What does a photon look like and how does it work?

  • 32 Replies
  • 2066 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
What does a photon look like and how does it work?

    There are three forms of electrical energy in the universe and three forms of momentum. There are positive, negative, and bipolar electrical energy. There are linear, angular, and spherical momentums. The photon contains bipolar electrical energy. It has a net electrical charge of zero but it does have a magnetic field due to its spin. It has both linear momentum and angular momentum.
   The photon is a bipolar energy oscillation. Since it has no obvious spherical momentum, it does not have the ordinary property of mass. The oscillation of the photon maintains the linear and angular momentum. We notice the photon when the wave is increasing in radius. Prior to this point, the radius was basically zero. As the plane of bipolar energy gains in radius, the outer radius slows down. Thus the spin slows but the angular momentum remains the same. The plane of energy reaches a maximum radius and then decays. As it decays the plane’s rotation speeds up.  This is like an ice skater pulling her arms close to her body.
   Finally a point is reached where the plane of energy is basically a zero size. At this point the spin of the photon is extremely high. In effect the photon has changed into a line of bipolar energy. In effect the photon has changed itself into a singular laser beam. The line will continue to shrink to an almost zero size and then it will start to expand again.
  When the photon is at almost zero radius, it is similar to a high speed particle. It will hit an electron or a sub-particle and impart linear momentum to them.  When the photon is at maximum radius, it will look like a wave. Thus the photon itself looks like a particle wave although it continues to move at the speed of light.
  The photon is a self-contained oscillation. The change from a moving plane to a straight line can be considered like photonic breathing. The photon in expanding and contracting is an electrical motor type mechanism which tends to operate at a constant speed.
   Although the photon is electrostatically neutral it has a magnetic field. Dot-wave energy can exist from a single point to a radius. When we have negative dot wave energy that oscillates we get both an electric field and a magnetic field. The same is true for positive dot-wave energy. The bipolar dot-wave energy configuration has a zero net electric field. However the positive and negative dot-wave energy within the photon has an inner negative and a positive outer. This produces a charged capacitor configuration and a net magnetic field. The same thing happens in the neutron which is electrically neutral but has a magnetic field.
   In general positive and negative dot-wave energy cannot destroy each other since they occupy different dimensions. In addition positive dot-wave energy can be added to positive dot-wave energy to create larger and larger charges. At a distance positive repels positive but close up at zero distances they do not repel. The electron is pure negative dot-wave energy in a spherical oscillation. An alternate way of looking at the electron is a planar oscillation which is rotating in one plane and at the same time the plane itself is rotating at an orthogonal angle. Thus we get a spherical pattern which is required for the property of mass although it is can by perpendicular rotations. The same appears true within the Bohr orbit which produces the fine constant.
 The proton is more complex and consists of both positive and negative dot-wave energy and bipolar dot-wave energy. It contains linear, angular, and spherical momentums.
  The electron when basically stationary contains spherical or dual perpendicular angular momentums. It is the spherical momentum that gives it the property of mass. The complex proton has the property of mass which comes from its quarks spherical momentum plus gyroscopic patterns of linear and orbital momentum of the quarks.
  When we look at the photon’s waveshape it is obvious that we have a perpendicular planar waveshape which goes from a maximum radius to near zero. At the same time in the axial direction we have a waveshape that goes from a maximum toward zero. If we compress the light wave to zero light speed, it will approximate a sphere that is rotating in two axes. Thus when two photons hit each other nearly head on at the proper energy levels, they will produce two spheres which have mass. The bidirectional angular momentum required to produce mass always existed within the photons.
 When we accelerate an electron toward light speed we get Doppler distortions in the spherical energy patterns. This causes the gravitational field of the electron to be stronger in the forward direction and weaker in the rearward direction. At the same time the electron itself is shrinking. This is because the more energy we add into an object the stronger the dot-wave bonds become.  We have converted photonic energy into a higher mass entity. Thus the electron has gained energy and shrunk in all directions. We then have Einstein’s solution which mirrors the gravitational mean of the Doppler solution for the gravitational field of the electron.
   In my book “The Gravitational Wave and the Dot-wave theory” by Gerald Grushow, the equivalent mass of a dot-wave is 1.372E-72Kg and the charge is 1.422E-60 Coulombs. This is the lowest quantum of charge and energy in the universe. The electron has 6.640E40 negative dot-waves. That does not mean that you can find all these dot-waves inside the electron. It just means that the compression of the big bang forced all this quanta of energy into the electron.
   Prior to big bang we had electromagnetic energy which compressed toward a small radius. The compression forced electromagnetic field energy into particles and photons. At some time the gravitational pump produced the electrons and protons. Later gravitational compressions produced the atoms. It is interesting that two photons which contain linear and angular energy collide to produce positrons and electrons. The bipolar photons split into positive and negative dot-wave energy which at the same time has spherical type oscillations. It is the spherical type or bidirectional planar oscillations that produce mass. It is the planar oscillation of the photon that contains all the ingredients necessary to produce mass.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2016 17:55:19 by jerrygg38 »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #1 on: 08/09/2016 15:10:34 »
What does a photon look like and how does it work?
    There are three forms of electrical energy in the universe and three forms of momentum. There are positive, negative, and bipolar electrical energy. There are linear, angular, and spherical momentums. The photon contains bipolar electrical energy. It has a net electrical charge of zero but it does have a magnetic field due to its spin. It has both linear momentum and angular momentum.
   The photon is a bipolar energy oscillation. Since it has no spherical momentum, it does not have the property of mass. The oscillation of the photon maintains the linear and angular momentum. We notice the photon when the wave is increasing in radius. Prior to this point, the radius was basically zero. As the plane of bipolar energy gains in radius, the outer radius slows down. Thus the spin slows but the angular momentum remains the same. The plane of energy reaches a maximum radius and then decays. As it decays the plane speeds up.  This is like an ice skater pulling her arms close to her body.
   Finally a point is reached where the plane of energy is basically a zero size. At this point the spin of the photon is extremely high. In effect the photon has changed into a line of bipolar energy. In effect the photon has changed itself into a laser beam. The line will continue to shrink to an almost zero size and then it will start to expand again.
  When the photon is at almost zero radius, it is similar to a high speed particle. It will hit an electron or a sub-particle and impart linear momentum to them.  When the photon is at maximum radius, it will look like a wave. Thus the photon itself looks like a particle wave although it continues to move at the speed of light.
  The photon is a self-contained oscillation. The change from a moving plane to a straight line can be considered like photonic breathing. The photon in expanding and contracting is an electrical motor type mechanism which tends to operate at a constant speed.
   Although the photon is electrostatically neutral it has a magnetic field. Dot-wave energy can exist from a single point to a radius. When we have negative dot wave energy that oscillates we get both an electric field and a magnetic field. The same is true for positive dot-wave energy. The bipolar dot-wave energy configuration has a zero net electric field. However the positive and negative dot-wave energy within the photon has an inner negative and a positive outer. This produces a charged capacitor configuration and a net magnetic field. The same thing happens in the neutron which is electrically neutral but has a magnetic field.
   In general positive and negative dot-wave energy cannot destroy each other since they occupy different dimensions. In addition positive dot-wave energy can be added to positive dot-wave energy to create larger and larger charges. At a distance positive repels positive but close up at zero distances they do not repel. The electron is pure negative dot-wave energy in a spherical oscillation. The proton is more complex and consists of both positive and negative dot-wave energy and bipolar dot-wave energy. It contains linear, angular, and spherical momentums.
  The electron when basically stationary contains spherical and angular momentums. It is the spherical momentum that gives it the property of mass. The complex proton has the property of mass which comes from its spherical momentum plus gyroscopic patterns of linear and orbital momentum. When we accelerate an electron toward light speed we get Doppler distortions in the spherical energy patterns. This causes an equivalent mass which is the combination of spherical and linear momentum.
   In my book “The Gravitational Wave and the Dot-wave theory” by Gerald Grushow, the equivalent mass of a dot-wave is 1.372E-72Kg and the charge is 1.422E-60 Coulombs. This is the lowest quantum of charge and energy in the universe. The electron has 6.640E40 negative dot-waves. That does not mean that you can find all these dot-waves inside the electron. It just means that the compression of the big bang forced all this quanta of energy into the electron.
   Prior to big bang we had electromagnetic energy which compressed toward a small radius. The compression forced electromagnetic field energy into particles and photons. At some time the gravitational pump produced the electrons and protons. Later gravitational compressions produced the atoms. It is interesting that two photons which contain linear and angular energy collide to produce positrons and electrons. The bipolar photons split into positive and negative dot-wave energy which at the same time has spherical oscillations. It is the spherical oscillations that produce mass. Thus the conservation of linear and angular momentum that we observe appears wrong on the surface.  The law is: Spherical Energy +Angular Energy+ Linear Energy are conserved.
  The question is where did the spherical energy come from? The answer is that it always existed within the dot-waves themselves. Each dot-wave has mass because it has a spherical oscillation. When we look at a particle such as an electron or a quark, all the dot-wave spherical oscillations have become the spherical oscillation of the entire structure. Thus we can say that
  Linear momentum, angular momentum, and spherical momentum are conserved.
 

