Photon Theory by Jason Mark Wolfe

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.

Hi Jason,

Please call me Ray.

I was too vague. I think the parts that I most disagree with are about the color force - I don't think it is directly relevant to your argument about Photon Shift Theory, and I think your color arguments aren't quite correct.

Everything else is well-presented. I especially like how you reproduced equations from Special Relativity within your theory's assumptions.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Jason,

I agree that photons are important, but I think that every U(1) symmetry with a potentially "infinite" range is important - perhaps the Graviton, perhaps a Higgs - but our symmetries are broken such that we haven't been able to easily find those boson quanta.

Yes - Quarks have fractional electric charges, but not fractional color charges. When I performed the Millikan Oil Drop experiment in college, I got a strange result of q = e/3 (so I was off by a factor of three - I guess there are reasons why I ended up in Theory...), but my Instructor said "Ha, It looks like you found a free quark." I knew he was kidding...

I'm looking forward to anti-gravity hover cars.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Jason,

It could be that, as you say: "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."

Or it could be that each particle is accompanied by a 'pilot wave' as deBroglie, Schrodinger, Einstein, and others insisted, at one time or another, and that this 'local pilot wave' aspect of each particle accounts for the 'particle by particle' creation of a diffraction pattern. If each particle did *not* have an accompanying 'wave' aspect, we would be hard put to explain how the sequential sum yields an interference pattern.

Therefore, if photons and particles are discrete, and can be identified by a mass or a frequency, they must be accompanied by an aspect of reality that exhibits wave-like properties on a particle by particle basis. Only the C-field provides this physical 'pilot wave' that experiment seems to demand.

As for 'wave-functions' permeating an experiment that is performed over hundreds of kilometers it depends. If by 'wave-function' you mean a mathematical description of the experiment, OK. But if you mean a "physical" field or phenomena, based on two particles from a common source and extending for kilometers (or light years) then I can't buy that.

But it's not needed. The local pilot wave is 'attached' to the local particle in the sense that the particle momentum induces the C-field (pilot wave) circulation analogous to a charged particle inducing magnetic field circulation.

This 'local reference frame' fits with Peter's ideas and Einstein's ideas as quoted in Peter's essay. It also explains the constant speed of light in local reference frames and answers your earlier question about information being lost when a photon is red-shifted.

I haven't tried to solve the Casimir effect in terms of the C-field, so I have no opinion there, but you're right, the next question is how wave functions 'push'.

The Lamb shift is more interesting. I suspect that it is a C-field effect, but I haven't shown it. First, I think it is the right order of magnitude to be a C-field effect. And I don't really believe it's a 'virtual particle' effect for two reasons. Relatively recent QCD experiments expected to see a 'sea of strange quarks' in the proton, and have not found them. But even more serious to me is that the vacuum energy is now known to be 120 orders of magnitude weaker than was believed when the Lamb shift was calculated, but this factor of 10^120 does not seem to have any effect on the calculation of the effect. How can this be? When your primary explanation undergoes a change of 120 orders of magnitude in your primary variable, vacuum energy, and has no effect, perhaps it's time to re-examine your explanation.

Finally, in the GEM and the Constant Speed of Light paper, I have ignored the term that is based on changes in gravity. I plan to go back and look at that (real soon now) and will be happy to discuss photons and gravity with you at that time.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ray,

By the way, as I understand it "Beginning with O(alpha^2) one finds in the guts of the radiative corrections contributions from all species of charged particles in the physical world." [Abraham Pais, "Inward Bound"], where alpha is the fine structure constant.

Have you given any thought to the implications of this with all of the new particles you propose?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ray,

I think you'd better give that free quark back before some gluons start looking for it.

Edwin,

In the derivation of the Cosmological constant, theorists try to sum all of the oscillators that exist within the quantum vacuum as,

[math]E_0 = \sum \frac {1}{4 \pi}h\omega_j[/math]

which is exactly why the calculation is off by 120 orders of magnitude. If wave-functions were buckets and photons/particles were buckets full of water, then trying to calculate E_0 by assuming there is water in all of the buckets is going to give you 120 orders of magnitude more water then is actually there.

I hope that made sense.

Empty space is filled with wave-functions (mostly empty buckets). There is another possible way to calculate the Cosmological constant. I just don't know if it explains why wave-functions push on things. Remember when I said that we live in a zero energy universe? The energy of the Big Bang, E_BB plus the energy of gravity, U_GR, sum to zero.

