Photon Theory by Jason Mark Wolfe

Hi Robert,

The thing about mass and the Higgs field is that we have to ask: what is mass? Photons don't have mass and they travel at the speed of light. Notice too that they store their energy content as freqeuncy. No other particle can claim that. How fast do other particles move? Answer: less than c...usually a lot less. Why? Because they have mass. So what does this mean? Mass must be the property that prevents light speed travel. Isn't that what the Higgs field really is?

I think particles are clusters of wave-functions with photons trapped inside. Why? Because when a photon meets its anti-photon partner, annihilation is complete. You don't get particle fragments. It's,

The Whole Enchilada PLUS anti-The Whole Enchilada ---> Flash of gamma rays and no particle fragments. The lack of particle fragments is the clue.

The other reason I think particles have photons trapped inside is because of gravitational time dilation. What makes it so difficult to get up out of bed in the morning? Gravity! It's this thing that weighs us down. The curvature of space-time creates a graviational time dilation. The trapped photons would prefer to be in free fall; however, the floor prevents this.

[math]W=\int Fdy[/math]

If we want to get out of bed and run up stairs to the tenth floor, we have to perform work against the time dilation field that resists a blue shift unless energy is provided.

Thank you for reading my resume. Best wishes.

Hello Jason,

With no disrespect intended, but my essay (Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics?) answers your questions regarding 'mass,' and why the Higgs field is superfluous.

All the very best to you,

Robert

Hi Robert,

I'll have to read your paper. I actually agree with you that the Higgs field is unnecessary. I was writing my paper this weekend. When I thought about the idea of a field that gives mass, I realized that: if a massive particle is described as a cluster of wave-functions with trapped photons inside (which are massless), then the only thing that can act like a Higgs field would be the empty shell of the wave-function cluster without the photons.

BTW, I wanted to make a correction. When photons, either free or trapped, climb out of a gravity well, they redshift as if their frequency energy was being converted into potential energy (or at least the optical analogue thereof).

Hi Jason,

Happy to see your essay on this contest.

For all readers, Jason is the creative of FQXi,

Good luck Jason the creative.

Steve

Hello Jason,

In my essay is a generalisation of the energy of a photon that applies to 'matter.' Hence, you will find 'matter' has frequency rather than mass. You should therefore be able to relate the frequency of 'matter' to gravitational time dilation.

All the best,

Robert

Thank you Steve. Are you going to submit an essay on Spheres?

Dear Robert,

That's a great idea!

Hello Jason,

You should be able to relate the idea to your own thesis (or parts thereof) quite well.

For me it is sufficient to have derived 'fondations.' If they are useful then I leave it to others more clever than myself to derive whatever follows.

I am not clear what Steve means by you being a 'creative?'

All the best,

Robert

You are welcome.

No in fact always the same problem, I can't resume and my english is too bad.

If I had a team , probably I will wrote them, but at this moment, no.

Your essay is very beautiful, always full of creativity.good luck Jason the creative.

All the best

Steve

Hi Jason,

When you say "photons are trapped inside particles" do you mean in the sense of a potential, analogous perhaps to the "probability" of photon emission as quantified by the fine structure constant? Or do you mean they are physically there?

Photons by the way, are their own anti-particle, there is no sense in which an independant "anti-photon" exists!

Cheers

Jason,

Steve's right, you are creative.

Just last week you pointed out that information is lost when photons are redshifted (and vice versa). That's an important observation.

I like your shift photon as frequency analog of Newton's force equation. But although gravity produces a force, force does not necessarily produce gravity, unless gravity and acceleration are defined to be identical. But then what does one call it when an electric field accelerates a charged particle--gravity?

Often in an equation, the equal sign has sort of a 'one-way' meaning. I suspect it's the same for photon shift.

On the other hand I have recently focused more effort on understanding the coupling of the electromagnetic and the gravitomagnetic fields and have run across a few surprises. I just posted a brief paper relating to some ideas from Peter Jackson's essay that I liked and that Willard Mittelman also thought were significant. The paper is here:

GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

In my opinion [which is free, and worth just what you paid for it] you should continue to focus on photons and gravity. Particles as photons trapped by wave functions don't do much for me.

The issues that you are dealing with are complex and tricky. Time dilation, speed invariance, wavelength and frequency shifts due to gravity [or anything] are not simple or easy to understand, and you may yet figure out something that no one has seen. I had not seen the info loss you mentioned.