It looks invisible.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #2 on: 08/09/2016 15:36:45 »
jerrygg38

    You are suggesting photons have mass. They do not by Relativity mathematics and as you know we have to follow the math. Main stream will never understand what a photon looks like under the current model and understanding. There probably is no such thing as charge in the sense you are using. Electrons rotate through fundamental energy c of space. When an electron rotates up to a different shell it creates a tornado in the fundamental c that propagates at c until something absorbs the tornado we recognize as macro energy in the mass realm. The maxima and minima is the rotation and length of travel for the electron. A sphere in all directions is created unless blocked by absorbing mass.

Main stream suggests a virtual photon particle and a wave. I would suggest a wave on particles of spin c. I have a designed grid structure that move electrons as a rotation and follow Relativity mechanics.

What moves the electron in the main stream model?

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #3 on: 08/09/2016 18:22:24 »
jerrygg38

    You are suggesting photons have mass. They do not by Relativity mathematics and as you know we have to follow the math. Main stream will never understand what a photon looks like under the current model and understanding.

Main stream suggests a virtual photon particle and a wave. I would suggest a wave on particles of spin c.

What moves the electron in the main stream model?
  I just re-posted my article. What are your inclinations, science and math? The mathematician looks at things as if the universe was built upon equations and math. Thus the scientist looks at thing differently than the Engineer. I look at things from pictures that I can see. I believe that we live in a practical universe which is easy to understand from an engineering viewpoint.  I do not believe that the great mathematical mind of Einstein correctly described the universe. I do believe that his mathematical interpretation of how the universe operates produces excellent results. Thus for arguments sake he produced a mathematical model that works well.
   However his model only described general patterns and does not provide us with a basic understanding of what is happening. Your words are nice from a scientific and mathematical perspective but they provide no real understanding of how things work.
  My photon understanding which is only a few days old and written down and revised this morning shows that the photon looks like a particle part of the time when it is reduced to a very small radius and behaves like a wave when it expands to a normal radius. Thus in my mind it is a particle/wave. Yet I have not called it that in many, many years. You ask what makes it move?
   The rise from a zero radius to a maximum radius and the fall back to a zero radius constitutes an entire structure. It is a self-propelled machine of a particular wavelength. It is not an interaction of space such that a perturbation travels along a path. The photon is a machine structure, and that moves in a straight line at the speed C.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #4 on: 09/09/2016 10:55:54 »

  I just re-posted my article. What are your inclinations, science and math? The mathematician looks at things as if the universe was built upon equations and math. Thus the scientist looks at thing differently than the Engineer.



So true Jerry, Maths is just arbitrary and has no real  meaning in the Universe.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #5 on: 09/09/2016 13:03:53 »

  I just re-posted my article. What are your inclinations, science and math? The mathematician looks at things as if the universe was built upon equations and math. Thus the scientist looks at thing differently than the Engineer.



So true Jerry, Maths is just arbitrary and has no real  meaning in the Universe.
  Math has a lot of meaning in providing formulas to calculate quantitatively what happens. For example the flight of a shell from a 5 inch gun requires 100 simultaneously equations in a real time computer to aim the gun and hit the target. I designed the hardware for the system but the mathematicians and physicists did the equations and the programming. So you need both. However I believe that it is an engineering universe and not a mathematicians universe. So Einstein comes up with the math and does a great job. Yet he does not tell us what the photon looks like. He does not tell us what causes space to curve and contract. His equations appear to work well but they are only the math and the engineering is missing.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #6 on: 09/09/2016 14:22:16 »

  I just re-posted my article. What are your inclinations, science and math? The mathematician looks at things as if the universe was built upon equations and math. Thus the scientist looks at thing differently than the Engineer.



So true Jerry, Maths is just arbitrary and has no real  meaning in the Universe.
  Math has a lot of meaning in providing formulas to calculate quantitatively what happens. For example the flight of a shell from a 5 inch gun requires 100 simultaneously equations in a real time computer to aim the gun and hit the target. I designed the hardware for the system but the mathematicians and physicists did the equations and the programming. So you need both. However I believe that it is an engineering universe and not a mathematicians universe. So Einstein comes up with the math and does a great job. Yet he does not tell us what the photon looks like. He does not tell us what causes space to curve and contract. His equations appear to work well but they are only the math and the engineering is missing.

Interesting view on maths, however I can aim my gun and by trial and error with  no maths hit the target. Things happen regardless of maths, for example we can calculate how much force something hits the ground when falling , however the force is there without the maths and the  thing falls regardless of maths.
When a person  thinks of space curving or contracted , it is hard for a  person to imagine what they can't visually see, after all free space is clear and not opaque and prediction is because of this very fact, i.e we can see where things are going too.

Now if you was to say the greatness of maths was for first time precision, then I would agree , but other than that function , maths is not a necessity.  I could fly a rocket to Mercury or likes by just ''steering'' the rocket to the target. No complex calculations or vector analysis.

I could explain a curvature of space quite easily, to imagine a spinning black hole centripetally contracted ''north'' and ''south'' to form a disk like shape, expansions becomes the ''equator'' .

But of course speculation without observation is objectively ''god'' theories.

 


*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #7 on: 09/09/2016 15:49:07 »
jerrygg38, Thebox

     No matter what you think of mathematics theory's have to follow maths valid. You are getting your knowledge from non realists. The Bohr Copenhagen interpretation. Where something comes from nothing and no one even bats an eye. I believe in mechanics that follow math. A photon cannot have mass and follow the equations of Relativity. I believe Relativity is the correct way to interpret our universe. A particle will have entropy. There is no perpetual motion even in light as a particle moving through space. Mechanics have to follow math. If you are trying to explain a photon within the realm of Relativity it cannot be a particle traveling through space. If you disregard Relativity than you can make it anything you want. Or use a weasel word like main stream, a magic virtual particle.

    We know there is c for a photon that will travel until it is interrupted. We know it is always measured to be the same speed in a vacuum. We understand it cannot be a particle by the mathematics of Relativity (unless we invoke magic). We know it transfers energy. We know it acts like a particle and a wave. What are we left with for a design? Only one logical possibility. It is not normal mass because it cannot be a particle from mass as we know it. It has to have its own energy because it is measured to be constant in every frame. Logically you would have to concede that there is a energy from space that not only moves the photon but is the photon. When an electron moves from one shell to another it interrupts the rest state of the energy matrix in the form of a propagated wave. The entire spectrum of fields and waves are interruptions in the rest state of fundamental energy. The cause of time. So all propagated waves of the spectrum travel at the same velocity. Magnetism is just a spin state of fundamental energy. Clockwise going in and clockwise going out. Magnetic properties probably contributed to the DNA helix that created life.

Main stream looks at how each new observation fits into their view rather than realize there view needs to change. Main stream realizes a matrix below what we describe as mass would change main streams concept. The energy of change is a steep uphill battle. When a virtual particle was born as an explanation of a photon magic was the result. They put up the MMX as a wall to defend against all Aether types when it only disproved one type (a stationary one).

    Dark Mass Energy is two aspects of the same thing. Mass as a dimension smaller than the electron (not another dimension but as part of our realm). Energy is the spin state of Dark Mass and is constant. It moves the electrons and photons in a confounded way to measure the same speed of light in a vacuum in all frames.

    The equivalence principle between GR and SR both change the measuring stick used in a frame. GR by dilation of space and SR by visual appearance of the physical measuring stick. Every frame changes the distance you would measure as a mile. More dilation in GR physically increases your measuring sick. Speed in SR increases the visual length of your measuring stick while in the same frame. The frame at rest will view a contraction in length. It all follows the geometry of the finite speed of light in SR and the dilation geometry in GR for equivalence. Once you work it out mathematically Relativity is really a beautiful system. Absolutely no paradox's just a mathematical beauty.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #8 on: 09/09/2016 22:10:18 »

 

Interesting view on maths, however I can aim my gun and by trial and error with  no maths hit the target. Things happen regardless of maths, for example we can calculate how much force something hits the ground when falling , however the force is there without the maths and the  thing falls regardless of maths.
When a person  thinks of space curving or contracted , it is hard for a  person to imagine what they can't visually see, after all free space is clear and not opaque and prediction is because of this very fact, i.e we can see where things are going too.

Now if you was to say the greatness of maths was for first time precision, then I would agree , but other than that function , maths is not a necessity.  I could fly a rocket to Mercury or likes by just ''steering'' the rocket to the target. No complex calculations or vector analysis.

I could explain a curvature of space quite easily, to imagine a spinning black hole centripetally contracted ''north'' and ''south'' to form a disk like shape, expansions becomes the ''equator'' .

