Jump to content

Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory


Spring Theory

Recommended Posts

The Speed of Light:

E=mc2 is a popular, powerful formula that needs a deterministic explanation. How is mass simply converted to energy and vice versa? Space Compression Spring Theory postulates that there is no conversion. The energy is simply trapped and localized. Understanding how energy can be trapped in a location begins to describe the connection between the fundamental laws of the universe.
Photons are energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. All energy from gammas rays to radio waves are simply photons of different wavelengths. If we could break down these waves in a single quanta or unit, you would have a single photon.
The first major assumption of Space Compression Spring Theory is that space has structure and photons are traveling compressions of space.
Picture space as a super phase structure that could be modeled as a three dimensional web of points connected by infinitely small springs. Basically a spring matrix of hypercubes. Space is compressible (and decompressible). Photons travel through space in the form of energy. A photon traveling through space has a compression in the front and a decompression trailing similar to a longitudinal wave on a spring, but will have physical effects three dimensionally on the space around it.
Picture the photon as a car with a front and back seat. The positive charge would be pointing out the top of the sunroof over the front seats. A negative charge would be pointing out the bottom of the rear axle underneath the back seats. A positive magnetic field would extend out from the front passenger side door and a negative magnetic field would extend out the rear driver’s side door. The compression area is the front seats and the decompression occurs in the back seats.
The speed of photons has been measured as a constant in nature, but space compressions will have an effect on the propagation velocity because this is based on the properties of the medium the photon propagates through - space. I have derived velocity formulas that show the speed of a photon is slower in decompressed space and faster in compressed space. The difference in speed provides a mechanism for the photons to get trapped in orbit around each other. If the photon has enough energy (or compression) it will create a velocity gradient enough to slow down the "tires" of another photon while the "roof" of the photon at a faster speed turns the complete photon. Basically this a gradient in the index of refraction of space causing the two photons to continuosly refract around each other.
Photons trapped in orbit around each other are the fundamental building blocks of particles (matter).
Now to finally address the rhetorical question - I propose that time is constant but the velocity of light changes. This is the mechanism by which time appears to "slow down" in a gravity well - or space decompression area. Particles consisting of photons in orbit will experience time dilation because the speed of their photons is slower in decompressed space and the system's orbital cycles are extended.
In addition, matter traveling through space at a high velocity will also experience time dilation because the total velocity of the photon is conserved. As the linear component of the photon velocity is increased, the radial component will be decreased also resulting in lengthier orbital cycles.
Time is constant, we just perceive that time slows down because the photons that make up our bodies and our measuring devices travel slower.
This translates to a perception that the speed of light the same for any observer and an explanation for time dilation.
Einstein just had it backwards. Time is constant. The speed of light is variable.
Edited by Spring Theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now to finally address the rhetorical question - I propose that time is constant but the velocity of light changes.
Einstein just had it backwards. Time is constant. The speed of light is variable.

 

 

Einstein took his cue from Maxwell. Electrodynamics requires light have an invariant velocity, too. Are you prepared to re-work that area of physics, too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like E=mc^2 has been misunderstood again...

 

Anyway, it seems that the idea is to model photons as space-time phonons, assuming some 'crystal' structure of space-time. I don't think this is going to work very well, it seems closer to some models of gravitons than photons. You now have to explain why photons are spin-1 etc.

 

Without a proper mathematical formulation it is hard to say how far you can push this idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Einstein took his cue from Maxwell. Electrodynamics requires light have an invariant velocity, too. Are you prepared to re-work that area of physics, too?

 

To understand Electrodynamics, or specifically the quantum version, the mechanism behind it must be modeled. Space Compression Spring Theory is a deterministic theory explaining the electrical charges and magnetic fields.

Here is how the mechanism works -
To have enough energy to compress space most likely requires a photon stack (multiple photons in superposition) but simplified to a single photon (gamma ray), the model (Perez Model) is as follows:
post-111872-0-57528200-1432232932_thumb.png
Magnetic fields are the result of the vortex created by the compression and decompression areas (similar to the Coriolis effect). The photon creates a positive torque effect on the space in one direction across the "front seat" of the photon and a negative torque effect in the other direction across the "back seat" of the photon.
The electric fields are the result of space transition areas of compression and decompression. Think of the positive electric field as space decompressing, or a transition area from a compressive state to a decompressive state. The negative electric charge is the opposite. As the compression travels through space the point at which the velocity of the vortex edge is closest to space at rest is tangential to the direction of the electrical charge.

Space Compression Spring Theory really starts to make sense when you begin to model particles (Perez Model).