Unless I'm completely confused, even if the photon shift worked to produce gravity, would not the sawtooth ramp shown in figure 4 produce oscillations rather than sustained propulsion? Each repeat involves a negative shift (the 'flyback') that cancels the previous positive shifts. Of course some sound engineers have figured out how to generate a tone that sounds like it's always ascending, going higher and higher. I'm not sure how they do it but I suspect it's based on chords and some trick of the auditory system. You might ask Eckard how that works. Usually it's hard to get real work out of such tricks.

Your writing is delightful--- "Goood Mooorrrnning Houusstonnn" and your insights are original. You may not have solved the gravity beam (as I understand it) but I would be the last person to try to stop you from thinking truly original thoughts. They all look crazzy at first!

Good luck my friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Dr. Klingman,

That's why I think you are a great guy. Always encouraging!

Jason,

Now you know why I praise the man, that I consider to be an 'expert,' or at least sufficiently knowledgable to pass for one. When he comments it pays to listen.

All the best to you both,

Robert

Hi Edwin,

Thank you for those encouraging comments. It's nice to occasionally get feedback different from "you're an idiot" and "you shift photon is bulls***". However, my theory is strong enough to withstand the barrage of attacks. All I have to do is say, "gravity causes frequency shift. Let's check to see if it works the other way."

When a photon falls from A to B due to a gravity field, what happens? The photon frequency shifts from f_A to f_B. So we get,

[math]hf_B = hf_A U_{GR}[/math]

This means that the photon gains frequency energy by losing gravitational potential energy,

[math]\Delta E = h\Delta f = U_{GR}[/math]

So the gravitational potential energy carried by just one photon is,

[math]U_{GR} = h\Delta f[/math]

By using lasers, we can get a Delta f = 300THz as rapidly as 10 picoseconds. They flyback might only amount to a 100GHz vibration that goes unnoticed.

Hi Jason

Loved the essay. The language was poetic compared to the self congratulatory technotroglogobbldygook of those here to chain physics to the 19th century.

But, for logical consistency, two questions;

1. As light is transmitted by atomic scattering (at n= 1.003 ish in gas/air), so, if we see the passing of a 'pulse' in a train car from the side as it goes past, how come we have to see it changed to red, by the trains v when, it's actually still blue in the train, and we're only seeing a series of scattering transmissions by the scattering particles?

2. If we're 'at rest' near and wrt a black hole (a tricky assumption!) and see a string of photons being sucked in and accelerated, which one is accelerated first? Can I suggest the first/nearest one? So we will see the gaps between them open up as they get sucked in. Is this not equivalent to red shift!? And if another string, each say a mile apart, is blasted out by a quasar jet, which would slow down first? Would you agree the first? - equivalent to blue shift. This is the reverse of your assumption.

I believe the problem relates to observer frames. Just to cite time dilation seems to give a chicken and egg problem. (One of Edwin's bootstraps). And I can neutralise the effect but I can't derive the opposite. Unless we have an aether (or 'C' field?) with a density gradient to drive a time gradient? Allowing the ether without paradox must be the key, which the DFM does.

However, whatever the solutions, or any views on the content, the style and honesty of your paper certainly deserves a high mark.

Peter

Mass ultimately relates to force/energy in conjunction with balanced attraction and repulsion and fundamental distance in/of space.

The bedrock of [what is] reality in physics cannot escape this fact. This balances/unifies gravity and inertia.

Dear Peter,

I am grateful that you took the time to read my paper. It's probably not at all easy to make sense of. I sincerely want to figure out where you and I are making a different assumption. I just want to get to the bottom of the matter. Only thenn can we construct a correct theory.

Number 2 is easier, I'll start there. In a vacuum, photons don't accelerate. If we assume that black hole has nothing to eat, then this assumption is reasonable. Gravitational time dilation really refers to fixed points. I can't build a tower on an event horizon, but if we build a framework around the blackhole, then we can build a tower. The top of the tower is point A, the bottom is point B. Our laser is fixed to the top at point A, and the photons will fall to point B.

At your request, a train of photons is emitted from A and absorbed at point B. The invariance of the speed of light is true from point A to point B. As such, each photon will blueshift in accordance with the time dilation equation given in Appendix A.

You asked, "If we're 'at rest' near and wrt a black hole (a tricky assumption!) and see a string of photons being sucked in and accelerated, which one is accelerated first? Can I suggest the first/nearest one? So we will see the gaps between them open up as they get sucked in."