But of course speculation without observation is objectively ''god'' theories.
   You can learn to fire a rifle or a handgun accurately by intuition. Yet if you want to fire a large gun with a 5 inch diameter shell 10 miles and hit a tank moving 20 miles an hour on the seashore, and destroy it in one shot, without a high speed computer, radar images and accurate equations, you would be wasting your time. Unless you made the correct initial calculations for a trip to the moon, all the corrections would amount to nothing at all. In truth extreme accuracy was not necessary as they used slide rules and not fancy computer. And the on board computers were no smarter than an artari set in the early days. And without the math and statistics, there would be no way all the components could have survived the trip and back. So without the math we could never have made it.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #9 on: 09/09/2016 22:26:41 »
jerrygg38, Thebox

     No matter what you think of mathematics theory's have to follow maths valid. You are getting your knowledge from non realists. The Bohr Copenhagen interpretation. Where something comes from nothing and no one even bats an eye. I believe in mechanics that follow math. A photon cannot have mass and follow the equations of Relativity. I believe Relativity is the correct way to interpret our universe. A particle will have entropy. There is no perpetual motion even in light as a particle moving through space. Mechanics have to follow math. If you are trying to explain a photon within the realm of Relativity it cannot be a particle traveling through space. If you disregard Relativity than you can make it anything you want. Or use a weasel word like main stream, a magic virtual particle.
   Relativity is like religion. Some are relativity theists and others are relativity atheists. I am a middle of the road person. To me relativity is a mathematical tool to describe various aspects of the universe. It has many followers. You are a follower. I doubt very much that the strange math of Albert Einstein is more than a first order approximation to the universe. All the beautiful electrical laws that we produce ultimately are merely approximations. They never work perfectly. The Engineer always has to make corrections to them to get things to work. Thus art must be added to science since the laws never work perfectly. So now you believe that Albert Einstein has so perfect a mind that he correctly defined the universe. Yet 1000 years from now he will be long forgotten. His theory will be in the ash heap of science. Future man will laugh at how silly his ideas were.In fact future man will never even have heard of him except in the museum of ancient thoughts.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #10 on: 10/09/2016 12:02:54 »
jerrygg38, Thebox

      There is no perpetual motion even in light as a particle moving through space. Mechanics have to follow math. If you are trying to explain a photon within the realm of Relativity it cannot be a particle traveling through space. If you disregard Relativity than you can make it anything you want. Or use a weasel word like main stream, a magic virtual particle.

    We know there is c for a photon that will travel until it is interrupted. We know it is always measured to be the same speed in a vacuum. We understand it cannot be a particle by the mathematics of Relativity (unless we invoke magic). We know it transfers energy. We know it acts like a particle and a wave. What are we left with for a design? Only one logical possibility. It is not normal mass because it cannot be a particle from mass as we know it. It has to have its own energy because it is measured to be constant in every frame.
  You approach things from a mathematical perspective. You say a photon cannot have mass but two high energy photons hitting each other produce electrons and positrons which have mass. Therefore photons have the substance within them that produces mass. What is mass? It is a spherical configuration of energy which makes it like a three dimensional gyroscope. What is a photon? It tends to be a linear wave that at times looks like a particle when the wave is basically zero transverse radius and like a wave when the transverse radius is at a maximum. Thus we are dealing with geometry and not relativity. Relativity describes the effects of gravitational fields and velocity upon the geometric structures of the photon and the particles. Yet it is only an approximation.

*

Offline Spring Theory

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 40
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #11 on: 10/09/2016 13:15:37 »
To picture what a photon looks like, you have to first picture what it has:

1. Electrical fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.
2. Magnetic fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.

Maybe it would look something like this:



When the photons "collide" to become matter, they don't change, they just get trapped into orbit around each other to create what we perceive of as matter.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #12 on: 10/09/2016 14:10:35 »
 jerrygg38
« on: Today at 12:02:54 »
quote/You approach things from a mathematical perspective. You say a photon cannot have mass but two high energy photons hitting each other produce electrons and positrons which have mass. Therefore photons have the substance within them that produces mass.\
By Relativity math it cannot have mass. Two high energy photons collide and we measure the result as mass. (old school electrons were both negatrons and positrons by opposite spin directions). This measurement does not prove mass being created only the measurement equal to electron motion was measured. We have a measurement. What you conclude from that measurement is up for debate. Depending on your understanding the measurement will be a particle pair or motion in space equal to the pair production by measurement.

Quote\What is mass? It is a spherical configuration of energy which makes it like a three dimensional gyroscope.\
To my mind and understanding it is more in tune with compressed energy similar to a black hole. this black hole is being moved by energy of space that has not been compressed. Depending on your understanding the conclusions to which you believe will have been formed.

Quote\ What is a photon? It tends to be a linear wave that at times looks like a particle when the wave is basically zero transverse radius and like a wave when the transverse radius is at a maximum. Thus we are dealing with geometry and not relativity.\
Relativity is geometry. The idea of a particle came from its ability to transfer energy. The idea of a wave came from the dual slit experiments causing interference. The logical conclusion is a wave on particles with the energy of c spin. You cannot get around the fact the electron and photon are confounded in every frame by measurement.

Quote\Relativity describes the effects of gravitational fields and velocity upon the geometric structures of the photon and the particles. Yet it is only an approximation.\
More like a ratio being the same in every frame. Your understanding only allows for an approximation. The beauty of relativity is the ratio being the same in every frame. Your measuring stick is not the same in every frame but your tick rate to distance measured as a ratio remains the same.

Spring Theory
« on: Today at 13:15:37 »
Quote\When the photons "collide" to become matter, they don't change, they just get trapped into orbit around each other to create what we perceive of as matter.\
What we measure as a brief force equal to an electron moving through space is not necessarily pair production. When we shoot electrons it may not be the physical electron traveling through space but the representative spectrum of the electron. This would explain the electron dual slit interference same as a photon of light wave length. The representation moves at the speed of light so cannot be the particle itself but rather the wave o fundamental energy. You can chose a fractured understanding based on  main stream concepts or logic based on observations. Theory has to follow math but math cannot prove a theory correct.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #13 on: 10/09/2016 22:22:40 »
To picture what a photon looks like, you have to first picture what it has:

1. Electrical fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.
2. Magnetic fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.

Maybe it would look something like this:



When the photons "collide" to become matter, they don't change, they just get trapped into orbit around each other to create what we perceive of as matter.
  If you have negative electric charges spinning in a plane positive electric charges spinning in the same direction in an adjacent plane, the magnetic fields perpendicular to the plane will cancel. If they spin in opposite directions they will add. Your pictures shows them separated but I believe that they occupy the same distance from the center axis.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #14 on: 10/09/2016 22:40:38 »
jerrygg38
« on: Today at 12:02:54 »
Quote The beauty of relativity is the ratio being the same in every frame. Your measuring stick is not the same in every frame but your tick rate to distance measured as a ratio remains the same.
   Right now I am restudying relativity as a mathematical understanding of how the universe works. I am looking for a nuts and bolts understanding but it appears to me that the math solution yields good answers. It is true that my measuring stick is not the same. As I move toward a high density gravitational field, my measuring stick shrinks. Most likely if I have an XYZ spherical ruler it appears that it will shrink equally in all directions.
   What still confuses me is the tick rate to distance measured. My ball has shrunk and my energy level has increased with increasing gravitational pressure. So my clock is running faster.
   Now if I move my clock with velocity, more energy will be added to it and it will shrink. then the clock will run faster again but it appears that this is contrary to relativity. That is the question I put up on the science forum. How would you explain this?

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #15 on: 11/09/2016 05:00:51 »
 jerrygg38
« on: 10/09/2016 22:40:38 »
Quote\ As I move toward a high density gravitational field, my measuring stick shrinks. Most likely if I have an XYZ spherical ruler it appears that it will shrink equally in all directions.\

No your measuring stick expands in GR dilation!! The closer to the center of mass the lower the potential energy and more expanded the mass in the dilated space. Galaxies have visual dilation of space. Einstein's gamma term is expansion with diluted potential energy. Many go the wrong direction as you just did in confusing it with length contraction. Length contraction is SR. When we use the space ship with light moving forward and back part of the ship moves forward while the light is moving backward. That is the source of length contraction from an observer at rest with SR. Yes in dilation the entire measuring stick increases to measure a longer mile while the clock tick rate slows down to measure the distance light traveled in a vacuum the same in every frame. One caveat the dilation is a gradient to the center of mass. Many make that same mistake as you. Its no wonder most are confused with Relativity.

Quote\Now if I move my clock with velocity, more energy will be added to it and it will shrink. then the clock will run faster again but it appears that this is contrary to relativity. That is the question I put up on the science forum. How would you explain this?\

Energy in a clock is being removed with speed Not added. c is a limit of zero point energy and is constant. As you approach c less energy is available. If mass could go c all the energy would be used for vector speed. In SR your measuring stick appears longer than at relative rest where it appears length contracted. It is the finite speed of light that causes the contracted view. Consider a light source moving towards a ship going 1/2 the speed of light. When the light wave first hits the front of the ship the rear of the ship is moving forward by 1/3 its length so the ship would only reflect 2/3rds of its actual size. Now wit light moving with the ship the ship will appear (by reflection) twice its physical size. So the visual and the physical length are never on the same page using light at relativistic speeds. But your measurement of time and your measurement of distance measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in all frames. What is amazing, dilation in GR is mathematically equivalent to speed in SR.

Here is an interesting tid bit. Gravity = acceleration + deceleration. In acceleration your clock slows with gravity. In deceleration your clock speeds up with gravity. So gravity is not what affects your tick rate. Zero point energy is affected by SR speed and GR dilation.

