Hi Emmanuel,
Your English is fine. What you have to say is very interesting. I don't think stability is necessary to convert U(1) photons into SU(2) W,Z bosons or SU(3) gluons. All you really need is a very brief period of highly inneficient reactions to conver photons into W/Z particles and gluons. After that, the availabe particles will permit all of the remaining particles to be created.
Dan,
"Even if you were a hypothetical observer in the jet looking back at M87, you would see M87's photons but they would be redshifted corresponding to the velocity 10c"
I am amazed there exists a redshift that associated with a source moving 10c (superluminally). What's the equasion? Is it the Hubble constant?
[math]v = H_0 D[/math]
How in the world could I have missed that? The Hubble constant is, 66.9976 ± 13.1214 (km/s)/Mpc where Mpc stands for millions of parcec, where 1 parsec is about 3 light years. So what distance corresponds to a velocity difference of 2c? About 10,000 parsecs?
Dear Jason,
I agree that if we have enough energy when can obtain weak and strong bosons. But physicists want to know why we have Lie groups SU(2) for weak force and SU(3) for stron force. To have a stable interaction I think that it implies symmetries. A long time ago, physicists thought that these symmetries were fundamental and they tried to unified all interactions in SU(5) but they failed. Today, there is a new attempt with the Lie group E8 with the "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" of Antony Garrett Lisi. But I think that symmetries are a consequence of the need of stability and not the inverse. Today, the Grand Unified Theory seems to be difficult because the coupling constants of the tree interactions (electromagnetic weak and strong) do not converge to a single point. Concerning the masses of the elementary particles (defined as a stable product of an elementary pair production in two photon collisions) I think that they are defined relative to photons by [math]m_0= h \frac{\nu}{\gamma c^2}[/math]
The problem of the Higgs boson is that even if it explains the masses of the elementary particles, there is the problem of its own mass. Moreover it does not give a definition for the elementary particles.
Best,
Emmanuel
Jason,
Check out this webpage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measures_(cosmology). The second graph shows redshifts up to 10000c which is associated with decoupling. The visible edge of the universe associated with the CMB has a z = 1089.
Things get complicated over 1c because it depends the cosmological model as well as the type of measure you are using along with the redshift.
Now the redshift between the jet and M87 is not related to the hubble flow (cosmological expansion) but the local flow of a unique event, so you can't use the hubble equation. Something unusual, something major, had to occur to create this jet. We know the distance to M87 is about 54 million LY and can infer the apparent velocity using the angular diameter distance since we know the jet is associated with M87 and we known the approx. size of the galaxy.
A redshift of 1c shifts the wavelength of a yellow sun-like object into the near infrared, so 10c would shift the same sun-like object probably into the microwave range. I'd have to do the math to get the exact figure. That's a fairly big change in frequency over a relatively short distance. So image you're an observer in the jet looking back at your home galaxy and all the sun-like objects look like microwave sources. Pretty wild, huh?
Dan
Dear Jason,
Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:
Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?
Best wishes and I hope you win something,
Alan
Hi Alan,
It is exciting to participate in the marketplace/battleground of physics ideas; somewhere out there, there are 150 very proud mothers with a child who is contributing to the very best reasoning and methodology that physics has to offer.
Gravity has been an extraordinarily difficult puzzle to solve. Complete with "four-dimensional" "space-time" behavior and mediated by the spin-2 boson called "graviton", the mysterious force of gravity has baffled the greatest minds even today. We are the six blind men surrounding the elephant called "gravity".
If I had to guess at the properties of the graviton, I would imagine it to be similar to a photon, but with the following differences. A photon has energy
[math]E=hf[/math]
But a graviton would have energy proportional to the change in frequency,
[math]E=h \Delta f[/math]
Photons have spin-1. Gravitons have spin-2. I would surmise that a photon with a shifting frequency would have a shifting polarization as well. A shifting polarization has an Archimedes quality to it. Equal quantities of left and right rotating gravitons would cancel out any corkscrew kinds of gravity fields; but could potentially be induced by a very clever feat of engineering.
I think that an Archimedes graviton can coexist with a fabric of space-time. After all, a lens interacts with the electromagnetic field of light, but an atom only absorbs and emits light, one photon at a time.
But why is Newton's gravity law identical in appearance to Coulombs electrostatic law? If we think in terms of mass M and m, then our argument falls apart at the meaninglessness of a negative mass, -m. But if we use +E and -E as the charges, then something interesting happens. +E can signify the energy of a photon. -E is compatible with both the Zero-Energy-Universe idea where gravity is the negative energy; -E can also refer to the missing lower bound of the vacuum energy.
In my paper, Photon Theory, figure 1 is an attempt to bring together the positive energy of the photon with the negative energy of gravity. In assembling the pieces of the puzzle, gravity interlocks very tightly with energy in two ways.
1. Gravitational time dilation scales the duration of one SECOND between reference frames; simultaneously, the photon of energy E = hf experiences a change in frequency; frequency is in cycles per SECOND.
2. The photon that climbs or falls (between fixed points A and B) along the gravitational radii will lose energy to gravitational potential, or gain energy from gravitational potential.
+Q and -Q are opposite charges that exist upon point-like particles that are attracted to each other. +E is light (regardless of what form it takes) and -E is the fabric of space-time; they also attract each other (or yearn for each other).
Gravity and light interlock like pieces to a puzzle.
Hi Jason,
I like the way you're thinking about the puzzle combining photons with gravitons and matter. The charges of energy I imagine to be the rotational direction of the helix relative to it's alternative mirror or opposite rotational direction. Each end of a spinning helix are either both positive or negative, but a loop made form helical particles can now have different charges relative to an observer 'within' an electric circuit for example, positive and negative terminals can now come in close proximity to one another. Because we live on a large spinning planet, fluids are formed. Circuits occur due to the planets spin. I don't see where spacetime comes into it personally. We are close thinking on this one and I'll endeavour to get something more convincing in simulation form.
