Is a well-stated and well-excepted theory of quantum mechanics and Relativity. It states that every type of solid matter with rest energy is nothing but trapped forms of Luxon energy: Particles which move with a velocity equal to that of lightspeed.

In 1997, scientists where able to make particles from pure light. This was the confirmation needed to give us a theoretical model stating that all matter was in fact just trapped light.

Here, Isaac Newton speculates the very nature of transumatations concerning light and matter with rest energy…

‘’Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another, and may not Bodies receive much of their Activity from the particles of Light which enter their Composition?
The changing of Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies, is very conformable to the Course of Nature, which seems delighted with Transmutations. [...] And among such various and strange transmutations, why may not Nature change Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies?“

Isaac Newton - Optics 1704, Book Three, Part 1 Qu.30

He was certainly ahead of his time concerning physics.

The Properties of Luxons

It is known, that in relativity, particles which move at the proposed ultimate velocity of c, having a value of something like 186,350 miles per second, have a subatomic clock which is stretched into infinity. This means that not a second passes for a Luxon…Because they do not move through the time dimension, or space for that matter, so there is no solution to the equation…

t’=t_{0}/\sqrt{1}-v^{c}/c^{2}

The mass-energy relation equation E=Mc^{2} it turns out according to many scientists, was in fact the first real indirect proof of antimatter existences, and as we know, when an electron comes into contact with a positron, they annihilate in a shower of energy: Luxon energy. This is matter with rest energy being reduced back to their purest form, and later in the 1926 with Paul A. M. Dirac’s formulation of the Dirac Equation, the existence of antimatter showed that Bradyons, (particles which move with a velocity below c) can be reduced back into Luxon energy.

A Luxons rest energy must always be zero. And from their point of view, they don’t move at all. Nor do they even have a lifetime. This makes Bradyonic matter a longer lived fluctuation of the zero-point energy field, which is itself a back ground reservoir of virtual electromagnetic energy.

The Properties of Bradyons

Bradyons, unlike Luxons, do experience a time frame. In fact, by definition, we are Bradyons. The velocity of a Bradyon is actually determined by its energy… This is why we find high-energy particles moving at arbitrarily fast speeds, some just a fraction short of ‘’c’’.

In fact, c is a universal constant, which is used everyday in physics as a reference. For instance, we determine the speeds of Bradyons using the universal constant of lightspeed:

t’=t/\sqrt{1}-v^{2}/c^{2}

m’=m_{0}/\sqrt{1}-v^{2}/c^{2}

It must have been Einstein’s realization that photons did not contain mass, which led him to his assumptions concerning the limitation of speed on a Bradyon. To reach the value of c, the speed of a photon, the Bradyon would require an infinite amount of energy.

Some people like to say that the photon has mass because the photon has energy E=hf, where (h) is 'Planck’s constant' and (f) is the frequency of the photon. Thus, they tend to assume that because it has energy (E) it must have mass (M) because of Einstien’s mass-energy equivalence equation E=Mc^{2}...

They also say that the photon has momentum, and momentum is related to mass p=Mv where (v) is velocity and (p) is for momentum. Yet, you cannot justify it having mass using this argument. This is actually 'relativistic mass' - which is nothing but the measure of energy which will change with velocity.

It isn't actually mass, even though mass and energy are related. In physics jargon, the mass of an object is called its 'invariant mass,' and the photon has no invariant mass. Now, a massless particle can have energy and it can have momentum, simply because mass is related to these through the equation E^{2}=M^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}, which is subsequently zero-mass for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation.

The relativistic mass of a Bradyon will increase, as it moves faster and faster… this is why we believe momentum and speed is in fact invariant due to the energy it contains. The higher the energy will result in the system moving faster and faster.

The relativistic mass of an object is expressed as:

M=\gamma m

M=E/c^{2} by Tolman notation…

It was justified that even Luxons contained relativistic mass.

E=Mc^{2}

It may be of some interest for you to know, that Einstein wasn’t the first to understand the energy-mass equivalence. Poincare just a few years before Einstein’s formulization of relativity stated an equivalence in the form M=E/c^{2} and before that it was also recognized by Wien (1900) was m=(4/3)E/c^{2}.

For many scientists, the equation of mass-energy relation was in fact the first indirect proof of antimatter relationships, where matter is reduced back into energy. It wasn’t until the formulization of the Dirac Equation, did this fact become known, and we now know that every Bradyon has an antipartner.

