0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

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.

Quote from: jerrygg38 on 08/09/2016 18:22:24 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.

Quote from: Thebox on 09/09/2016 10:55:54Quote from: jerrygg38 on 08/09/2016 18:22:24 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.

Quote from: jerrygg38 on 09/09/2016 13:03:53Quote from: Thebox on 09/09/2016 10:55:54Quote from: jerrygg38 on 08/09/2016 18:22:24 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.

Quote from: Thebox on 09/09/2016 10:55:54Quote from: jerrygg38 on 08/09/2016 18:22:24 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.

Quote from: jerrygg38 on 08/09/2016 18:22:24 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

jerrygg38, Thebox No matter what you think of mathematics theory's have to follow maths valid.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Quote from: Spring Theory on 10/09/2016 13:15:37To 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.

jerrygg38 You are suggesting photons have mass. They do not by Relativity mathematics and as you know we have to follow the math.

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" m_{rel}.