The next major assumption of the theory is that all Leptons are made from 2 body photon orbital systems and Hadrons are made from three body photon orbital systems.
Starting with the most common lepton, the electron, it is modeled as 2 photons in orbit or multiple photons in superposition:

 

 

post-111872-0-27572000-1432232468_thumb.png

Photon A charge, -1/2, (Positive belly 100%)

Photon B charge, -1/2, (Positive belly 100%)
Net charge -1
Positive charged sides of photons are in synchronous orbit
You can see how having the "sunroof" of the photon on the inside of the orbital system, the effect of the positive charge is buried and only the negative effect is felt in space. Also notice how the magnetic fields are lined up to explain the magnetic moment. Electrons can have a right hand spin or left hand spin and oscillates at the speed of light if it is at rest. Electrons with a linear velocity component will oscillate at just under the speed of light because the total overall velocity of the photon is conserved.
Edited by Spring Theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To understand Electrodynamics, or specifically the quantum version, the mechanism behind it must be modeled.

 

So can you show us the mathematical model?

 

Can you show that it produces the same results as GR (i.e. reality)?

 

Can you show any results that would allow an experiment to choose between your model and GR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

We have guidelines that must be followed for such a discussion to proceed. Assertion is not enough. You need to show us specific predictions you are making, and/or some other ways your idea can be tested, and/or a model that can be used to compare to experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So can you show us the mathematical model?

 

Can you show that it produces the same results as GR (i.e. reality)?

 

Can you show any results that would allow an experiment to choose between your model and GR?

 

The time dilation effect is equivalent from either perspective (my theory or GR). The major difference is that Spring Theory explains the nature of space time rather than making an assumption that "time slows down".

 

Before I go into the math, I want to display some more of the Perez Model. This is a deterministic theory where the physical mechanisms must be understood first.

 

Positron– 2 photons in orbit or multiple photons in superposition

 

post-111872-0-92380500-1432236631_thumb.png
Photon A charge, +1/2, (Negative belly 100%)
Photon B charge, +1/2, (Negative belly 100%)
Net charge +1
Opposite charged sides of photons are in synchronous orbit
This is simply the reverse configuration of an electron with the "tires" towards the center of the system with the "sun roof" of the photon on the outside. In the antimatter configuration, the negative charge components of the photons are buried in the orbital system with the positive charge affect space around the orbital system.
A really interesting twist to the configuration is the Neutrino (electron neutrino to be exact):
post-111872-0-00543700-1432237551_thumb.png
Photon A charge, +1/2, (Negative belly 100%)
Photon B charge, -1/2, (Positive belly 100%)
Net charge 0
Opposite charged sides of photons are in synchronous orbit
In this configuration, one photon has its "sun roof" on the outside of the system and the other has its "tires" on the outside. These two photons in orbit almost cancel their magnetic and electric effects. The neutrino only comes in two configurations - left hand and right hand spin. These are also the neutrino and antineutrino respectively and explains why there are only two versions. If you inverted the photons to create a proper antineutrino, the particle would appear identical to the original. The balance of the electrical and magnetic fields explain why there is very little interaction with other particles.
One experimental test would be to slow down a left hand neutrino to zero velocity and then accelerate it in the other direction. You will then have a right hand neutrino or antineutrino.
Edited by Spring Theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The time dilation effect is equivalent from either perspective (my theory or GR).

 

So how do we tell which theory gives the more accurate results?

 

 

One experimental test would be to slow down a left hand neutrino to zero velocity and then accelerate it in the other direction. You will then have a right hand neutrino or antineutrino.

 

Do you have any tests that could actually be performed in the real world?

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derivation of time dilation in a lepton orbital system:

Photon radial velocity in an orbital system at rest vr= c0 and linear velocity vx = 0
where c0 = the speed of light in a vacuum
An lepton photon orbital system with a linear velocity will have two velocity components where the total velocity is conserved at c0:
vr2 + vx2 = c02
Solving for radial velocity:
vr = √(c02-vx2)
Change in time of an orbital system at rest:
dt = r/c0
Where r = the radial distance traveled during that time
Assuming the same distance, r must be traveled an equivalent orbital cycle, the change in time realized when an orbital system is in motion is:
dt' = r/vr
Substituting for the equation for radial velocity:
dt' = r/√(c02-vx2)
Looking at the ratio of the change in time realized to the change in time of the original frame of reference:
dt'/dt = (r/√(c02-vx2))/(r/c0) = c0/√(c02-vx2)
Dividing numerator and denominator by c0:
dt'/dt = 1/√(1-vx2/c02)
Which is identical to the Lorentz factor. The time dilation effect in Spring Theory due to velocity is equivalent to GR.
Edited by Spring Theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when is a photon a Lepton?

