View Full Version : All matter photons?
John J. Bannan
08-11-08, 10:50 AM
Is Vern right? See http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html
BenTheMan
08-11-08, 10:52 AM
No. If Vern were right he would have linked to an article in a peer reviewed journal.
John J. Bannan
08-11-08, 11:04 AM
No. If Vern were right he would have linked to an article in a peer reviewed journal.
O.K. AN says that the universe will eventually end up as "Neutrinos, photons, electrons and possibly the lightest supersymmetric particle, if R symmetry exists." Does this tell us anything about how the universe began?
BenTheMan
08-11-08, 11:13 AM
No follow up questions?
John I'm disappointed.
I'll give you a bit more of an honest answer. (Or several!)
Photons only interract with particles which are electrically charged, so they can't explain neutrinos, or the color force, or nuclear decays.
Photons are massless, so they can't explain mass.
Finally, if everything WERE made of photons, then everything would decay into photons. This is the second law---things always decay into predominantly the lightest decay products that they're allowed to decay into. Because we have electrons and quarks hanging around, it doesn't seem very likely that electrons and quarks could decay into photons---otherwise they already would have.
If anyone can think of other reasons why the idea of "everything is made of photons" is wrong, I'd love to hear them.
Hmmm maybe we'll have a contest...
AlphaNumeric
08-11-08, 11:52 AM
O.K. AN says that the universe will eventually end up as "Neutrinos, photons, electrons and possibly the lightest supersymmetric particle, if R symmetry exists." Does this tell us anything about how the universe began?No, because the universe began as a highly energetic dense slew of particles, not a very thinly spread low density haze of low energy particles.
Grasp the difference?
No. If Vern were right he would have linked to an article in a peer reviewed journal.
Physicists are so smitten by Quantumania that they can no longer even think of an alternative. It was Shrodinger who said "I hate Quantum Mechanics; I wish I had never had anything to do with it."
I myself suspect that QM was foisted upon us by little green space-men who want to keep us from ever realizing the true nature of the universe.
Finally, if everything WERE made of photons, then everything would decay into photons. This is the second law---things always decay into predominantly the lightest decay products that they're allowed to decay into. Because we have electrons and quarks hanging around, it doesn't seem very likely that electrons and quarks could decay into photons---otherwise they already would have.
Because they are stable, they don't spontaneously decay. Smack them hard enough and they will show you their photons.
Photons are massless, so they can't explain mass. Well if m=hv/cc then mass is electromagnetic change. So photons are just another state of mass.
Mike Honcho
08-11-08, 05:33 PM
Ben? Waiting.... and have to admit Verns arguements are winning.
Photons only interract with particles which are electrically charged, so they can't explain neutrinos, or the color force, or nuclear decays.
BenTheMan you hit upon the only problem I have ever found with the idea that photons comprise all mass. It is very difficult to get a neutrino out of that. About the only way would be to consider it a spin polarized photon doing some kind of dance. That's the one big problem with the notion. There's no problem with nuclear decays, the color force is part of QED which is an opposing theory; if photons comprise all mass, QED goes out the window. Of course all the observations remain. They are just explained differently.
Vkothii
08-11-08, 06:17 PM
If you throw a bit of mass into a pond, it makes waves on the surface. The waves are massless, the mass remains a bit of mass...
If you displace an electron or a proton, it makes massless waves in a surface too.
AlphaNumeric
08-11-08, 09:01 PM
Because they are stable, they don't spontaneously decay. Smack them hard enough and they will show you their photons.True, but that's not what happens when the universe has spread out, cooled and all particles which can decay have decays.
A proton, if GUTs are right, will spontaneously decay without being hit by anything. That's what 'unstable' means. Without interactions they spontaneously turn into something else. Photons, particular quark combinations, electrons and neutrinos don't spontaneously decay.
Well if m=hv/cc then mass is electromagnetic change. So photons are just another state of mass.But it isn't.