But what is interesting is that the annihilation of all these different types of particles gave of deadly gamma energy… photons of light energy. Now, with the evidence of photons being created into matter, all the matter you see in everyday life, even the electrons, protons and neutrons making our bodies, are but fluctuations of trapped light.

The very fact all these different types of matter come from one source and type of energy, stands to reason the different types of particles known must be the result of a frequency trap in the energy of the Luxens as they transmutate into these types of particles (1). The different types of trapped frequency of distortions must also be limited, due to the limitation of particles in the standard model. Today, we know something like 410 particles, both Luxon and Bradyonic.

The Arguement

Luxon Theory is actually a theory considered to be a theory of everything, concerning matter. It is known by calculation and vigorous mathematical analysis, that the universe actually grew quite old before the first energy appeared. It wasn’t until 32 years had passed (I’ve heard Ben claim it was much longer… I am not sure which amount of time passed is correct… But I trust my source), did light emerge from spacetime.

A major argument and ultimate implication of Luxon theory, is the existence of glueballs. Glueballs are exotic particles, which are entire entities consisting of gluon particles which interact due to the Chromoelectric field. In Yorktown Heights, N.Y., Dec. 18, 1995, using one of the world's fastest computers, nonstop for two years, scientists have been able to calculate the properties of glueballs. It was considered that this be the first time a computer has verified the existence of an elusive particle, and it was also argued that several experiments have shown the properties given by the results.

Gluons are also Luxons, and the very fact that these Luxons can come together, bind and create entirely new particles, is the ultimate proof that Luxons do indeed come together, and create the matter we see everyday. It is also said, that the verification of Glueballs are an ‘’overwhelming success for Luxon Theory,’’ and no scientist has been able to thwart the claims.

Also part of the discovery, was that the Glueballs rest mass, was made from Luxon Inertia. Scientists are now considering the same answer for matter that consists of Luxon energy in the form of photons.

(1) – but this is speculation from my own behalf.

References:

Scientists make matter from light, paper, University of Rochester, Tom Rickey, (716) 275-7954.

Alfredo A. Barrera:IT IS THE ACCELERATION OF ENERGY WITHIN A PARTICLE THAT PRODUCES MASS AND CONSEQUENTLY GRAVITY

John T. Nordberg: Grand Unification Theory: The Ball-of-Light Particle Model.

Ray Tomes: Towards a Theory Of Everything: Matter as a Solution to Maxwell's Equations

Fernando Cleto Nunes Pereira:The Unit of Phisics

Other Reading:

Spiritual Universe: Fred Alan Wolf 2004

Bob Toben, Fred Wolf and Jack Sarfatti :Space-time and beyond, 1975.

Reiku---

A lot of what you're written in your last section specifically contradicts the mainstream physics. For example:

This is why I call a photon, the ‘’Primal Particle’’ of physics. Being the first particle to enter spacetime and warp its fabric, is in fact the primal particle that gave rise to all the known particles of the standard model, created quite possibly through violent high-energy collisions.

Photons were not the first particles in the universe. In fact, photons didn't even EXIST before electroweak symmetry breaking. This means that the very early universe was filled with a hot quark gluon plasma. No photons.

I'll give you this weekend to show me how what you've said here is consistent with mainstream physics. Otherwise i have to move it to pseudo science.

I dare say I shall regret asking this, but what is a Luxon?

Does it MATTER ?

I dare say I shall regret asking this, but what is a Luxon?

It's a particle that moves at the speed of light, i.e. is massless. I don't know if its's ever been used in scientific literature, but it has a wikipedia entry.

Sure its been used in scientific literature.. Hence the name Luxon Theory ;)

Sorry Ben, I often forget not to induce my own thoughts, and keep everything rigorous. I removed that part anyway. (You see, i am one of these guys who refute the existence of the Higgs...), but as i said, i removed it.

It's a particle that moves at the speed of light, i.e. is massless. I don't know if its's ever been used in scientific literature, but it has a wikipedia entry.

The interesting bit is that if we could slow it down, its mass would become negative, whatever that would mean.

A Luxon doesn't have mass...

If you mean, its relativistic mass... i am not sure.

Tachyonic matter has a negative value. They contain an infinite amount of energy at their lowest speed (lightspeed), and yet travel at an infinite speed using as much little energy as possible.

The interesting bit is that if we could slow it down, its mass would become negative, whatever that would mean.

No. There are two things wrong with this statement. The first is that, by the first postulate of relativity, things moving at the speed of light always move at the speed of light. Second, negative mass particles move faster than the speed of light.