Lets say you are in the same region of the Earth. The Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles. if you had a ship that cold instantly go from 32 ft/s/s acceleration down to zero acceleration in 4,000 miles by the inverse sq. your clock would rick at the same rate as the center of the Earth. Equivalence of GR and SR.

You have to understand the meaning of your math as it relates to your environment. Otherwise you are just doing rabbit hole math. Relativity is a beautiful description of our universe when you understand it correctly.


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #16 on: 11/09/2016 10:41:39 »
jerrygg38, Thebox

     No matter what you think of mathematics theory's have to follow maths valid.

Well Goc, I thought you would understand the basic principles of science, maths does not come before the theory/idea, the maths has to follow the theory/idea , it is the other way around, if you want an example , Faraday/Maxwell , Maxwell added the maths to Faraday's ''work'' much later in time. In fact several years later.

Mathematics is made to fit the theory or measured to fit the theory, it is not something that exists on its own merit.


*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #17 on: 11/09/2016 15:24:41 »
Thebox,

   I have been working in the field of science since was eighteen. I suspect I know some principles of science. Math cannot prove a theory but it can disprove one if it does not follow math.

The postulates of Relativity agree with geometry of the finite speed of light. The Lorentz contraction while correct for the view does not represent the physical object as being contracted. Simple geometry will follow the visual contraction. Light being independent of the source creates a Pythagoras style geometry with the speed of light. This follows the observations of Relativity.

    Relativity is not my theory. I spent years trying to understand Relativity. I finally reverse engineered the geometry of the postulates of Relativity to finally understand Relativity. Many believe they understand Relativity because they know the math of Relativity. The math equations will give you a rabbit hole understanding of Relativity. It's only when you put in the work of following the postulates with geometry that you get out of the rabbit hole to understand the observations.  I can explain it to you but all of us have a natural bias that no one could have a better understanding than yourself. So we block off our ability to learn. You are a prime example of this issue.

Quote\ Well Goc, I thought you would understand the basic principles of science, maths does not come before the theory/idea,\

Relativity postulates came first than the math. None of this is my theory it is Einstein's. I just took the time to learn Relativity through geometry.

What I realized about Relativity is main stream's view of nothing to impede the photon in space is illogical. The electron jumping to a different shell slower than the speed of light would not produce a particle moving faster than the electron motion. The electron moving slower than the fundamental energy of space is the actual reason for light. the resistance caused by the rotating electron creates a wave frequency propagated by the energy already in space as a disturbance. The disturbance on one side is the opposite at 180 degrees. The rotation on one side is towards a observer while the other side the observer it moves away. Mirror images of the wave. This is entanglement when you measure one side the entangled partner is the opposite spin. It is not a particle but a wave on particles. This removes any paradoxes. Energy of space moves the electrons so the photon and electron are confounded.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #18 on: 11/09/2016 15:36:38 »
Thebox,

   I have been working in the field of science since was eighteen. I suspect I know some principles of science. Math cannot prove a theory but it can disprove one if it does not follow math.

The postulates of Relativity agree with geometry of the finite speed of light. The Lorentz contraction while correct for the view does not represent the physical object as being contracted. Simple geometry will follow the visual contraction. Light being independent of the source creates a Pythagoras style geometry with the speed of light. This follows the observations of Relativity.

    Relativity is not my theory. I spent years trying to understand Relativity. I finally reverse engineered the geometry of the postulates of Relativity to finally understand Relativity. Many believe they understand Relativity because they know the math of Relativity. The math equations will give you a rabbit hole understanding of Relativity. It's only when you put in the work of following the postulates with geometry that you get out of the rabbit hole to understand the observations.  I can explain it to you but all of us have a natural bias that no one could have a better understanding than yourself. So we block off our ability to learn. You are a prime example of this issue.

Quote\ Well Goc, I thought you would understand the basic principles of science, maths does not come before the theory/idea,\

Relativity postulates came first than the math. None of this is my theory it is Einstein's. I just took the time to learn Relativity through geometry.

What I realized about Relativity is main stream's view of nothing to impede the photon in space is illogical. The electron jumping to a different shell slower than the speed of light would not produce a particle moving faster than the electron motion. The electron moving slower than the fundamental energy of space is the actual reason for light. the resistance caused by the rotating electron creates a wave frequency propagated by the energy already in space as a disturbance. The disturbance on one side is the opposite at 180 degrees. The rotation on one side is towards a observer while the other side the observer it moves away. Mirror images of the wave. This is entanglement when you measure one side the entangled partner is the opposite spin. It is not a particle but a wave on particles. This removes any paradoxes. Energy of space moves the electrons so the photon and electron are confounded.

The reason for light is sight, there is nothing to say that what we observe externally is not black in colour or I prefer green as I have witnessed the gin clear of free space become green by staring at a specific lcd heat lamp.

Relativity is easy to understand if you change the context slightly to -  Relativity is that which two or more observers must agree on from their geometrical position.

In most of Einsteins ideas he only looks at one observer being the ''center'' of the Universe ignoring the Universe is 3 dimensional (although this is only arbitrary).

When we consider more observers, ''things'' of present fall apart. The angled laser etc, all not really fact and poor logic.

The simple view of space in my opinion is that maybe two photons can not occupy the same space but can be compressed in a space to form wave like qualities.

The electromagnetism being maybe a separate entity and an existing ''aether'' of space with a value that reads 0 but is not actually zero.

There is a big similarity to magnetic bottling and plasma fields when considering the vacuum of space.

The Sun seems to be bottled really ''tight''.

The speed of light being an emit rate of ''dots''.  All the dots will be pushed by the other dots from source.








« Last Edit: 11/09/2016 15:45:05 by Thebox »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #19 on: 11/09/2016 17:28:32 »
Thebox
« on: Today at 15:36:38 »
Quote\ The reason for light is sight, there is nothing to say that what we observe externally is not black in colour or I prefer green as I have witnessed the gin clear of free space become green by staring at a specific lcd heat lamp.\

The reason we view objects is because of waves. Our brains interpret waves in the visual length as color. Our brains create color out of waves. The waves are there regardless of anything viewing them. Our brain is not a good detector of reality.

Quote\  Relativity is easy to understand if you change the context slightly to -  Relativity is that which two or more observers must agree on from their geometrical position. \

I guess it is nice to sum up your interpretation of Relativity in one sentence. I find the depth of Relativity requires much more than a sentence. And no one would agree on the geometrical position from their observation.

Quote\ In most of Einsteins ideas he only looks at one observer being the ''center'' of the Universe ignoring the Universe is 3 dimensional (although this is only arbitrary).\

Do either of us have the ability to know how Einstein viewed an observer?

Quote\ When we consider more observers, ''things'' of present fall apart. The angled laser etc, all not really fact and poor logic.

Logic depends on the depth of knowledge. Time changes all things but is the basis for life and math logic.

Quote\ The simple view of space in my opinion is that maybe two photons can not occupy the same space but can be compressed in a space to form wave like qualities. \

I agree it is a simple view.

Quote\ The electromagnetism being maybe a separate entity and an existing ''aether'' of space with a value that reads 0 but is not actually zero.\

c is the value of space. 0 is main stream's measurement understanding.

Quote\ There is a big similarity to magnetic bottling and plasma fields when considering the vacuum of space.

The Sun seems to be bottled really ''tight''.\

Yes gravity works.

Quote\ The speed of light being an emit rate of ''dots''.  All the dots will be pushed by the other dots from source.

see that is a magic statement. It does not include expansion nor does it give a mechanism for a particle push. How do you push a virtual particle? A fundamental energy of spin c which creates a wave pattern is a more logical representation of the observation that includes the dual slit experiment.





*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #20 on: 11/09/2016 18:16:39 »


I guess it is nice to sum up your interpretation of Relativity in one sentence. I find the depth of Relativity requires much more than a sentence. And no one would agree on the geometrical position from their observation.
I said relativity is the agreement of two observers from their position, not that they can agree on position, position is relative to each observers position.


Quote
Do either of us have the ability to know how Einstein viewed an observer?

Well! I understand his thoughts about ''things'', I can quite easily ''see'' the Universe,  however the Universe is not how ''you'' see it.

Quote
Logic depends on the depth of knowledge. Time changes all things but is the basis for life and math logic.

Logic does not depend on knowledge, it depends on the ability to make a ''picture'' that reflects reality.

Example - It is logic to presume an object falls to the ground if dropped from the hand.   No knowledge needed it is observed.

Quote
see that is a magic statement. It does not include expansion nor does it give a mechanism for a particle push. How do you push a virtual particle? A fundamental energy of spin c which creates a wave pattern is a more logical representation of the observation that includes the dual slit experiment.

A greater magnitude of likewise charge = expansion, there is nothing complicated about the entropy of a system or systems components.

Minus charge = contraction


Very simple and in experiment such as metal expansion, surely must be true.


We could use hf rather than charge, not sure on that.





« Last Edit: 11/09/2016 18:25:14 by Thebox »

*

Offline Spring Theory

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 40
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #21 on: 13/09/2016 11:57:25 »
To picture what a photon looks like, you have to first picture what it has:

1. Electrical fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.
2. Magnetic fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.

