Photon Theory by Jason Mark Wolfe

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.

Jason

That's what many assume, but look at the graphs, the 'fine structure' starts increasing in flux and oscillation virtually as soon as motion starts!

The kinetic energy pretty well exactly matches the relative frame velocity and frequency, which matches the energy put in, which matches the Doppler shift, which, according to equivalence principle and experiment, also precisely matches the Gravitational mass. Ergo; I am proposing some connections exist.

ie. I only propose 3, and falsifiable, things;

1. If 5 basketballs hit you they will hurt more than 1, even more if they go faster, but not if they aren't moving, but they also weigh more than 1.

2. If your radio had FM it's oscillator will change light speed, i.e. em wave speed, to that transmitted so you can hear 'Fly me to the moon' perfectly even if you're flying to the moon. (all via Christian Doppler).

3. Plasma makes up over 99% of the universe and has a c/n (in it's own frame.)

Some seem to think those are nonsense as my theory varies slightly from SR, even though it follows Einstein's own view, but no-one has yet produced one iota of scientific refutation of my very powerfully predictive model. I really wish they would, or at least try! There's a brilliant link to probably the best cosmology available in Don Limuti's essay, which is spot on and consistent in all departments. I've even predicted and can derive the spiral anisotropy of the CMB, - with real photographic evidence that would hold up in court!

I think there is a way out for your theory too, but not quite the way you were heading. Look at Don's link. His essay is mainly spot on too.

Peter

Hi Jason, yes I liked your photon theory essay very much. All that is needed is a visual reprentation of the photon imo. Have you ever considered the Archimedes screw as an anlogy for something with both particle and wave properties?

Hi Alan,

I can't say I've heard about Archimedes screw. But now that I've read about it, yeah, I see a connection. Actually, I see a connection between Archimedes screw and the shift photon. But you asked if AS is a good analogy for particles versus waves. By wave, do you mean massless particles like photons? Well, I see particles as being inertial frames unto themselves. In contrast, a wave (a photon) is something that frequency shifts between two inertial frames.

Thank you for the Archimedes screw idea. That made my day. :-)

You just made my day too! You're the second author to appreciate the Archimedes screw idea. I'm still thinking in very abstract terms and so believe the visualisation can both represent 'massless' entities like photons and 'heavy' particles like quarks. The helix can be shaped into a ring-donut for example to give an added dimension. There could also be double-helices in a ring donut configuration. There could be opposite spinning helices in a ring donut i.e. a neutron type configuration. Both could be spinning in the same direction i.e. a proton-type configuarion or both opposite i.e. an anti-proton configuration. The possiblities are enough to fill all the niches of quantum mechanics or the six confgurations of quarks imo. It's such a simple idea yet full of potential.

Imagine that the Archimedes screw spins so as to cause a force of attraction when interacting with another particle. If this Archimedes screw then travelled around a hypersphere, or wraparound universe, then it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy! This helical ring-donut idea then can model the idea of an electric circuit. One terminal of a battery spins clockwise, whilst the other end, once travelled around the circuit would arrive at the other terminal spinning anti-clockwise. See what I mean?

P.S you haven't entered your author's code so that your replies highlight in yellow.

Indeed indeed dear Edwin, you saw dear Robert, he is very creative,....his real name is spock !

A SPACE SHIP A SPACE SHIP A SPACE SHIP.....

How about the graviton as an Archimedes screw though?

Dear Jason Wolfe,

Your essay is very interesting and original. However, in addition to published above notes, I also found some physical errors.

'Photons are fundamental to all particles in the standard model'. According to modern science the matter is though to be made of quarks and leptons, but not photons.

Photons are the carriers of causality - it is not correct, we can also send causal signals using neutrino, gravitation waves, beams of protons, neutrons, electrons, and so on.

Distance and time are defined with photons - we can define distance and time also using coherent beams of atoms or electrons.

All physical phenomena exists because wave-functions exist - the wave-FUNCTION is a mathematical term only. In the same way you can say that numbers, integrals, tensors and differential equations really exist. If wave-functions can really exist, then please explain their composition, mass, structure, and lifetime. If particles annihilate, it do not mean that particles are wavefunctions. Photons cannot be trapped inside of particles, it is forbidden by quantum mechanics, for example by uncertainty principle. Since the rest of your essay also is based on particles with photons trapped inside, I stop here.

You are welcome and thank you for essay. The main goal of our contest is to involve people in physics research. All people must love physics and publish essays.

Good Luck in the Essay Contest!

Constantin

Hi Jason,

it was good that you entered the competition as you have been able to get far more interest and feedback on your ideas that you were getting posting on FQXi blog threads and other forums alone. You have been posting about this particular idea on the blogs for some time now.

I have read all of the comments here with interest. I really don't feel suitably qualified, or currently alert enough, to debate the topic with you here. But I have enjoyed our many conversations on FQXi blogs. I have difficulty keeping up with your innovations there. I continue to enjoy seeing the various arguments for and against from the sidelines. Good luck. I hope you continue to have lots of interest and positive feedback on your writing.

Dear Constanin,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. It is my privilege to defend the points that you raised.

1. "Photons are the carriers of causality - it is not correct, we can also send causal signals using neutrino, gravitation waves, beams of protons, neutrons, electrons, and so on."

Protons, neutrons and electrons can all be annihilated by their anti-partner. Upon annihilation, there is a release of gamma rays, but no particle fragments. Gamma rays are photons. With current technology, we do not have the ability to signal using gravity waves. But if we did, I would argue that we would use frequency shift photons to generate them. I am working on that right now by looking for a transfer function. As for neutrinos, some have suggested that a neutrino-anti-neutrino pair forms a photon, however, I don't think they've gotten it work out. Until they can prove otherwise, I assume that neutrino-anti-neutrino pairs will annihilate one another into gamma rays. Let me know if anyone proves otherwise.

2. "Distance and time are defined with photons - we can define distance and time also using coherent beams of atoms or electrons. " But atoms and electrons can be decomposed into photons. We can define distance and time with rulers and stopwatches, however, (a) the international community uses photon transitions in Cesium atoms and (b) photons are fundamental (more fundamental than atoms or electrons). If someone succeeds in decomposing a photon into a neutrino-anti-neutrino pair, then we can define time and distance in terms of neutrinos, if we can find them.

3. The wave function is the set of solutions to the Schrodinger equation. The difference between wave-functions and other mathematical objects is that wave-functions can be of the form:

[math]\Psi = A e^{i(kx-\omega t)}[/math]

\Psi = A e^{i(kx-\omega t)}

Coincidentally, plane waves, including polarized electromagnetic plane waves, are of the same form. Wave-functions offer the ability to describe any quantum system while still remaining very general. It made sense to commit Photon theory to the requirement of describing everything in physics with photons and wave-functions. Even now, I am looking for a solution to the Schrodinger Equation (and Hamiltonian Mechanics) for a gravity field. It was a strategic decision that I am happy with.

4. Defining particles as wave-functions with photons trapped inside has not been a popular decision. The advantage of doing so is that F=ma implies that the trapped photons within the mass have to undergo a change in frequency. A change in frequency requires a change in photon energy. Therefore, when someone asks why rocks are heavy, it's because the photons trapped inside have to convert frequency energy into potential energy. I hope that makes sense. If not, then pin me down on that point.

If you don't like the idea of a cluster of wave-functions with trapped photons, you can interpret that as an energized wave-function.