Reiku, let me remind you that you have the rest of this weekend to convince me that this is real science. I haven't seen a case made yet.

Of course it is real science. What's that supposed to mean? What do you think Luxon Theory is?

Are you being serious?

Dr. Wolf says in his book, Spiritual Universe (and please don't judge the book by its cover, or name, be the case), that now physicists are quite sure that matter are just forms of trapped light, since every tardyon has an antipartner, which when it comes into contact together, reduces them back to photon energy.

Its no coincidence that all the tardyons in the universe have an antipartner that reduces them back into photon energy. This is what Luxon Theory states, so therefore, of course it is real science.

Also, what do you think this reference was for

''John T. Nordberg: Grand Unification Theory: The Ball-of-Light Particle Model.''

And its also noted in

''Bob Toben, Fred Wolf and Jack Sarfatti :Space-time and beyond, 1975.''

You should be careful with sources like these- Fred Wolf has a notorious reputation for promoting pseudoscience and quackery. He was involved in the production of "What the Bleep Do We Know?" which is a movie supposedly about quantum mechanics but is in fact a promo vid for a religious cult, and is filled with known misrepresentations and ridiculous falsehoods about QM.

As for trying to construct a particle as a bundle of light... I remember recently doing a classical EM calculation where you try and picture the electron as a massless point charge, and all the energy (mass) contained by the particle comes from the energy of its electric field. I've also done another classical calculation where you include spin and picture the electron as a rotating shell of massless charge, hence magnetic fields are included in the rest frame, but that wasn't required for this exercise. For the point particle calculation, we were to calculate the energy and momentum of such a particle and then see if they transform as a relativistic 4-vector. My calculations were rushed (take home exam) and I might have made a mistake somewhere, but I found that the particle's energy and momentum did not transform relativistically, at least if you consider the rest frame of the particle to be the same as the rest frame of the charge it carries.

Well, unbeknown to you, i actually keep in close contact with wolf via e-mail. I find him quite a sane man. You will find, that he has never made a hard-scientific error when he speaks about it in his books, if you have read any of them. That going to say, since 1985, his books have been a bit-outdated, and certain theories have been modified or changed, but other than that, he is quite precise about physics, and is a true pioneer in his field of research.

As for a little summery of his expertise, to show you that the claims he is of quackary, must be to the heavier degree quackary itself, he recieved his doctorate in theoretical physics from the University of California in 1963. Since then, he has had intimate discussions with David Bohm, to classes with Nobel Laurate Richard Feynman, to an initimate meeting with Heisenberg.

He is a former professor of physics at the San Diego State University. He has also taught in in the University of London, the University of Jerusalem, the Hahn-Mietner Institute for Nuclear Physics and the University of Paris. He is also an honored member of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Collegium of Scholars.

So before you spout off he is a whack job, i suggest you consider these facts, and his autharative in his field, and expertise. He now lectures worldwide.

The only parts of his work i would suggest to be slightly psuedoscientific, are his ability to mingle metaphysics with actual science. But this in my opinion, is all he has to be blamed for.

I'm sure Fred Wolf is a really smart guy and knows lots about QM (probably a lot more than myself), and probably has met with lots of famous founders of the modern QM theory. I'm just saying he is widely believed to be a quack by the scientific community specifically for his attempts to combine QM and metaphysics, and his claims are therefore taken with a grain of salt. It's the same as was done for David Bohm and Roger Penrose- very smart people, but all tried to go well beyond established science with a lot of their claims. Again, his participation in "What the Bleep" is considered by the majority of the scientific community to be very not cool, to put it mildly.

Regardless, if he puts forth a valid theory then so be it. It doesn't sound like there's much basis for the proposal in this topic though, but if you can put down specific arguments then we're listening.

Actually, not all his theories are been taken with a grain of salt. His recent book Spiritual Universe was for a couple of years considered to be quantum proof that something like a soul existed. It wasn't until Fred, quite admirally admited that it wasn't proof at all, but strong evidence.

He was also the original founder of the idea that quantum tunelling could answer for many strange phenomena of the mind. He and David Deusch had also speculated that parallel universes could be an answer for the highly strange phenomena of schizophrenia... which has been taken quite seriously.

Other than that, and to be fair, there has indeed been much of his work that is less believable...

But we will find, that these sceintists you have proposed, David, Roger and even Wolf, are the legends of physics, and no matter what anyone says, they are besides some of the great pioneers in the archive of quantum mechanics.

