are examples of physicists getting their ideas geometrically, as you want. Think I read about one guy, having some drinks one late night, to then dream about a problem he was trying to solve, watching it develop geometrically in his dream. And it gave him the expression he then translated into mathematics, solving the puzzle. A Finnish guy if I remember right

But to be precise you must learn the mathematics, to be able to translate it into mathematical notation. There is no way around that fact I'm afraid. As for spin it would have to be faster than light to translate directly to a ordinary spin. It also would need to be explained why a full rotation takes twice 360 degrees, if you translate it into a ordinary rotation of some spinning top on the floor. So it's a really mysterious property to me. Doesn't mean that you should stop imagining, but you need the mathematics to prove your ideas.

I am not in a position to learn Calculus at home though. I asked someone to teach me on the internet, but they wouldn't.

About the twice 360%, you might be more surprised that angles reduce to 60% in my theory. So you can't turn less than 60%, you are in a segmented coordinate system. However the segments themselves also spin, so which 60% of the 360% is more complicated. The segmentation is due to holes creating vortex, and the vortex locking at 60% intervals. If you wanted to move less than 60% you would be spun 60% anyway.