BenTheMan you hit upon the only problem I have ever found with the idea that photons comprise all mass. It is very difficult to get a neutrino out of that. About the only way would be to consider it a spin polarized photon doing some kind of dance. That's the one big problem with the notion. There's no problem with nuclear decays, the color force is part of QED which is an opposing theory; if photons comprise all mass, QED goes out the window. Of course all the observations remain. They are just explained differently.There's no such working theory.
Physicists are so smitten by Quantumania that they can no longer even think of an alternative. It was Shrodinger who said "I hate Quantum Mechanics; I wish I had never had anything to do with it."They are 'smitten' because it works.
I myself suspect that QM was foisted upon us by little green space-men who want to keep us from ever realizing the true nature of the universe.Except that QM is experimentally verified. Are you on drugs or are you just psychotic?
They are 'smitten' because it works.
It proves very well that the rules of statistical probability work. But it is the reason that no great advancements have been made in physics during its dominance.
Oh alphanumeric is a string theorist. He would hate the idea that anything other than the hypothetical string is primal.
''True, but that's not what happens when the universe has spread out, cooled and all particles which can decay have decays.''
Well, that may not be entirely true. Since we have never observed the decay of matter into photons spontaneously, may suggest the process cannot decay spontaneously. Simple.
Hence, we have observed matter being reduced to photon energy. If matter is not but trapped light, then explain how matter can indeed reduce back into this photon energy?
True, but that's not what happens when the universe has spread out, cooled and all particles which can decay have decays.
I think if you look back over your whole post you will see that it does not make sense. Whenever QM does not agree with reality, there's something wrong with reality. And if anybody tries to even think of anything converse with QM theory they are automatically crackpots.
That is what's wrong with Quantum Mechanics. It is the same thing that is wrong with any dictatorship; no opposing views are allowed.
Oh alphanumeric is a string theorist. He would hate the idea that anything other than the hypothetical string is primal. All you have to do to make string theory work is to show how a photon is made of a string. From there on you have the facts (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html) that all add up to a probability very close to certain.
I tend not to theorize about string theory. I don't really understand it, nor do i like the idea of having several extra dimensions. I find it, overdone as a theory.
I tend not to theorize about string theory. I don't really understand it, nor do i like the idea of having several extra dimensions. I find it, overdone as a theory.
I always thought of it as a kind of mathematical masterbation :)
I just read the link now. Ben says he is not right. I argue everything he says is observationally, and experiementally sound. I don't see why Ben would think it wasn't.
I always thought of it as a kind of mathematical masterbation :)
Lol
Except the climax may not be so fulfilling.:eek:
one_raven
08-11-08, 09:54 PM
Book-marked.
I have thought that for years, though the reasoning I used seems a bit different from yours.
I want to read your page more thoroughly.
Tell me, what are your thougths on:
The Michelson-Morley interpretation
The photo-electric effect
The apparent wave/particle duality of photons
The mass of a photon
and
Unification of forces
With respect to your hypothesis?
one_raven
08-11-08, 09:55 PM
I always thought of it as a kind of mathematical masterbation :)
100% agreement, and well put! :p
Book-marked.
I have thought that for years, though the reasoning I used seems a bit different from yours.
I want to read your page more thoroughly.
Tell me, what are your thougths on:
The Michelson-Morley interpretation
The photo-electric effect
The apparent wave/particle duality of photons
The mass of a photon
and
Unification of forces
With respect to your hypothesis?Who's?
one_raven
08-11-08, 09:59 PM
Who's?
Vern's.
Tell me, what are your thougths on:
The Michelson-Morley interpretation
The photo-electric effect
The apparent wave/particle duality of photons
The mass of a photon
and
Unification of forces
Michelson-Morley showed that relativity phenomena is real.
The photo-electric effect shows that it is the energy content of a photon that can dislodge an electron, another piece of evidence that matter is a photon construct.
Wave-Particle duality is the result of the photon construct as two points of electromagnetic saturation surrounded by a diminishing field of electromagnetic amplitude. Just as Maxwell showed.