Now, we really can't want photons get sucked into a black hole. The best we can do is observe the very rapid redshift of photons trying to escape the black hole. When there are no more redshifted photons, then we can conclude that our laser has been devoured by the black hole.

Also, photons always travel at c, locally, even across signficant time dilation. Whether or not a black hole can violate the Invariance of c by making the photon's path "non-local from A to B", is a matter I would take up with experts. As for gaps between the photons, that would mean that time dilation has broken down and I would again defer to an expert on black holes. I can say that a breakdown in time dilation would also be a breakdown in conservation of energy. I'm not aware of any accepted black hole theory that permits a violation of conservation of energy.

Question 1:

The oncoming train emits photons that are blueshifted at the inertial frame of the observer. As the train passes, time dilation t'/t=gamma. As the train moves away, then redshift occurs. Scattering is not a form of transmission, it's really an obstruction to transmission. I think you mean that the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by scattering events. Even if there was a gas (fog) between the train and the observer, I'm just not seeing how time dilation can be violated.

I gotta get back to work. I'll think about it.

Once again, thank you for reading my paper.

Hi Peter,

Have you considered the possibility that the M87 jet consists of gravitationally significant quantities of matter/energy? In other words, yes, the speed of light is invariance, locally. However, the size of the gravitatioanal body determines the relative velocity of light. In other words, the M87 jet is really an extremely gravitationally massive, high velocity fluid. The speed of light is relative to the gravity field that the local invariance occurs within. The velocity of light is relative to the most gravitaionally significant object around.

Dear Jason,

I enjoyed your paper. I think you made your point regarding Photon Shift Theory. I had a few technical differences:

On page one, you said:

"Virtual photons are the mediators of the electromagnetic force, and permit color charge to operate so that gluons can mediate the strong force. Photons are the first and primary form of energy...", and

"The strong force, which holds protons and neutrons (hadrons) together, is mediated by gluons. Quantum Chromo-dynamics ays that quarks and gluons are composed of fractional charges called color-charge. But fractional color charge is still electric charge; partial electric charges induce partial electric fields which are mediated by virtual photons. While gluons mediate the strong force, virtual photons are the unsung heroes that make color charge available and allow gluons to do their job."

I don't mind you relating photons with the Weak force and with Higgs, because they are all components of Standard Electro-Weak (although a Higgs might travel faster than the speed of light, and Z's and W's travel slower). I might also be OK with similarities between the photon and gravity - since gravity is due to Spacetime curvature that we observe via photons.

However, I think you should drop the photon-gluon comparison. There are implications that weak hypercharge and color charge are related by a simple fraction 3/8's at unification, but color force is stronger than EM, and has a very short range due to color confinement. The colors: Red, Green and Blue are not fractional, but the electric charges of 2/3 e and -1/3 e are fractional. However, if we defined e'=3e, then we would never have fractional electric charges with our current particle spectrum.

On page 3, you mentioned the "Free Energy Universe". Wikipedia calls it the Zero-Energy or Free-Lunch Hypothesis. You and/or your reference are mixing up terminology.

Also on page 3, you asked:

"What is the evidence that the quantum vacuum, also known as empty space, is filled with wave-functions?"

This is very similar to the Dirac Sea that I used in my essay, and to the vacuum expectation value (vev) of the Higgs Mechanism.

I think you should simplify the presentation a little bit (how ironic - I never make my ideas simple enough...), and ask for a research grant.

I see we have more in common than I previously knew - we both dropped out of U Texas (Austin) - but I was there about twenty years before you. I had qualified for the Physics Doctoral program (by completing the core coursework and qualifying seminar), but was too "burnt out" to finish a degree at that time... Years later, I completed my Doctorate at Florda State U.

Good Luck in the Essay Contest!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Doctor Ray,

Thank you very much for reading my essay.

I wish I knew how to simplify these ideas. Too much similification, and the spark of insight is lost.

It should be zero energy universe. I wish I could make the change now.

There are two experiments that demonstrate that empty space is filled with wave-functions. First, the Casimir Effect. As two plates are moved together, there are fewer and fewer wave-functions between the plates that can push back the many wave-functions on the outside of the plates. I guess the question becomes: how do I know that wavefunctions can push?

Second, the Lamb Shift attributes a deviation from the expected 2p orbitital to the hydrogen's interaction with the quantum vacuum. Third, when the two slit experiment is performed, one particle (electron or photon) at a time, the particles still form a diffraction pattern. That tells me that the wave-function(s) permeate the whole experiment.