[math]E_{BB}+U_{GR} = 0[/math]

What if that equation is not exactly correct. What if instead,

[math]E_{BB}+U_{GR} = \Lambda[/math]

The difference between the energy of the Big Bang and the energy of gravity equals the Cosmological constant?

It sounds interesting, but I'll have to think about whether or not I like the idea.

Hi Ed,

You asked:

"By the way, as I understand it "Beginning with O(alpha^2) one finds in the guts of the radiative corrections contributions from all species of charged particles in the physical world." [Abraham Pais, "Inward Bound"], where alpha is the fine structure constant.

Have you given any thought to the implications of this with all of the new particles you propose?"

My response:

You might want to read my latest paper in PSTJ 1,9: "The Interrelationship of Spin and Scales". I've known about radiative corrections for decades, and had applications in my book. Radiative corrections might imply Variable Coupling Theory (in my book), or might imply errors in our model (PSTJ 1,9).

I fully expect these new particles to either 1) be tachyons (How do you observe something faster than the speed of light? Would that be confused with electronic feedback?) or 2) to be much more massive than our known particles (at one of these heirarchal scales that are stable against radiative corrections because of their dependance on the Weak force or the Gravitational force). R parity is expected to cause a stable Weak-scale heirarchy for SUSY particles.

But this is Jason's blog. We should probably discuss my ideas on my blog site.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Guys

Jason I answer 2 points and gave food for thought on the "massive gravity..." string.

Ref gravity, I agree, but only as part of something like Edwin's combined C field. Consider how the magnets in the LHC bend space-time, and how a massive cloud of photoelectrons is needed to do it, emitting synchrotron light (big secret money going into looking deeper into that at present! - or not 'looking', as it also involves stealth technology!) The particles have inertial mass - which I believe should give us equivalence with gravitational mass.

Ray,

Do also look and let me know how the trip felt! I use a basic version of scales but don't have a clue if there's any relevance to yours. i'm sure your concept if far less agricultural. I keep trying to read your essay and promise I will soon.

Best wishes.

Peter

Hi Peter,

P:"Consider how the magnets in the LHC bend space-time, and how a massive cloud of photoelectrons is needed to do it, emitting synchrotron light (big secret money going into looking deeper into that at present! - or not 'looking', as it also involves stealth technology!) "

Those magnets produce a heck of a lot of magnetic field, but they don't bend or curve space-time. How do I know? You can take two atomic clocks. Leave one of them safelty away from the magnets (it must be at the same elevation as the other atomic clock). Put the other one behind one of those magnets while it is energized. After about an hour, take the second atomic clock and place it next to the first atomic clock. Both clocks should read the same. The magnetic field does not induce a time dilation. There is graviational time dilation, relativistic time dilation and rotational (Sagnac) time dilation.

Nobody has ever observed a magnetic field time dilation.

BTW, you've mentioned several times that a cloud of photoelectrons is an observation that proves that this particular inertial frame is traveling very close to the speed of light relative to a slower moving inertial frame. Can you please elaborate on that. What causes the cloud of photon electrons?

Jason

I agree. the em field does't 'curve space-time' but it does of course curve and accelerate the beam!! (or let me know how else you think it's done!) which is the precise effect being described.

'Nobody has ever observed a magnetic field time dilation'. You might find nobody has observed anything else! (except it's done via particles) Have a look at the ref's I've just posted in Georgina's string.

The photoelectrons (or now more trendy 'virtual' electrons) condense from the field at the exact density and frequency needed to scatter and diffract the light (with the slight PMD delay) in both the frame o the magnet and the beam so they have to interact (I told you of the very high density yesterday) to do a pretty convincing impression of curved space time.

Mmmmm, I can smell roast duck a l'orange - look at the ref's on Georgina's and tell me if you can too..

Here's an old free one on CERN.;Kireeff, M. et al. Absolute Measurement of Electron-Cloud Density in a Positively Charged Particle Beam. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 054801 July 2006 http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.054801

Peter

Peter,

I thought virtual electron clouds were observed when inertial frames reached relativistic velocities. There's a lot of kinetic energy in a mass moving at 0.99c, even though it's not traveling that much faster than a mass moving at 0.9c.