Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Reiku, Sep 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    oh Billy, i resent that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I understand the concept, maybe not the probablity ...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Reiku: I do have a coherent and classical picture of what an electron actually is. The 720º rotation is quite straightforward. Think moebius strip. See Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? by J G Williamson and M B van der Mark, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997). You can find it online at http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf. There is however a subtlety concerning the lack of surface and why this "particle" is better thought of as a "topological defect".
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I only got some interesting drawings from your link, (no text) but they do give some hint about this idea. Can you copy and post some parts of the text?

    I have two questions about it:

    (1) What, if any, thing prevents that idea being applied to the proton? Or neutron? I.e. is the claim that everything is just "tightly confined light"?

    (2) Where does charge come from?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DonJStevens Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Billy T: The idea will be applied to other particles, probably to muons next. Protons and neutrons are more complex (with 3 mass concentrations) so they are not as easy to work with.

    An electric charge (positive or negative) can produce an electromagnetic wave and an electromagnetic wave can produce a charge but the wave must produce a pair of opposing charges and each charge will require its own gravitationally confined standing wave. The resulting particles (electrons) are radially resonant. It may be useful to picture one 360 degree rotation as expansion followed by a 360 degree collapse rotation so that a cycle is completed with a 720 degree rotation. The rotation is due to inertial frame dragging so we may think of the charge as a reflected property of a stationary electromagnetic wave. The wave will appear to be stationary as long as the distance between the observer and the electron remains constant.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    If there is coherent thought here, I can not follow it. How is a static charge made? What makes it + for the positron (electron's anti-particle) and - for the electron?
     
  9. DonJStevens Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Billy T: An electromagnetic wave confined in a one wavelength circular loop (closed on itself like a snake biting its tail) can be driven by either a radially oscilating positive charge or a radially oscilating negative charge. The only difference is in the phase relationship of the charge to the wave. In this view, the phase relationship (charge to electromagnetic wave) determines whether the particle has positive or negative charge. The wave is a result of the oscilating charge while the charge is a (reflected) result of closed loop wave. This may help. If it doesn't help, we should communicate further.
     
  10. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Perhaps you need to upgrade your adobe acrobat reader, Billy. Here's a brief excerpt:

    In answer to your questions, and note that these are personal responses that are not accepted by the physics community at large:

    (1) What, if any, thing prevents that idea being applied to the proton? Or neutron? I.e. is the claim that everything is just "tightly confined light"?

    Nothing. Yes, that is my claim. You can consider the electron to be a "trivial knot". That's the simplest knot you can have. You can consider the proton to be a "trefoil knot". That's the next simplest knot you can have. (You'll be amazed if I tell you about the crossing points). The neutron is akin to a proton but with a little more complexity.

    (2) Where does charge come from?

    From the geometrical deformation of space. We tend to say that light always travels in straight lines. When it doesn't, we conclude that space is curved. The charge is this curvature. It gets a little complicated, and is thought by some to be pseudoscience.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2007
  11. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Don, see above. The muon seems similar to the electron at first glance. Yes, it's 206.77 times more massive, but it has the same negative charge, a half-integer spin, plus it has an antimuon partner. The problem is that it isn't stable - it decays in about two nanoseconds to usually create an electron, an electron neutrino, and a muon neutrino. This decay is a crucial difference. In simple terms: it isn't a knot. It's a temporary torus knot configuration that "comes undone".

    Re your paragraph on electric charge and the electromagnetic wave, I do have these modelled. It's a toy model at best, but it seems coherent. This is a picture of the electron from the Williamson/van der Mark paper:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please note that that's just a depiction. There is no actual surface to this "moebius doughnut" electron. The first knot in the image below is the trivial knot. The next one is the trefoil knot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2007
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Thanks for the suggestion about adobe upgrade - I will look into that, but think mine is up to date. (I also suspect my service provider may put limits on me at times.)
    Feel free. Amaze me.

    I did note that the complex set of knotes, eventually with three different loops have major numbers that correspond to the number of time the loop (or loops) cross.

    The hints I am getting is that they correspond to electron, protons etc - why are there not more particles like there are more knots?

    Also if one adopts a POV that there is a light wave closing on itself in very small space, "in phase" then it must be very high frequency (GAMA RAY LIKE?) If one used the std formulae relating frequency of photon to its energy and then considered that energy to be mass, how does that compared to the electron and proton masses? As they differ by factor of about 2000 the photon wave frequencies must also, I assume. Yet the "size" of each is roughly the same - wave wrapped around on itself in one wave length vs in 2000 wavelength? If that is part of idea, why not at least 2000 different particles? i.e. if electon in phase after one wavelenth, the proton after 2000 then why not some particel which is in phase after 3 wavelenghts etc.

    I do not resist a new way to model things but model must not have big holes or internal inconsistencies in it and the little I understand of this one sure seems to.
     
  13. DonJStevens Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Farsight, I really like the statement "everything is just tightly confined light". Your personal response may not be accepted by the physics community at large but (my opinion) there is overwhelming data available to confirm your response. I want to study the "photon with torodial topology" paper and then I hope I can enlist your help with a model that can explain the electron matter wavelength. We start with the simplest model that could work and then refine it as necessary to be consistant with known facts.

    Your input is very helpful to all who have an interest in this.
     
  14. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ''Well at least you do not make Reiku's mistake of using scientific language you do not fully understand''

    Billy. I think i now know why you would say this rather incorrect statement. It just ocurred to me when i whisked past that questio about the gamma factor and consciousness. I'm afraid you took this as a statement other than a question.

    I was reading a scientific paper when i wrote this. The author was talking about applying relativistic concepts with the observer - and this confused me, because i could understand how a gamma factor could be applied to consciousess. This is why i asked. I should have been more specific.
     
  15. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Well to give farsight the credit here, all matter is rationally just trapped light.

    (this is why i don't understand Don, that you think phsyics mainstream would not be good for it? Physicists know that matter is just confined light - farsight never made this up)>
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Please do not take it very seriously. I recalled someone else of having posted that about you. Perhaps my memory failed and they were speaking of someone else. I was just trying to inject some humor by repeating that earlier comment while commenting on another post , not yours. (my "two birds with one stone")If I was too offensive with my effort at humor, I APOLIGIZE.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    So does the Christian's God. To start everything up, He said: "LET THERE BE LIGHT." (NOTHING ABOUT ELECTRONS AND PROTONS, ETC.)
     
  18. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ''If I was too offensive with my effort at humor, I APOLIGIZE.''

    Not at all. I actually smiled when i read it. But i was confused, to say the least.
     
  19. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238

    I was reading the work of a Ph.D cadidate called Wanchung Hu. He has linked the exclusion principle with quantum entanglement, beleiving that quantum entanglement is misunderstood. I agree.
    Maybe we need to start linking other variables with things like charge... we already have explanations for mass, predicting the Higgs, but don't think it exists. Simple electrostatic repulsion, i think, is what gives this universe a solid reality, without matter falling through each other in ghostly manners.

    I think it might not be enough to say ''the geometrical deformations'' of spacetime - because then, we are simply putting charge down to distortions: Which is partially true, but i think more is to charge.
     
  20. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Reiku: It gets astonishingly simpler than electrostatic repulsion!

    Billy: This is a stereoscopic image (thank you Jaap Zonneveld), but just look at the left hand trefoil. Now start at the bottom left and follow the knot around with your finger. Note the direction you're going at each crossing point. But also note that each crossing point is encountered twice. You have to only consider crossings over, and ignore crossings under. Now what are the crossing-point directions?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ''Reiku: It gets astonishingly simpler than electrostatic repulsion!''

    Then please simply away. I thought i was attempting a simple model when considering electrostaticity over any Higgs Field...
    ?;-)?
     
  22. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Thanks Don. It's a pleasure. I'm afraid I've probably already covered the wavelength: "So to tie a photon in a trivial knot where the circumference is 2π times the amplitude, only one wavelength will suffice. This is why the electron and the positron come in one size only, equivalent to 511KeV, and that figure alone. The associated photon wavelength is 2.426 picometres. If we divided this by 2π we would say..."

    Sorry to hijack your thread a little here Reiku. But I see you asking a lot of questions, and I offer quite a lot of answers in the pdf file on http://www.relativityplus.info . It's a 40-page scientific paper that I've recently submitted to a journal, and whilst it's rather unusual and won't all be correct, I think some elements of it will offer some value. What I really need is some detailed feedback to tell me where I'm incorrect, but people find it too much to read or otherwise simply don't want to give feedback. See page for the bottom line: the photon is fundamental, and it's just a propagating variation of distance with an amplitude is 3.86 x 10¯¹³ metres. Everything works out from that.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2007
  23. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I'll take a look if you want. Can't promise any consulting veiws on the topic, but if i notice any mistakes, i'll inform you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page