As always Reiku you are right on the money!

Everything is connected.... We are all living in sub-lightspeed. We are able to precive other speeds around us slower as well as faster.
Because we live in sub-lightspeed we experince time.
Time being the velocity of the particals in and around us.

The velocity of the particals are subject to two factors; curcumstances and portentials.

No. There are two things wrong with this statement. The first is that, by the first postulate of relativity, things moving at the speed of light always move at the speed of light. Second, negative mass particles move faster than the speed of light.

Theoreticall, if we could get such particles to slow down, by forcing them to move through a dense medium, why would they still have no mass ?

Actually, not all his theories are been taken with a grain of salt. His recent book Spiritual Universe was for a couple of years considered to be quantum proof that something like a soul existed. It wasn't until Fred, quite admirally admited that it wasn't proof at all, but strong evidence.

But who was it that considered this book to be quantum proof of a soul? I never heard anything of the sort in scientific circles and none of my profs have ever mentioned it. People have asked these kinds of questions before in quantum physics classes and my profs just laughed about it every time. So I'm curious where this acclaim for Fred Wolf's book is coming from.

He was also the original founder of the idea that quantum tunelling could answer for many strange phenomena of the mind. He and David Deusch had also speculated that parallel universes could be an answer for the highly strange phenomena of schizophrenia... which has been taken quite seriously.

I find that incredibly hard to believe. What is it about modern medications that are somehow stopping so many of these people from jumping between parallel universes? What about all the perfectly credible and well-tested theories about how brain chemistry is different in schizophrenic people than in normal people, in ways that impair brain function?

I think you misunderstood me, or misunderstand the general theory on board. It's not so increadible that we might speculate that shizophrenia be tied into multiple universes... as i said, Wolf isn't the first to postulate it.

Nevertheless, i think you listen to much to others, and not drawing actual conclusions for yourself. That's how people generally come to dislike someone, because they haven't drawn any personal conclusions from their own studies... and if you don't mind me saying, its dogmatic, narrow and essentially unscientific.

Theoreticall, if we could get such particles to slow down, by forcing them to move through a dense medium, why would they still have no mass ?


Because photons do not ever slow down from their frame of reference. They always move at light speed to themselves, even in a dense medium. Secondly, whilst moving through a dense media, the photon only contributes energy, as it never had mass to begin with, but adding relativistic energy to a system, can mean thay add a tiny bit of mass to a system... but that cannot be justified for them having mass.

Because photons do not ever slow down from their frame of reference. They always move at light speed to themselves, even in a dense medium. Secondly, whilst moving through a dense media, the photon only contributes energy, as it never had mass to begin with, but adding relativistic energy to a system, can mean thay add a tiny bit of mass to a system... but that cannot be justified for them having mass.

I was asking about luxons.

As you have mentioned photons, they surely cannot always travel at a constant speed because the speed of light is generally defined as itsw speed in vacuuo. Does it not travel at slower speeds in , say, glass ?

All Bosons, the more common terminology, are by definition, Luxon particles. This means photons and gluons, for instance, are Luxon particles.

A photon, yes, moves slower in a medium, to an outside observer. But the photon, from its reference doesn't move slower. To it, nothing has changed at all.

I think you misunderstood me, or misunderstand the general theory on board. It's not so increadible that we might speculate that shizophrenia be tied into multiple universes... as i said, Wolf isn't the first to postulate it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think if you survey most scientists, they will find that quite absurd. Especially since we don't even know whether parallel universes exist, let alone postulating how we could travel between them with our minds (I mean really, COME ON!!!). I'll eat crow when Dr. Wolf presents his world shattering experimental proof.

Nevertheless, i think you listen to much to others, and not drawing actual conclusions for yourself. That's how people generally come to dislike someone, because they haven't drawn any personal conclusions from their own studies... and if you don't mind me saying, its dogmatic, narrow and essentially unscientific.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with criticizing an incomplete theory lacking in evidence, especially when it contradicts many other established areas of science. If your arguments are as sound as you think, they will prevail on their own merit. This is not a popularity contest.

I had a really tough time accepting quantum physics and relativity when I first learned about them as a teenager. I tried to find flaw after flaw and inconsistency after inconsistency, and every time I thought I had one, someone would explain to me the error in my reasoning. As I learned more and more about these theories and started gaining the mathematical tools to work with them, I came to understand that the evidence was overwhelming and I had no choice but to change my view of the physical world.