 

Leptons are half integer spin particles. The photon is an integer spin particle. Spin of one.

 

Secondly your analysis does not include any stress momentum terms yet you describe compression and decompression of space time yet include no mathematic analysis of energy density to pressure relations to show the variations of light momentum in relation to space time energy density relations.

 

You also show no correlations to your left hand and right hand neutrinos.

 

Which is in itself another problem.

 

Neutrinos don't interact via the electromagnetic force. They may be fermions but their only interactions is via gravity and the weak force.

 

Where is your math showing otherwise?

If you want to understand left and right hand neutrinos I would suggest studying Pati Salam model. Which covers the left hand right hand fermion families.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pati%E2%80%93Salam_model

By the way SO(10) includes Pati Salam as a subgroup

 

 

Now onto spin are you aware of

 

Sx,Sy and Sz are part of spin statistics?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD

I raise this last point to show that your simple little formula does not in any way describe the body of related models and theories involved when it comes to particles. You have no correlations to pressure, energy density, gauge couplings, spin statistics, Dirac equations, Maxwell equations or the Einstein field equations.

 

One simple little formula is not going to magically replace all the above mathematics.

As far as your images go a 360 degree rotation returns to the original state. Not so for a spin 1/2 particle. It takes a 720 degree rotation. A 360 degree rotation would have the opposite quantum phase.

 

To understand that you will need to study Berry phase.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CC0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.univie.ac.at%2Freinhold.bertlmann%2Fpdfs%2Fdipl_diss%2FDurstberger_Diplomarbeit.pdf&rct=j&q=Berry's%20phase%20of%20spin%201%20particle&ei=GbFeVb2TN5LBgwSx2wE&usg=AFQjCNEUSKVQjBSbq3hLmySTVBS0VMa8ZQ&sig2=8AVz_wp7GgTBdhMCI8zBSw

Here is a shorter version of Berry phase in magnetism.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CDsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-old.mpi-halle.mpg.de%2Fmpi%2Fpubli%2Fpdf%2F6325_05.pdf&rct=j&q=Berry's%20phase%20of%20spin%201%20particle&ei=GbFeVb2TN5LBgwSx2wE&usg=AFQjCNFYi9baCvT_d4rVefOqN6PyeZnygg&sig2=qXqC0adNFjvSc5TDyAVBNw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Assuming the same distance, r must be traveled an equivalent orbital cycle

 

 

Why? What does this even mean?

 

 

An lepton photon orbital system with a linear velocity will have two velocity components where the total velocity is conserved at c0:
vr2 + vx2 = c02

 

 

You have a radial speed and a vx mixed in the same equation. That makes my head hurt. Do you understand what radial means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why? What does this even mean?

 

 

 

You have a radial speed and a vx mixed in the same equation. That makes my head hurt. Do you understand what radial means?

Lol with all the fun you've been having lately with force vs inertia, vs centrifecal acceleration etc, in other threads. I can only imagine how much your head hurts lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why? What does this even mean?

 

 

 

You have a radial speed and a vx mixed in the same equation. That makes my head hurt. Do you understand what radial means?

 

Yes, I understand radial.

 

Picture the photons traveling on a double helix path with the axis of propagation running through the center of the helix. The velocity of a particle traveling along the double helix can be broken down to two components, a radial and a linear component. I could relabel to vl if that makes it easier to visualize.

 

Again, maybe i should use a different variable than r so as not to confuse with radius. To understand the r value, make the reference frame moving with the orbital system. Then circular distance, r, traveled by the photon in the orbital plane is equivalent for a moving system or a stationary system. However, when the orbital system has an overall linear velocity, the radial velocity component of the photons in orbit reduces in magnitude per pythagorean theorem to maintain the overall resultant photon velocity as the speed of light in a vacuum. This makes the time to travel "r" increase because the orbital velocity is reduced.

 

If these orbital systems are the building blocks atoms, the the overall atomic system clock will "slow down".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I understand radial.

 

Picture the photons traveling on a double helix path with the axis of propagation running through the center of the helix. The velocity of a particle traveling along the double helix can be broken down to two components, a radial and a linear component. I could relabel to vl if that makes it easier to visualize.

 

I think you meant "no"

 

If r is constant, the radial velocity is zero. Even if r is increasing, you have ignored the tangential (or azimuthal, depending on how you describe it) velocity.

 

Why would photons travel a helical path? (and how would they travel a double helix? Are you just cribbing from DNA terminology because it sounds neat?) Is there any evidence they travel a helical path? Is there any experiment that would show this?