Kind regards,
Alan
P.S Take a look at this Saturn's UFO moons: Bizarrely-shaped Pan and Atlas baffle scientists
Hello happy to see your score Jason the creative!
All the best
Steve
Thank you Steve! It is good to hear from you.
Alan,
I look forward to watching you're simulation.
Hi Jason the creative,
You are welcome and thanks also, it's nice.
Steve
Jason,
Thanks but I'll probably end up leaving that to someone better equipped than myself. Notice how the above moons of Saturn appear to adhere to the 'inclination hypothesis' i.e. that gravity is stronger towards the rotational plane of large solar system bodies.
Best wishes,
Alan
Hi Jason,
I just had a thought. From Wikipedia it says "Laplace had shown that if gravity would propogate at a velocity in the order of the speed of light then the solar system would be unstable, and would not exist for a long time." I don't believe it personally, but how do you reconcile this with your photon theory?
Kind regards,
Alan
Jason,
Apologies, I've just read this from Wikipedia:
In the context of classical theories of gravitation, the speed of gravity is the speed at which changes in a gravitational field propagate. This is the speed at which a change in the distribution of energy and momentum of matter results in subsequent alteration, at a distance, of the gravitational field which it produces. In a more physically correct sense, the "speed of gravity" refers to the speed of a gravitational wave.
The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuo, c.[1] Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any physical interaction in nature. Formally, c is a conversion factor for changing the unit of time to the unit of space.[2] This makes it the only speed which does not depend either on the motion of an observer or a source of light and/or gravity. Thus, the speed of "light" is also the speed of gravitational waves and any massless particle. So far, the only candidates for massless particles in physics are the photons that light waves consist of, and also the theoretical gravitons which make up the associated field particles of gravity, if a quantum mechanical theory for gravity is ever successfully constructed.
The speed of physical changes in a gravitational or electromagnetic field should not be confused for "changes" in the behavior of static fields that are due to pure observer-effects. These changes in direction of a static field, because of relativistic considerations, are the same for an observer when a distant charge is moving, as when an observer (instead) decides to move with respect to a distant charge. Thus, constant motion of an observer with regard to a static charge and its extended static field (either a gravational or electric field) does not change the field. For static fields, such as the electrostatic field connected with electric charge, or the gravitational field connected to a massive object, the field extends to infinity, and does not propagate. Motion of an observer does not cause the direction of such a field to change, and by symmetrical considerations, changing the observer frame so that the charge appears to be moving at a constant rate, also does not cause the direction of its field to change, but requires that it continue to "point" in the direct of the charge, at all distances from the charge.
The consequence of this, is that static fields (either electric or gravitational) always point directly to the actual position of the bodies that they are connected to, without any delay that is due to any "signal" traveling (or propagating) from the charge, over a distance to an observer. This remains true if the charged bodies and their observers are made to "move" (or not), by simply changing reference frames. This fact sometimes causes confusion about the "speed" of such static fields, which sometimes appear to change infinitely quickly when the changes in the field are mere artifacts of the motion of the observer, or of observation.
In such cases, nothing actually changes infinitely quickly, save the point of view of an observer of the field. For example, when an observer begins to move with respect to a static field that already extends over light years, it appears as though "immediately" the entire field, along with its source, has begin moving at the speed of the observer. This, of course, includes the extended parts of the field. However, this "change" in the apparent behavior of the field source, along with its distant field, does not represent any sort of propagation that is faster than light.
Hi Alan,
Photon Theory states that ALL experimental phenomena can be decomposed into two categories: photons and wave-functions. All particles (fermions) can be annihilated by their partners into photons. Whatever can't be broken down into photons must be a wave-function. Photon theory therefore pushes space-time and gravity into the wave-function category, where we want it.
Photons are obligated to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum because
[math]c = \lambda f[/math]
The background that light travels through, whether it's a vacuum, glass or a gas, decides how fast light travels via the index of refraction, c/n. In the case of glass, the background wave-function is a bit more obvious. For a vacuum, the existence of a background is open to philosophical debate. However, Photon Theory still requires the background to consist of wave-functions.
I'll have to continue on my next break.
Alan,
Every experimentally verifiable phenomena is decomposed into either photons or wave-functions. Any particle or force that is mediated by photons must also be bound by the restrictions of photons. Photons are restricted by the speed of light. Photons also carry energy. In fact, energy itself cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
The Schrodinger equation is solved to find the corresponding wave-function. For the hydrogen atom, the potential energy around the proton is described as V(r,phi,theta). The wavefunction of the orbiting electron is calculated using V(r,phi,theta). The position and momentum of the electron is completely probabalistic; the existence of the wave-amplitude itself cannot be verified because wave-functions influence and are influenced by energy, but are not directly part of the energy currency.
What if the charges are not electrical, but instead are energies +E and -E? The -E energy of gravity will produce a graviational potential. Whatever gravity is, it must be a wave-function of some kind. That means that this wave-function called gravity can exert forces on mass-energy, but is not itself energy...
I didn't explain that very well. I'll try again on my next break.
Alan,
After re-reading the "speed of gravity" link, it seems to be saying that the whole extended static field moves with the charge or source of gravity.
Jason,
Okay, I'm happy with the notion that light and gravity can't travel faster than c. It fits with my working model ideally. Thanks for the explanations.
All the best,
Alan
Alan,
In the sense that gravity is an extended object.