The mass of a photon is m=hv/cc. Mass is a state of a photon that happens when the path of a photon is bent. To be stable it must be bent into a complete circle. Even then only one frequency is stable; that of the electron.
But; I'm probably boring you.
You can see my place at PhotonTheory.com (http://photontheory.com/) where I keep trying to get people to re-think Maxwells old hypothesis.
Unification deserves much more than just one line. I had a wild ass guess (http://photontheory.com/Square_Shells.html) that is not easily shot down. It is based upon the electron being the largest of the elementary particles. The electric force originates at the electron's radius and so the electrons electric force is the weakest of the electric forces. The outer shell of the proton is stronger as are the other shells. The strong and weak nuclear forces come from the dynamics of the inner shells.
It is a wild guess, but it shows that it is possible to unify based upon electromagnetics.
one_raven
08-11-08, 10:40 PM
It is based upon the electron being the largest of the elementary particles.
So you don't the photon as a particle?
Michelson-Morley showed that relativity phenomena is real.
"Real" or mathematically sound?
The mass of a photon is m=hv/cc. Mass is a state of a photon that happens when the path of a photon is bent. To be stable it must be bent into a complete circle. Even then only one frequency is stable; that of the electron.
So, you think photons "travel"?
Not an aether proponent?
BenTheMan
08-11-08, 11:05 PM
Because they are stable, they don't spontaneously decay. Smack them hard enough and they will show you their photons.
What keeps electrons from decaying? WHY are they stable?
"Real" or mathematically sound? Real.
There's no need for aether; space has all the properties it needs. Permitivity and permeability [sp].
Photons exist as saturated points of electromagnetic amplitude. Fields surround the points diminishing in amplitude with distance away from the points. Like Shrodinger said. it is all waves:)
What keeps electrons from decaying? WHY are they stable?
This is just my own scheme, but I suspect that two things cause a photon of the right frequency to get trapped into a stable resonating pattern. Positive feedback from the photon's bent path and resonance when the bend radius puts front to back in one wave length.
That's a SWAG, but those two forces do exist.
What keeps electrons from decaying? WHY are they stable?
Maybe we haven't lived long enough to see them spontaneously decay, THAT IS, if they decay at all.
BenTheMan
08-11-08, 11:48 PM
This is just my own scheme, but I suspect that two things cause a photon of the right frequency to get trapped into a stable resonating pattern. Positive feedback from the photon's bent path and resonance when the bend radius puts front to back in one wave length.
That's a SWAG, but those two forces do exist.
What causes this to happen? What causes a photon to get trapped in a pattern?
What causes an electron knot?
What causes this to happen? What causes a photon to get trapped in a pattern?
Another photon. It takes two:) It makes two particles. Just as in QM theory.
What causes an electron knot?
As I responded to BenTheMan a jumble of photons come smashing together and some get curled into resonating patterns. But that is a guess.
Mike Honcho
08-12-08, 12:35 AM
The OP is:
Is all matter photons?
-That depends on whether or not photons are pure fundamental energy AND whether or not mass is the equivalent of matter.
If so...
E=MC²
My understanding is that m is a constant. That just leaves E and M being equivalent.
The OP is:
Is all matter photons?
-That depends on whether or not photons are pure fundamental energy AND whether or not mass is the equivalent of matter.
If so...
E=MC²
My understanding is that m is a constant. That just leaves E and M being equivalent.
Honcho...
...mass and matter are the same thing, and M includes both terminologies.
BenTheMan
08-12-08, 01:28 AM
Another photon. It takes two:) It makes two particles. Just as in QM theory.
Can you show how this is possible? Can you show a consistent bound state between two photons?
BenTheMan
08-12-08, 01:29 AM
As I responded to BenTheMan a jumble of photons come smashing together and some get curled into resonating patterns. But that is a guess.
So you have to guess at a mechnism to make it work? You don't know of one?
Mike Honcho
08-12-08, 01:32 AM
Honcho...
...mass and matter are the same thing, and M includes both terminologies.
Then this debate is over and the first Sciforums Contest thread is a witch hunt.
So you have to guess at a mechnism to make it work? You don't know of one?
An electron shell may have the required spacetime curvature to harvest a nicely bound-state for a photon.
Mike Honcho
08-12-08, 01:42 AM
I SAID THIS DEBATE IS OVER!
Quit kicking the dead dog.
E=mc².. Didn't some smart guy say that?
Unless we just like to argue (which we do).
BenTheMan
08-12-08, 01:44 AM
Ahh well, clearly the expert has spoken.
So you have to guess at a mechnism to make it work? You don't know of one?
Where have you been. I've guessed the exact mechanism (http://photontheory.com/Square_Shells.html) since way back in 1986. I'm just not smart enough to make a theory out of it.
AlphaNumeric
08-12-08, 01:48 AM
E=mc^2 is not true for photons.
Mike Honcho
08-12-08, 01:50 AM
Ben, please don't get me started- you'll just embarass yourself. I promise.
Pigeon hole this for me and then I'll pigeon whole all of QED for you.
But what is embarrasing is I'm an uneducated idiot and you are a 15th year college idiot.
The OP is:
Is all matter photons?
-That depends on whether or not photons are pure fundamental energy AND whether or not mass is the equivalent of matter.
If so...
E=MC²
My understanding is that m is a constant. That just leaves E and M being equivalent.
Wha
E=mc^2 is not true for photons.
No kidding ?? You need to rush to get this published. What do you think a photon is?
Electromagnetic change (photons) is the only thing in the equation that is not a constant. It applies exactly to photons.
BenTheMan
08-12-08, 01:55 AM
Pigeon hole this for me and then I'll pigeon whole all of QED for you.
You do realize you misspelled "hole", right?
After you're done whole-ing, you can dig up Feynman's corpse and pull his Nobel prize off of him. I'll get the shovels.
BenTheMan
08-12-08, 01:56 AM
No kidding ?? You need to rush to get this published. What do you think a photon is?
Electromagnetic change (photons) is the only thing in the equation that is not a constant. It applies exactly to photons.
Ho hum... Brush up on special relativity.
E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4
AlphaNumeric
08-12-08, 03:21 AM
lol... oh man...Says you who makes similar mistakes. You forgot the momentum contribution in all your posts too. You always do.
From the basic QM I've learned:
Photons are bosons, while matter is mostly comprised of fermions (I understand Pauli exclusion plays an important role for the structure of matter, while there's no limit to the number of photons you can pack into any given volume). How could bound spin-one photons account for the half-integer spins and other properties of fermions?
Mike Honcho
08-12-08, 12:39 PM
Ok Ben here you go.
The foundations of your little religion is based on the concept of quantum. The most simple of which is the photon.
Like me, you really don't know what a photon is. You have no idea what it is doing when not observed. You just guesstimate (accurately- but NOT exactly) with your various probabilistic mathematical masturbations. - (I plagiarized that from someone)
Is a photon a particle or a wave? You don't know.
Is an atom a particle or a wave? You don't know.
Is a freakin buckyball a particle or a wave? You don't know.
(BTW- buckyballs, HUGE molecules, have been shown to interfere in the two slit experiment)
So what do we do when we don't understand something?
Sweep it under the rug and build a science to avoid the point. Make up new theories to explain all the errors you don't want to release from the current theories.
How can you base 70 years of science on a photon and still not know what really is happening in one of the pioneer experiments, the two slit.
What causes decoherence Ben?
You don't know. No one knows.
You've disguised statitics as physics and followed the naked emperors all the way into the 11th dimension. Moron. You are one of the sheep.
There are no particles. Only waves.
BTW: "Expert", you do not understand your own subject matter. You may borrow my line if you want...Shut up and Calculate
Says you who makes similar mistakes. You forgot the momentum contribution in all your posts too. You always do.
You whiney fool. How is that a mistake? I was talking the other day about formulaes that are used to validate that the photon has mass, and showing they where wrong. I had no need in those cases to use this specific equation.
Vkothii
08-13-08, 12:31 AM
Is a photon a particle or a wave? You don't know.
Is an atom a particle or a wave? You don't know.
Is a freakin buckyball a particle or a wave? You don't know.Ben might not "know", but I can give you an "answer" to all that:
A photon is a particle, so is an atom. A photon is a wave, so is an atom.
A buckyball is also a particle and a wave.
Also, a photon, an atom, and a molecule called a "buckyball", is a wave-particle; and all of them are also neither waves, nor particles, nor are they wave-particles, but something else - a non-wave, non-particle, non-wave-particle thingamy. Four things all at once.
Simple really. See? :confused:
Mike Honcho
08-13-08, 11:33 AM
Ben might not "know", but I can give you an "answer" to all that:
A photon is a particle, so is an atom. A photon is a wave, so is an atom.
A buckyball is also a particle and a wave.
Also, a photon, an atom, and a molecule called a "buckyball", is a wave-particle; and all of them are also neither waves, nor particles, nor are they wave-particles, but something else - a non-wave, non-particle, non-wave-particle thingamy. Four things all at once.
Simple really. See? :confused:
Duh!
Now I get it.
September. Because icecream has no bones.
lol :xctd:
Or maybe photons, atoms and molecules all work for the cia on planet higgs in the 11th dimension. There they are allied with Anti-Bin-Laden in protecting the honor of electrons by hiding thier nakedness and clothing them in reality when the 4D infidels attepmt to look.
Hey Ben. Where's my freakin shovel.
I just now dived into the dungeon to check this out; now I see why it was moved. We were getting a little bit too wild for the front page :) :)
Mike Honcho
08-13-08, 03:44 PM
Also, Ben dumps everything here when he can't/won't accept/explain it.
DieDaily
01-16-09, 02:13 PM
Emotions run a bit high...let's try to be more factual. I'm an outsider in that I have thoroughly perused Vern's site and have enough mathematical skill to understand and vouch for everything I read there. This was so surprising to me (since I only have 3rd-year honours Physics training) that I imagined that the average PhD Physicist would see his/her own demise in Vern's theory and, consciously or not, be virtually incapable of a rational peer review. Please prove me wrong, dear fellow scientists! The convergence of religion and modern science is embarrassing me in front of my children, who are asking be about Photonics. At present I'm inclined to present it as a perfectly valid theory, and the one that would be the clear survivor in a dual by Occam's razor.
If one of you supposedly cool, rational, systematically self-sceptical priests of the scientific method would kindly help me out in some concrete way, I could inform my kids with relative confidence that standard theory is safe.
Incompleteness: Any argument about incompleteness is absolutely not going to help me. All theories are incomplete. If they weren’t, we could all quit doing Physics.
Peer review: Statements from Ben like "No. If Vern were right he would have linked to an article in a peer reviewed journal." are not going to help me at all. They are evasive at best, cultish at worst. Lack of peer review is no excuse, as Vern has submitted his papers and then been declined a peer review. His claims that he was additionally told his theory is "dangerous to science" is as upsetting as it is believable and well-precedented. (Again, we see a startling convergence of science and religion, of string theory with post priory theology that is intrinsically un-testable AND vastly complicated than Vern's rival theory). There is no way out but to directly rebut Vern, and this has not happened.
Evidence: Vern's system is inherently 'Quantum Mechanical'. Relativity effects are natural consequences of it. Photon-to-mass conversion is well established experimentally so arguments like Ben's "Photons are massless, so they can't explain mass." need some sort of rigorous, non-simplistic expression in order to have teeth.
I should point out that I like Ben's posts in several other threads and think he's a good guy...the Photonics thing is maybe something that could grow on him if after an actual, serious look at it he can’t defeat any specific element?
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.