I'm not trying to shoot anyone down or tell you to stick to the textbook, just ensuring that due caution is followed in presenting a highly unconventional theory. If the evidence starts to accumulate, we will all be forced to take it seriously. I hope you're willing to do likewise if the evidence is found to be lacking.

One, Dr Wolfs theory, was an example, but quite an adequate one, since you are arguing, you desire his experimental proof. Well the theory is actually under the classification of being a spacetime theory. Wiki has an entry of them, stating that they are not actually psuedoscience, because they do predict experimentation, and so therefore classed as protoscience instead.

As for the second retort, I never said anything about it being wrong about critizism. I was merely stating the fact that usually in normal scientific methods, the scientist learns about the subject they are critisizing, and i bet you've not read a large quantity of his work to make an accurate statement on any woo woo factors.

Do you think scientists like Sheldon Glashow can make negative speculations about string theory, if he hadn't studied it? He would be shot down for his ignorance.

Dr Wolf is not a solitude on his work of consciousness. He has done numerous works. One being heavy mathematical analysis of magnetic fields, solving complex equations for his PhD thesis. Since then, he has worked in Nuclear mathematics, and helps in his field, in a versatile attitude to science. That's to be commended.

And i think you will find, there are already flaws in relativity. The first being it is a classical theory, and doesn't take into account the uncertainty principle. That limits what it can do, and a key factor in unifying the whole as quantum relativity.

One, Dr Wolfs theory, was an example, but quite an adequate one, since you are arguing, you desire his experimental proof. Well the theory is actually under the classification of being a spacetime theory. Wiki has an entry of them, stating that they are not actually psuedoscience, because they do predict experimentation, and so therefore classed as protoscience instead.

As for the second retort, I never said anything about it being wrong about critizism. I was merely stating the fact that usually in normal scientific methods, the scientist learns about the subject they are critisizing, and i bet you've not read a large quantity of his work to make an accurate statement on any woo woo factors.

Well aside from his work promoting the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, it's true I haven't read too much into his work. Apart from the fact that this theory you present appears to possibly contradict many established areas of theoretical physics, and the fact that to date there is yet no experimental confirmation, I guess I don't have much more to say about it. I do however believe that this forum should be more focussed on what the physics community is doing in general, so some limits on speculation ought to be appropriate. You can't just throw any theory out there and call it physics just because it hasn't been disproven yet. I'm not gonna be the one to propose where we draw the line but I think it's worth discussing. We already have enough people with no physics background coming in here and throwing in their two cents of wild speculation, soon it won't be an appropriate place to come discuss serious research and solve problems, which would be a shame.

Do you think scientists like Sheldon Glashow can make negative speculations about string theory, if he hadn't studied it? He would be shot down for his ignorance.

Point taken. I'm definitely not the authority on this, just trying to contribute what little reasoning I can 'til the big guns who really know what they're talking about show up.

Dr Wolf is not a solitude on his work of consciousness. He has done numerous works. One being heavy mathematical analysis of magnetic fields, solving complex equations for his PhD thesis. Since then, he has worked in Nuclear mathematics, and helps in his field, in a versatile attitude to science. That's to be commended.

And like I said, no doubt he's a very smart and well educated man. That still doesn't give him free license to speculate at will and have it taken as the gospel. I haven't been around the block anywhere nearly as long as he has and it will be several more years before I think I'll have narrowed the knowledge gap, but I have learned enough that I feel more than qualified to challenge many of his ideas.

And i think you will find, there are already flaws in relativity. The first being it is a classical theory, and doesn't take into account the uncertainty principle. That limits what it can do, and a key factor in unifying the whole as quantum relativity.

Of course relativity is flawed, that's why there's Quantum Field Theory. Special relativity and quantum mechanics are like a match made in heaven- the variety of phenomena QFT explains is astounding, as is the accuracy of the predictions. Constructing a quantum theory of gravity from General Relativity seems to be the major stumbling block, but Special relativity was practically made for QM.

''We already have enough people with no physics background coming in here and throwing in their two cents of wild speculation''

I hope you don't mean me. I am a student of physics.

Anyway, i'm tired, and i am away to sleep. Goodnight.

''We already have enough people with no physics background coming in here and throwing in their two cents of wild speculation''

I hope you don't mean me. I am a student of physics.

Anyway, i'm tired, and i am away to sleep. Goodnight.

Of course I don't mean you! I don't come across as that much of a prick, do I? :roflmao: