Photon Theory by Jason Mark Wolfe

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.

Jason,

thank you very much.

I do think deciding what is meant by reality is an important first step. I would not say that the photons are the image reality but they are certainly the data that allows the image reality to be formed. A very important part the whole process that allows image reality to emerge from the underlying object reality. Taking a photographic plate as an example of a reality interface, it would be the blackened grains of silver nitrate that form the image. In the case of human consciousness it might be electrical activity within the visual cortex.

You are right it is harder to explain to other people, clearly and concisely, than to know what we think ourselves.By explaining to others and getting feedback the ideas become clarified in our own minds. FQXi blogs has been very useful in that regard. Not everyone thinks alike and analogy or example that works for one person might not work for another.

I do wish more members would pop in to the conversations occasionally. Florin has been good. He is also participating on these competition threads I notice. Although he really knows his subject he can also explain things in a very straightforward and simple way, without being patronizing. There is still a month to go before the threads are closed. I will be back and hope I can be more constructive and helpful.I need to get some more sleep, so that my brain can work, first.

Best wishes, Georgina.

Hi Jason, yes, the wave-like version is the Archimedes screw that has a high rotational spin. The helix structure is the wave when combined with spin.

Think about it this way, why didn't Newton or one of his contemporaries suggest the Archimedes screw in the first place? A mechanical model which translates rotational energy into a force of attraction. Would they have explored this idea to the full? I like to think that they would have. We wouldn't have had Einstein talking about a 'fabric' of spacetime if this had been the case imo! Kind regrads, Alan.

P.S All theories of reality have to except the creation of structure and spin, don't they??

Particle-wave duality is useful, but unnecessary: all photons are waves. In fact, all particles are waves because they're made out of wave-functions. Particles appear point-like from very far away or low magnification

Jason,

You avoid reference to popular theories. Does this view not owe a debt to string theory? Sorry for the simple question.

Jim Hoover

Jason

I'm missed your post way above..

If you're listening on Concord on the runway, then take off and do mach2 the waves will arrive either red or blue shifted, so Frank Sinatra may have had lungs full of Helium! or Nancy sound like Lee Hazelwood.

In theory the crystal oscillates in an FM radio oscillate at the original transmitted frequency (Wave/Particle interaction) and modulate the frequency so you get it perfect as transmitted. (actually we'd really need to get into aerials as well but let's not complicate it).

Now think about what we've just said logically. Using 'c' as a constant, LOCALLY the f and lambda have been set back to original whatever the observer speed!! Actually the plasma fine structure of the aerial changes the wave speed to 'c' wrt the aerial, if the windscreen of concord hasn't already changed it by making it go through the glass at the c/n of glass and change to the air at c/n. If you lie in bed for an hour and think about that, using ALL your brain, you may get the Eureka moment.

It explains determinism, Locality reality, and relativity with the quantum mechanism of oscillating plasma. either physicists have refused to see it as they think it may put them out of a job (which it wouldn't) or they don't have the logical brainpower so don't really deserve to be IN the job!

Let me know if and when the penny drops.

best regards

Peter

Dear Peter,

You said, "LOCALLY the f and lambda have been set back to original whatever the observer speed!!"

That's the part I'm not comfortable with. It's like you're saying that any particle that absorbs a photon (becomes the observer), has now "reset" the speed of light to its own reference frame. But it seems as if that would present a real problem for the Lortentz transform.

If a photon emits from particle A and is absorbed at particle B, where A and B have radically diffeent veloicities and are two particles in a vacuum, the only thing we can say is that the freqeuncy might change between particle A and B. Both particles A and B interacted with the photon as an object that travels at the speed of light.

Jason

Yes, It seems to keep appearing to you then going again! It does indeed reduce the LT to the curve of acceleration power required approaching 'c'.

Imagine particle A as in space and particle B as in the glass of a spaceship windscreen. Both re-emitt the photon energy at 'c' with respect to their own reference frames. (I asked each of them, and neither gave a damn about who or what else was moving anywhere else or at what speed. They were each under strict instructions to emit photons at 'c' and that's what they do!)

Yes, if the spacecraft is going forward the arrival frequency of photons will be higher, if going backwards it is lower! How simple can it be!

When B's mate on the other face of the glass passes the photon on into the spaceship the air particle also sends it on at 'c'. (Nobody told him how fast the ship was going or in which direction - and he doesn't give a damn either!).

If my 8 year old nephew can hold it in his brain it must be possible for anyone (unless you've been indoctrinated with rubbish of course!).

Is it sticking yet? look at my post under Tome essay if you'd like the train version.

Once you have it, and start thinking consequences, it the paradoxes of physics start melting away! A few seem to be getting it in my string now.

Peter

Hi Jason

The same explains M87 etc. Just envisage an ant sized train moving on a toy train on a moving pavement, within a bigger train, within a bigger train, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy going by you. From your frame you add them all up so may even measure the ants trains speed at 10c! - Infinitely many 'spaces' again. And nothing breaches 'c' locally.

(Ahe light from the ants train keeps changing to local 'c' all the way to you).

As I say, once you get your head round it it actually seems to solve ALL problems. Throw one at me, ..the shortage of Lithium 7 in the universe?, the re-ionisation problem?..Dark Flow?, Superluminal travel?, Where all the odd socks end up?

Best wishes

Peter

Hi Peter,

From the

a) ant sized train to the

b) toy train to the

c) moving pavement to the

d) bigger train to the

e) second bigger train to the

f) planet to the

g) solar system to the

h) galaxy,

your saying that the beacon/tiny LED on a) can potentially be observed by an observer in the frame of h) faster than the speed of light?

To put this another way, your saying that I can propel mass-energy using a series of cylindrical energy jet flows labeled

a) inner

b) 2nd inner,

c) 3rd inner,

d) 3rd outer,

e) 2nd outer,

f) and first outer cylindrical mass-energy jet.

You're saying that I can do all this by relying upon the index of refraction of the energy alone. I don't see how. The M87 jet was propelling gravitationally significant amounts of mass energy. But let's take a closer look.

M87 spits out first outer f), f) spits out e), e) spits out d), ... b) spits out a). Is that the idea?

I don't agree that index of refraction will let you do this.

I do agree that gravitationally significant energy jets CAN overcome the speed of light barrier.

What say you?