Maybe it would look something like this:



When the photons "collide" to become matter, they don't change, they just get trapped into orbit around each other to create what we perceive of as matter.
  If you have negative electric charges spinning in a plane positive electric charges spinning in the same direction in an adjacent plane, the magnetic fields perpendicular to the plane will cancel. If they spin in opposite directions they will add. Your pictures shows them separated but I believe that they occupy the same distance from the center axis.

This is a photon pictured when coupled with other photons, like what would happen in a ray of light or photons orbiting each other.  If you had a single photon it would look more like a wave packet or be modeled as a compression of space at it's center with decompression of space at it's perimeter that extends to infinity.

When coupled with other photons, the group forms a wave where the magnetic and electrical poles are clearly offset based on electromagnetic wave characteristics.

The spin effect I show is perpendicular to its propagation direction which I postulate is similar to the Coriolis effect in seismic waves that creates the electrical and magnetic fields.

As far as spin on its axis of rotation - this can be looked at from two different perspectives:
1. The photon doesn't spin, it is the sum of two photons in superposition but with orthogonal electrical and magnetic fields and one delayed in phase behind the other.  This would appear to be a spinning electrical and magnetic field.
2. All photons spin, photons that are measured without spin are the sum of two spinning photons in superposition but with orthogonal electrical and magnetic fields and one delayed in phase behind the other. This electric and magnetic fields would appear to be always pointing in the same direction.

I'm leaning to the first simpler model to create stable photon orbits.

*

Online Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #22 on: 14/09/2016 00:39:49 »
As for myself I tend to agree with matematicians, they make more sense to our understandment of reality, walking step by step...
  But there is some true in the fact of "need to follow the current math", I mean if someone missed ugly back there on those expirements, the results could match the math, but missing the factors...

 I do tend to believe, when thinking about wave-particle duality, that the problem, our problem, it comes down to try to concieve "A photon"...
 For me, I wondering a long time already, that there was never such thing as "a photon", as a real particle with charges and no mass. The only reson it do not posses mass is to explain how it's able to travel at C, for me "a photon" can be correctly interpreteded and compreeend when framed as "a portion".... Photon being a state of space when carring information, "a photon" as being like a bubble of oxygen that is being propeled straigth forward under water...
  You see, the bubble is accelerating, and along with it the liquid on the surrownding areas, forming waves, waves "on the water", not on the bubble, the bubble in this scenario being the energy being transfered "troguht" space...

 If it's not clear, "a photon" is everywhere, everytime, after and even before any energy was present, it is a tessue, frabric of space... Wherever forms space fabric, it's prety obvious that "it" cant transpass atomic structure and energy... It can flow between the spaces hardly, but when the things come down to a celestial body density it, "space fabric" can't defnetly penetrate the density...
 So it must be with energy, the ray is moving freely and seems to be transpasing trough the cosmos, freely with no mass, it's indeed the only possible the same math, but not only the possible scenario...
  Math can achieve the correct result, blaming the wrong factors, can be the case that the photon is a "construction of space", a temporary, volatile, without shape, the pseudo shape should be a spheres moving on a straight line, like particles, the waves are from space itself due the acceleration the "act of carring enegy" is producing, such acceleration is able to disrupt the space opn the surrounding areas, and each disruption, copy-cat the acceleration of the original ray of light, resulting in bi-polarity, as a mirror of information....

 One could of course isolate a photon using a controled experiment, but due the fact there they like to apear and desapear, and the fact that you can vaccum a experiment, but one cannot remove the vaccum from existence, and by that I mean you cannot produce a experiment without the presense of space fabric, so how one can be so sure, that one is isolating "a photon, or the photons", and not simple isolating "a controled portion of information being carried by space, trough a no real construction, and "empty area", empty from space, cause it's filled with energy", one sure can siolate it using electromagnetism as always, but the very observation and measurement itself make the experiment invalid, for our purposes....

 For me "C" is the maximum time in with light can "be" traveled, "trough and within the "density of space fabric", for this reason alone C would be not constant and its acceleration randomly subjected to the density of the "sphere" where the observer is, in our case, heliosphere...
 Sun's heliosphere, produce solar winds on space, such as sun is bending space sending away information on the horizon, on its plate, we, planets, become caugth on this disk, locked on it, but sun is also moving, so the plate is the lock on, but as sun is moving, we are literaly chasing it, everytime we fall beind the pull gets strong and slingshot us back to the disk, our on mass add acceleration when the plate is reached and we transpass further, this goes for all the planets direct realated with their masses, we can't move away from sun's plate, and we fall back tot he plate, and again our own mass push us behind the plate. Now one need to add the vertical axe, the poles nort and sout as for the spining, of the plate, we orbit the sun, cause sun's horizon produces this plate, so we are not orbiting the mass, we're orbiting the "effect its mass produces, "on space"", the velocity witch this occurs, agaian, "due sun mass", determinate the acceleration inside the heliosphere, again "sun's mass "in function of space density", space determinates time speed due the mass of the star, cause time is proportional to C, and C proportional to the density of space inside heliosphere, again, determinated by the sun mass....

 If not clear, we could measure many "star spheres" and reach a simbolic number to be the value of C, maximun and minimal, altough this would not mean that C is constant everywhere...

 We can measure the light comming from the galaxy B, herein the galaxy A:
 Imagine that inside the starphere of B, C occurs at "x", than on the empty space between B and A, C become "y", and when reaching the limits of our heliosphere, C becomes "Z"...
 Accepting that C changes randomly from galaxy to galaxy, when nearby massive celestial bodies or dense gass clouds, no matter, to where you look, if you pre-determinate, that the speed of C = "Same", doesn't really matter to where you observe "from inside our heliosphere", the speed of light would always seem to be "Same", seems to be not a question of math, nor theory, but a simple change of perspective...

 I stick with math, cause there are so many possible outcomes, that the better is to keep following the tangible result, if too much become based on theories, one mistake during the past and all future could become wrong, numbers even if they fail prefent this to happen, cause as I say if not, numbers, math will fail, seems more reliable...

 There is much to consider to even consider this, but try this "the mass of a photon is directly related with the density of space on where the photon exists, and the speed of C is dirrectly related with that speed...

 On our actual math we consider to exist "a photon" as a particle, that is mass less to explain how it can travel at C.
 If we consider that there never where something like "a photon" as a real particle but as a construction of a tissue that has little density but has, than "the photon traveling always to the speed of light for being mass less" would not be required to match the math..
 If "the photon" is a momentum existing where the energy is, at any moment in time, C speed would also be reduced when traveling a massive gas cloud as for example, but as soon the information have pass trought that density, the speed would be reajusted to the constant one, simple cause "the photon" wouldn't be travveling though those areas on space, basicaly light would have a constant speed "where it is", determined by the density of  that area, this is not the same as loss of speed, but a simple ajustement of C where it is occuring, as soon as it leaves that area to a clear one, it would self readquire it's new speed, readjusting itself, is possible cause there would be no "photon" as a particle finding barriers along the way, but the density on the area temperarly being subjecting the information being carried to the proper speed due the density of such area...
 In a simple version light, C is constant on space, but space would be the thing that is not being constant... The speed of C on galaxy B was the same as the speed of C on the galaxy A, and also in between, but space density is never the same, altoguh the same photon that was on galaxy B is the same photon that is in galaxy A and in between, the only thing that was moving at constant was light, the photon never had to move.
 If the medium is not moving, the only possible result would be that light would be moved using a straigth line, and once in movement would affect the medium seeming to be causing waves, and those waves actually being a infinity amounght of straight lines, and each one resonating on the tissue, as the ray of light keeps existing, the acceleration of space around of it, would replicate a infinite numbers copies of that acceleration, in all possible directions...
« Last Edit: 14/09/2016 01:47:02 by Alex Siqueira »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #23 on: 14/09/2016 14:24:21 »
Alex Siqueira
« on: Today at 00:39:49 »
Quote\  There is much to consider to even consider this, but try this "the mass of a photon is directly related with the density of space on where the photon exists, and the speed of C is dirrectly related with that speed...\

Very good thinking for your self. But c is always the same speed. It is the distances that change due to dilation of space. Look to the lensing of galaxies. It is dilation of energy fabric increasing the distance between fabric particles. Gravity red shift shows the increased distances where light is created. You can still follow Relativity. The speed of light is the same but your measuring stick has expanded. This causes you to measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. You measure a longer distance with a slower clock.

Quote]
 On our actual math we consider to exist "a photon" as a particle, that is mass less to explain how it can travel at C.
 If we consider that there never where something like "a photon" as a real particle but as a construction of a tissue that has little density but has, than "the photon traveling always to the speed of light for being mass less" would not be required to match the math\

The measuring stick is always confounded with the speed of light distance. Always follows the math.

Quote\If "the photon" is a momentum existing where the energy is, at any moment in time, C speed would also be reduced when traveling a massive gas cloud as for example, but as soon the information have pass trought that density, the speed would be reajusted to the constant one, simple cause "the photon" wouldn't be travveling though those areas on space, basicaly light would have a constant speed "where it is", determined by the density of  that area, this is not the same as loss of speed, but a simple ajustement of C where it is occuring, as soon as it leaves that area to a clear one, it would self readquire it's new speed, readjusting itself, is possible cause there would be no "photon" as a particle finding barriers along the way, but the density on the area temperarly being subjecting the information being carried to the proper speed due the density of such area...
 In a simple version light, C is constant on space, but space would be the thing that is not being constant... The speed of C on galaxy B was the same as the speed of C on the galaxy A, and also in between, but space density is never the same, altoguh the same photon that was on galaxy B is the same photon that is in galaxy A and in between, the only thing that was moving at constant was light, the photon never had to move.
 If the medium is not moving, the only possible result would be that light would be moved using a straigth line, and once in movement would affect the medium seeming to be causing waves, and those waves actually being a infinity amounght of straight lines, and each one resonating on the tissue, as the ray of light keeps existing, the acceleration of space around of it, would replicate a infinite numbers copies of that acceleration, in all possible directions...

Energy=time=motion. Energy is the carrier of the photon.



*

Online Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #24 on: 15/09/2016 00:08:05 »
Energy=time=motion. Energy is the carrier of the photon.

Yes, I'm not very resorcefull with words, but I always agree the speed of light is contantant...
 And your atestment above I consider to be precise too...
"Energy is the carrier of the photon"
"Photon is a construction of the photonic space, that will be present and recieve a particle like shape whenever atomic structure/ energy is presented. If there is none it re-turn, to become a tissue, a fabric, as a whole"

 Photons are right there beneath our feets, cause and as long exists something as beneath and our feets, in the absence of energy, the photon as particle will return to become what it was in the absence of charges, a fabric...

 See I not atesting anything, just realy on to the reviews that light and matter may not be traveling "trought" nor even coexisting "over" this tissue, space. Instead any energy/matter as being like a bubble of oxigen under a liquid, that is pushed to the surface in a straight line, because the bubble is existing in "between" the liquid... There is compression and a limit where the liquid cannot enter the buble, it cant ocupy the same place that the bubble, intead the liquid fall over the bubble on the attempt to it, with the whole density of the lake, the bubble is "pushing back" the lake...

 For a ray of light, it has energy, space is trying to fill the place where it exist, it can't penetrate, coexit, so light is occuring not over the fabric, but in between, the compression over the energy slingshot the energy on a straig line as it does with the bubble, momentum happen and waves are being formed on the mediun...
 For this interpretation the speed of ligh still being constant, but subjected, and provinient only of and from "the density of the medium that is 'falling' over it", almost the same result goes for matter.. Altough matter different from ligh has high density, can be shaped into spherical shapes, and sperical can also be pushed in a straight line, but is disrupted by equals, and one start to chase the other, even being orbiting it is not a static circle, but inddeed a straight line path along with the sun, the fact that we, planets are orbiting it's plate in a eliptical orbit, does not mean anything, for the dirrection that matter, planets and sun are still being moved on a straight line, not as perfect as light, but still...

 Speed of ligh being constant, but if the are where it is occuring is more dense, the "Whole" system will slow down, not a real slow down, but as we determinate a velocity on a perfect medium, we can't accept a speed of light that slow down, it can't, at least shoudn't... But as for a speed of light, where the speed is coming from the density of the medium and not from the ray of light, than of the density of the medium increase or decrease the speed of light will still be constant, not constant to the measurement we made, but constant to the density of the area in space light is occuring...
 The ray starts with one speed, the density changes the speed of light will be lower than the original, but if we start to consider the density of the field, the speed of light never reduced it's own speed, it had none, the speed is being given to the ray from the density of the mediun, so we are sharing the same speeds, same math, but one is considering the speed of the ray as of its own, and the other considering the same results but considering that the speed of the ray is given to it from the density the space where the ray is occuring "between"...

 Much failures, but I'm focused on the idea where matter/energy and space fabric, never can share the same place, wherever matter or energy is occuring on space, is not trully within or trough it, matter and energy are constantly occuring between space, homogeniously recieven compression proportional to the place that they ocupy in space, and for this as small something get, stronger it becomes...
 Can you understand my problem when considering as usuall? Understand what I eman when I say happening in "between space fabric"?

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #25 on: 15/09/2016 13:40:22 »
: Alex Siqueira
« on: Today at 00:08:05 »
Quote\ Energy=time=motion. Energy is the carrier of the photon.

Yes, I'm not very resorcefull with words, but I always agree the speed of light is contantant...
 And your atestment above I consider to be precise too...
"Energy is the carrier of the photon"
"Photon is a construction of the photonic space, that will be present and recieve a particle like shape whenever atomic structure/ energy is presented. If there is none it re-turn, to become a tissue, a fabric, as a whole"\

I do not make a distinction between energy and your term fabric. To me the universe is a sea of energy spin c.

Quote\ Photons are right there beneath our feets, cause and as long exists something as beneath and our feets, in the absence of energy, the photon as particle will return to become what it was in the absence of charges, a fabric...\

To me there is no absence of zero point energy nor is there anything related to charge. There is only spin to my way of thinking. A photon being a pure energy propagation frequency on particles of energy spin c. Light is a sphere from a light bulb. Vector directions are a pseudo particle point for measurement.

Quote\  See I not atesting anything, just realy on to the reviews that light and matter may not be traveling "trought" nor even coexisting "over" this tissue, space. Instead any energy/matter as being like a bubble of oxigen under a liquid, that is pushed to the surface in a straight line, because the bubble is existing in "between" the liquid... There is compression and a limit where the liquid cannot enter the buble, it cant ocupy the same place that the bubble, intead the liquid fall over the bubble on the attempt to it, with the whole density of the lake, the bubble is "pushing back" the lake...\

I view it another way. The rotating electron through the grid structure (fabric to you) jumps to a different shell. That jump sucks energy then pushes energy creating a frequency wave that propagates on the already spinning energy particles. Only the action is propagated and not the particles themselves.

Quote\  For a ray of light, it has energy, space is trying to fill the place where it exist, it can't penetrate, coexit, so light is occuring not over the fabric, but in between, the compression over the energy slingshot the energy on a straig line as it does with the bubble, momentum happen and waves are being formed on the mediun...
 For this interpretation the speed of ligh still being constant, but subjected, and provinient only of and from "the density of the medium that is 'falling' over it", almost the same result goes for matter.. Altough matter different from ligh has high density, can be shaped into spherical shapes, and sperical can also be pushed in a straight line, but is disrupted by equals, and one start to chase the other, even being orbiting it is not a static circle, but inddeed a straight line path along with the sun, the fact that we, planets are orbiting it's plate in a eliptical orbit, does not mean anything, for the dirrection that matter, planets and sun are still being moved on a straight line, not as perfect as light, but still...\

Yes I agree there s a density of energy spin particles. Between galaxies the density is the greatest. In the center of suns the density of fundamental energy is much less. Energy is being used to move and create electrons. Suns create there own fuel (H) from fundamental energy. The energy becomes expanded in mass. Mass is attracted to the more expanded space. This is the cause of gravity. The speed of light is measured to be the same in every frame but the measuring stick in every frame is different. So your measure of a mile is never the same. Light propagates at the same speed through any energy density. Basically light is a standard but our ability to use it as a standard of measurement is compromised by the expansion and contraction of our measuring stick.

Quote\  Speed of ligh being constant, but if the are where it is occuring is more dense, the "Whole" system will slow down, not a real slow down, but as we determinate a velocity on a perfect medium, we can't accept a speed of light that slow down, it can't, at least shoudn't... But as for a speed of light, where the speed is coming from the density of the medium and not from the ray of light, than of the density of the medium increase or decrease the speed of light will still be constant, not constant to the measurement we made, but constant to the density of the area in space light is occuring...
 The ray starts with one speed, the density changes the speed of light will be lower than the original, but if we start to consider the density of the field, the speed of light never reduced it's own speed, it had none, the speed is being given to the ray from the density of the mediun, so we are sharing the same speeds, same math, but one is considering the speed of the ray as of its own, and the other considering the same results but considering that the speed of the ray is given to it from the density the space where the ray is occuring "between"...

To my way of thinking the speed of light does not slow down. The distances light travels changes but the kinetic affect remains constant.


Quote\  Much failures, but I'm focused on the idea where matter/energy and space fabric, never can share the same place, wherever matter or energy is occuring on space, is not trully within or trough it, matter and energy are constantly occuring between space, homogeniously recieven compression proportional to the place that they ocupy in space, and for this as small something get, stronger it becomes...\

The size difference between an electron path and the proton is like a marble to a football field. Energy exists between them and probably inside the proton to move the electrons (positrons and negatrons both electrons with opposite complimentary spin). Matter and anti- matter in a stable rotation we view as quarks.

Quote\  Can you understand my problem when considering as usuall? Understand what I eman when I say happening in "between space fabric"?\

Yes I can understand it the way you are thinking of it but you are missing the cause of motion. Motion of the electron to the black hole has to have a mechanical mechanism in reality. Of course you could be a non realest like the current main stream Copenhagers. Einstein was a realest as am I.

*

Online Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #26 on: 15/09/2016 16:20:24 »
No no it's fine, the way you put it, we're on the same frequency, you're just going deeper towards the source, I simple trying to understand what gravity does...
  For some a ray of light as a speed of it's own and it's photons need to be massless...
  For me seems to be possible that the ray of light has no speed, that its momentum is given to it from the medium, space fabric (grid for you)...

 Both of us are in a lake:
 One see a bubble of oxygen comming from towards the surface,
 the other see the lake pushing the static bubble of light towards the lower density, more expanded area...

 Maybe not precisely on those terms, but for me the ray of light, even matter, is existing in between the grid, like the bubble of oxygen inside the lake, the lake does not need to be very dense, in fact a very lower density lake, due spin is possible, would move the same bubble at the "same speed" as the original one, the speed didn't increase or decrease on the reality, only when compared to our perfect pre-determinated speed...
 When I share the concept that the light moves at the speed of light, I trully never consider that the ray ever had any speed, i see a ray of light, or any other high density energy, doesen't really matter the size, as something that is static, not the aether, but the object, the mediun will always fall against this light or matter, and will set both, matter/light and itself in motion... There can't be no static mediun not as long atoms and particles are still present and being able to interact.
 I do believe that even your grid depends on the presence of atomic structure of some kind...

 As my are just toughts, I'd stick with your terms from here on out...

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #27 on: 16/09/2016 13:26:29 »
Alex,

 You have a very good mind and can think for yourself and create a logical reality. Yes we view things the same. I came at my understanding through Relativity being understood geometrically. When I was in a position to explain it geometrically I found I needed a source to explain the motion of the electron being confounded with speed of light. This is what is missing with main stream. They are like Alice in wonderland. They know the math but not what the math truly represents. So they follow the rabbit and not logic of reality as it relates. They pull up the MMX and conclude there is no (Aether) matrix. That is like trying to do a mechanical job without any tools. You and I are designing the tools to work on the mechanics. It is just a mind, math, motion and construct puzzle game. Relativity is the rules of the game. Mechanical Relativity is fitting all the pieces together for the proper picture. A paradox is when the pieces do not fit in reality. that is when main stream goes into fiction like multiverse, Big Bang and the entire Copenhagen non reality issues. Something from nothing is never a position of reality. Mass is created in suns, from the electron to all of the elements. No need for a big bang. Gravitational red shift can easily explain a more static universe that is not necessarily expanding. It is the dark mass energy rotating with galaxies that gets expanded by mass to create the lensing we view in galaxies. The lensing is the expansion of dark mass energy becoming more diluted in density (less dense). The width of the electron jump is longer and we call that less energetic (red shifted).

And yes I defined your tissue as a grid structure of spinning points to move electrons. Your bubble as a propagated  wave structure that moves itself through space and the structure returns to its original positions. the propagation is at the spin rate of dark mass. Dark mass is the structure like Aether and spin is the energy that gives everything the ability to move. The structure dilates in mass but the spin rate stays the same. You just measure a longer distance with a dilated measuring stick. Relativity only says you measure the same speed of light in every frame. The gamma term in Relativity determines the distance of your measuring stick. The electron distance and the photon distance are confounded.

I could say great minds think alike but most here will consider our view as silly and unrealistic to what the have been taught. We all carry the baggage of our belief system.

*

Online Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #28 on: 19/09/2016 12:54:06 »
"Dark mass is the structure like Aether and spin is the energy that gives everything the ability to move. The structure dilates in mass but the spin rate stays the same."

Yes I do not quite understand the math, but I can see that frame..
 The acceleration of the mass forces it to become less dense, thin as when close to the source of the rotation, not necessarily an universal infration related to it...
 The spin forces the density of the mass to opens up, local gravity would then be the same process but in reverse, a system that does not require to be close, cause the same thing that is being twisted is the same that is returning to its density...

 Maybe not on those terms, but let me ask you a question, in your toughts, not what a blackhole is, but what does it do? They are made of pure acceleration causing expansion, to the point they can't transfer energy cause they barelly can be touched by space....  Or they are actualy spherical holes where suff actually, "falls inside"...
 I ask simple cause for me there is no hole for dimmensions, only a extreme expansive innercore that does not require to burn anything, nothing more than that, where the spin is so intense that space envelops it, giving it the apearance that the body isn't there anymore, when it is just basicaly "spining so fast that it barely can transfer heat, cause space can't interact with it, but in short terms, no more than a firewall that's not solid, cause matter isn't destroyed by the acceleration, it's molecular structure is destroyed, cause the event horizon makes dark mass become so thin that there can no longer exist matter....
 What do you consider as for BH?

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #29 on: 21/09/2016 04:00:59 »
Sorry I have been busy. I will work backwards. What is a black Hole? The amount of mass per space is approximately a marble to a football field. The electron motion is the length of the football field to a marble. Mass is produced in stars from fundamental zero point energy or Dark Mass that loses its spin and creates an electron proton pair. This process concludes with a proton or neutron (your fabric). Mass is matter and anti-matter in a stable flow to form the protons and neutrons. The BB is not necessary. Large stars that grow to the point where gravity reaches the speed of light compress all of the marbles together. The BH is the football field full of marbles. Energy can no longer keep the elements apart. The football field was full of energy moving the electron but now no longer holds fundamental zero point energy. Many here will believe my head is full of marbles. I could be correct or incorrect in my conclusions but I am following Relativity.


There is no such thing as heat without mass. Spin energy has no heat just motion. When the electron or proton or neutron causes friction with fundamental energy it adds what we call heat. Mass is a conduit from fundamental energy what we call work energy. Electrons are moved by fundamental energy and rotates through space with the motion of the speed of light but not the vector distance of light. They are confounded in zero point energy to be measured the same in every frame. The dilation of space mathematically maintains distance of electron with  rotation and vector distance of light equally measured the same in every frame.

Since mass has no energy mass is attracted to the least dense area of space energy by the inverse square of the distance. Yes that is why gravity is the reverse of energy.

You have a very logical mind.
 

*

Online Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #30 on: 21/09/2016 16:37:10 »
As I said before, I'd stick with the math side of the coin, your explanation I have to say that I agree, follows the rules, although as logical, there's already plenty of people following this line, so I'm trying to deny the fundamental base, not it's math, but the most basic concepts as being a misinterpretation of factors, no hope for me to be able to proof for blackholes, you described perfectly what they are...
 I more interested in what they do, comparing with what we consider that they do, how they affect space, not the symptoms but the source... In my point of view the shrieked neutron star, did not compacted itself over itself, at the point the acceleration it produces was able to go as fast as the speed of light, (I consider speed of light as being the speed of the density of the medium, with the energy possessing zero speed)...
 So I just trying another point of view, that when the BH rotation speeds up to the (speed of light velocity), means that its effect over the medium on the surrounding areas is greater than the density of the "whole" medium that was over it...
 The same principle as an ordinary star, or planet, the only difference is that the neutron star by friction wouldn't require gas to burn or crost to conserve heat, revealing to us the blackhole event, one of expansion, the similar I tend to believe that is happening inside pretty much each spherical like object out there, although, planets wouldn't be able to behave as blackholes only similar, they have a crost that do not allows the direct interaction with the medium to influence to much it's density and speed, for suns this seems to be happening all the time, but a sun is less dense and is still burning fuel, it does interact with the medium causing a greater acceleration, only not big enough to nova due mass..

 I agree for heat to be present there must be mass, I do accept that the super nova occurred expanding the exterior and compressing the interior, if the mass is right, the own compression over the inner core creates the neutron star when the nova occurs, and the due limits its the own neutron star that shrinks over its own expansion, on the medium...  My neutron star is still there, but I do believe since its acceleration now surpassing the density of the medium, it was able to opens up much further, desproportional to its new size, the mass still and the acceleration stood, for me is that there would be mass present on the interior, and the spherical whole is just an ordinary envelop that will occurs wherever the black hole is sailing trough the cosmos...
 The radiation, heat, energy, electromagnetism, whatever sun, neutrons star are doing out there to release energy producing mass, the neutron star at the blackhole is not being able to release, indeed resembling something like a whole to other dimensions due dilatation of space time, but I do believe that it is just an effect of the space around of it, inside there is isolated from the "space" itself, due its acceleration it is existing completely "between" the fabric, barely no contact as long as the acceleration holds on...

 We're basically on the same result, but for some is a actual infinity whole on space, and for me is a simple envelop that can't be reached, where every single matter that has when the horizon, never failed in, nothing can, he horizon is the true villain there the density of the medium is so thin that matter can't simple exist, it is than decomposed and ejected in form of radiation, but most of it become what space seems to have being in the first place, matter, not the other hand...
 This starts with a universe that was of pure matter or energy, somehow got unbalanced acquired speed and when nova, much as a big bang, but before existence, the effect started singularities inside the universe, and now the empty space is what was already undone, and the matter there is still present is the parts that where re-gathered by gravity, the same gravity those wholes started.
 See gravity is a force resultant of interaction but it does come from space, a whole universe of energy as a whole would not require gravity in large scale as planets does...

 My point, galaxies seems to have being super massive planets and stars that when nova, and before lets say the great attractor, and before, and before until the first singularity, a "reverse" time line from the beginning to the future, but not as a whole, as local, there must be universal inflation in parallel to local gravity, thus local time. What I mean is, there must be a general base acceleration of the whole, constant where it is happening, always adapting with the dilatation to make sure that is still constant, what we experience on planets seems to be local gravity, granting us local acceleration, a correlation, that will lead us to local time, not speed but time, occurrence, despise the speed of light...
 That could be the paradox behind existence of life, as a necessity, see my body, if this is correct is submitted to time, so I do exist in time, and things can only happens at the speed they can happen, although the body is just a container of our minds, and the mind seems to be the answers, the conscious being, what I mean is, I do not know why the necessity to be able to think, but wonder a simple question, what is the only think that can violate the most logical rules, of with a rock serves, thoughts, this goes for all living things, some not so ready but it take time to evolve,...
 Wherever its hard to think against what you believe, as for the record, for now, I agree with your version, as one simple change on the bases reacts on all the other scenarios, it's very hard to try to adapt it's your own mind trying to convince itself to believe it's wrong to make sure was right...
 That is the only think that concerns me about relativity, it seems to good to be true, as everything else there will be a break point even to it, for me always will happens due the "local" occurrence of everything probabilities, everything interacts with everything, nothing remains the same, could even be that outside heliosphere the universe is away different from what we see from space..
 Anyway is a subcontinent sum, a gut filing that we're all correct, that back there we made a simple misinterpretation, the math be correct is the only reason why things are still working...

 The relation I made with this is because I do believe that life is ordinary, but the ability of be able to have thoughts, the conscious, must be somehow in a way we still do not comprehend related with all this, not the fact of being alive but be able to think. There is no purpose to a being to evolve to understand thinks beyond the natural world where it lives, humans are beyond survival, there must be a reason for why is possible to travel trough space using math and technology, I do not think it is only causality, seems logical to exist a reason for us, humans, to be able to do this, otherwise living thinks could still exist but without the necessity of thoughts, only instinct... Developing a culture is no ordinary thing and shouldn't be only based on causality...

 The relevance all this have with your question about the photons, is because I think that our mistake was right there, science must be correct about most contend related with particles cause the technology built over it does work, but as Einstein can be the case that we are producing our own personal math, that even being incorrect as when claimed to be the reality... Somehow, at least for me, photons what they are, what they weren't, if incorrect would bring total chaos to math and science, explaining many other things as speed of light and the existence of time, and also gravity, with such answers humanity would finally be able to completely understand what we see out there and most important how...
 Sounds naive but I do believe that if "the photon traveling" was to be proof wrong and so becoming an incorrect answers, everything we built over it, witch includes most of our culture and technological limitations would be boundless and I'm not sure if this would be a good thing in the world we live... Also seems logical to assume that most would agree with this, increasing the possibilities that out there are indeed people sharing and protecting much data, keeping things as they are... For more one devote his time and life to relativity, the equation itself is still based over what we do come to believe that we know...

  As for the black holes as being only result of a acceleration that surpassed the density of the medium (speed of light), I got a few  draws, but talking more about a structure that has layers, in function of the mass on the center of course, but layers on space, all this inside the exterior of the black hole, this because considering the outside of the blackholes as being the interior of it, and the isolated neutron star the exterior... I always end up picturing a star that reached a specific temperature or electromagnetic limit, that when converted into acceleration when trying to release, surpasses the density of the medium, for this the medium is no longer able to physically get near the mass, some sort of spherical thin sphere of very dilated space, with would be the almost the same a surrounding spherical area of thin space around the neutron star, not a static zone cause it is still pulling space near to it and subsequently ejecting cause space with its normal density never gets near the star to cause a direct interaction with the sphere in the center, resulting in presence of heat, electromagnetism and radiation that is self contained on the interior of the sphere, only a little faction of very thin dilateded medium pass near and only for a fraction of a second on a constant cycle... The black hole on the exterior, the one we imagine as being space feeling the "whole" on its  3D fabric and is constantly applying over it the same force it is appling over planets and stars, gravity, the most significant different is that planets and stars do have size, the event horizon show its symptoms but hardly acquire enough acceleration to enter nova...
 So you have space pushing itself over a neutron star that is sipping so fast that was able to surpass the density of the medium, with would than result again in the same result for us, the same black hole, but one moves towards infinity, the other is for a few details the same thing as innercore that by specific composition is producing a planet made lets say of space due acceleration, more the reason why I do wonder that inside the center of the inercore of each celestial body something equal is occurring in lower scale, the only big difference, is that a black hole is subjected to gravity and is interacting directly with the medium, inside a dense material object it would be interacting with matter, the engine is still the same but it would substitute a solid innercore to make the outhercore act like a dynamo...
 Such scenario would not be able to possible exist when considering black holes the way one, including me, does, for now cause it would devour the mass on the surroundings, my blackhole does not devour only exits the surroundings, the think that has the power to destroy matter is the horizon that only occurs when in directly interaction with the medium.
 My concept of blackholes, would theoretic allowed one to exist inside massive objects that are submitted to gravity, we use to think planets as being a whole object but their are actually far from it, a black hole that occurs based on heat, electromagnetism and constant pressure, could partially happen apart from the whole as a internal layer, and the excitement of the absorption of this acceleration would simulate the same process we consider that produces our magnetosphere, a correlation between all the forces not to work as parallel of each other but as for components of a mechanism, meanings to an end this result for its own existence, reshaping and readapting all the components, everything no matter how beautiful and bright a aleatory attempt to reproduce a singularity, over and over again every time in lower scale as a general dilatation(inflation) still expanding... Reason why I consider that in the past, milkway was a super mssive whole body at a time in dilatation such bodies could exist and hold, as for the great attractor a massive star, a sun. As the inflation continues such bodies can no longer hold and enter nova, so I believe was the case of our milkway, all this galaxy a big broken egg... The same scenarios, the hypothesis of bodies in such scale to have existed, raised the question why not, once upon a time, or lets say once upon a gravity, all this whole universe could have being a universal body, much smaller when compared for now with all that empty space out there, but if was possible, the inflation could be result as for some supernova for all this bodies including the universe... Big bang came from nothing, my seems to have occurred from inside out something that was already there and occurred in function of this that was already there, and now is repeating itself over and over again...

As a practical answers measurement is required to observe the possible shape of the photon, the very measurement uses machines and anything that is made of matter, matter is in correlation to all the rest on the surrounding areas, so a photon can only presumed by logic, not directly observed, only theorized, if we misinterpreted that, we're indeed producing our own personal answers... Math will always readapting itself even from the mistakes, at some point it must, that's why I'll stick with a mathematical universe, it's the only one we would ever be able to understand....
« Last Edit: 22/09/2016 00:25:05 by Alex Siqueira »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #31 on: 22/09/2016 07:10:25 »
Quote from: GoC
jerrygg38

    You are suggesting photons have mass. They do not by Relativity mathematics and as you know we have to follow the math.
Depending on what one means when they use the term mass that's not necessarily true. In relativity inertial mass (as opposed to gravitational mass) is defined as the quantity m such that p = mv where p is 3-momentum and v is 3-velocity. Defined in this way the mass is referred to either as inertial mass, relativistic mass or simply mass. This means that anything that has momentum also has mass. Since a photon has a well-defined momentum it also has a well-defined mass.

For all the gory details please see: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/inertial_mass.htm
I.e. what you referred to as Relativity mathematics. This topic is addressed in the Usenet FAQ at:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
Quote
In special relativity, it turns out that we are still able to define a particle's momentum p such that it behaves in well-defined ways that are an extension of the newtonian case.  Although p and v still point in the same direction, it turns out that they are no longer proportional; the best we can do is relate them via the particle's "relativistic mass" mrel.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?
« Reply #32 on: 07/10/2016 16:08:24 »
   Let us look at the defined amount of mass as the equivalency of SR and GR. On the surface of the moon a mass has a certain acceleration by gravity. In the center of the moon there is no acceleration while the mass remains the same. Clocks tick slower in the center of the moon due to dilation of mass. Mass is expanded but the mass remains the same amount of electrons, protons and neutrons. What is relativistic mass? Mass moving through space no difference than being in the center of the moon. Clocks can tick at the same rate as the center of the moon but the electrons, protons and neutrons remain the same. Mass remains the same but the math increases the assumed weight increase as an increase in mass. This is a reduction of space time energy related to c. There is no space time energy in black holes and they are the weightiest things in the universe. Loss of space time energy in mass is associated with an increase in weight when it is actually a decrease in energy related to c.

Relativity math as understood by main stream does not allow a photon to have mass. If the photon had mass relativity does not work by its math. This suggests mass and energy are different items. Mass does not include energy. Energy is given to mass by moving their electrons while photons are propagation of energy waves through space at c.

pmbphy

You are confused by what you were taught. Main stream subjective beliefs cause virtual photons (weasel words) to maintain their view. You seem to understand photons have to consist of something but at the same time you miss the point relativity math does not work if the photon is part of mass. Understanding will stay stagnant while we concoct weasel words when the observations do not follow our subjective understanding.

Photons have to have micro mass (dark mass energy) separate from macro mass to allow relativity math to work properly.

Math cannot prove a theory but if a theory does not follow math it proves the theory is incorrect. If the photon has mass as you understand mass relativity math does not work. I believe relativity is correct. Your position suggests you do not believe in relativity.