 

Again, maybe i should use a different variable than r so as not to confuse with radius.

 

Radial is kinda tied in with radius.

If these orbital systems are the building blocks atoms, the the overall atomic system clock will "slow down".

 

"If" is the linchpin here. You need to provide evidence that this is in fact an accurate model of an atom. What is that evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you meant "no"

 

If r is constant, the radial velocity is zero. Even if r is increasing, you have ignored the tangential (or azimuthal, depending on how you describe it) velocity.

 

Why would photons travel a helical path? (and how would they travel a double helix? Are you just cribbing from DNA terminology because it sounds neat?) Is there any evidence they travel a helical path? Is there any experiment that would show this?

 

Radial is kinda tied in with radius.

 

"If" is the linchpin here. You need to provide evidence that this is in fact an accurate model of an atom. What is that evidence?

 

Actually you are right, I should have said tangential velocity instead of radial velocity- sorry. I will correct the derivation.

 

The photon does not have to follow a helical path, it is just a circular path combined with any other linear direction. I was just selecting that path to make it easer to visualize.

Revised:

 

Derivation of time dilation in a lepton orbital system:

Photon tangential velocity in an orbital system at rest vt= c0 and linear velocity vl = 0
where c0 = the speed of light in a vacuum
An lepton photon orbital system with a linear velocity will have two velocity components where the total velocity is conserved at c0:
vt2 + vl2 = c02
Solving for tangential velocity:
vt = √(c02-vl2)
Change in time of an orbital system at rest:
dt = s/c0
Where s = the orbital distance traveled during that time
Assuming the same distance, s must be traveled an equivalent orbital cycle, the change in time realized when an orbital system is in motion is:
dt' = s/vt
Substituting for the equation for tangential velocity:
dt' = s/√(c02-vl2)
Looking at the ratio of the change in time realized to the change in time of the original frame of reference:
dt'/dt = (s/√(c02-vl2))/(s/c0) = c0/√(c02-vl2)
Dividing numerator and denominator by c0:
dt'/dt = 1/√(1-vl2/c02)
Which is identical to the Lorentz factor. The time dilation effect in Spring Theory due to velocity is equivalent to GR.

 

 

Also used s for distance along the arc. Thanks for helping me clean it up.

Edited by Spring Theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The photon does not have to follow a helical path, it is just a circular path combined with any other linear direction. I was just selecting that path to make it easer to visualize.

 

That tiny clarification completely avoids the much, much larger question of how you think photons are traveling any kind of circular path, and what evidence you have for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when is a photon a Lepton?

 

Leptons are half integer spin particles. The photon is an integer spin particle. Spin of one.

 

Secondly your analysis does not include any stress momentum terms yet you describe compression and decompression of space time yet include no mathematic analysis of energy density to pressure relations to show the variations of light momentum in relation to space time energy density relations.

 

You also show no correlations to your left hand and right hand neutrinos.

 

Which is in itself another problem.

 

Neutrinos don't interact via the electromagnetic force. They may be fermions but their only interactions is via gravity and the weak force.

 

Where is your math showing otherwise?

If you want to understand left and right hand neutrinos I would suggest studying Pati Salam model. Which covers the left hand right hand fermion families.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pati%E2%80%93Salam_model

By the way SO(10) includes Pati Salam as a subgroup

 

 

Now onto spin are you aware of

 

Sx,Sy and Sz are part of spin statistics?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD

I raise this last point to show that your simple little formula does not in any way describe the body of related models and theories involved when it comes to particles. You have no correlations to pressure, energy density, gauge couplings, spin statistics, Dirac equations, Maxwell equations or the Einstein field equations.

 

One simple little formula is not going to magically replace all the above mathematics.

As far as your images go a 360 degree rotation returns to the original state. Not so for a spin 1/2 particle. It takes a 720 degree rotation. A 360 degree rotation would have the opposite quantum phase.

 

To understand that you will need to study Berry phase.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CC0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.univie.ac.at%2Freinhold.bertlmann%2Fpdfs%2Fdipl_diss%2FDurstberger_Diplomarbeit.pdf&rct=j&q=Berry's%20phase%20of%20spin%201%20particle&ei=GbFeVb2TN5LBgwSx2wE&usg=AFQjCNEUSKVQjBSbq3hLmySTVBS0VMa8ZQ&sig2=8AVz_wp7GgTBdhMCI8zBSw

Here is a shorter version of Berry phase in magnetism.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CDsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-old.mpi-halle.mpg.de%2Fmpi%2Fpubli%2Fpdf%2F6325_05.pdf&rct=j&q=Berry's%20phase%20of%20spin%201%20particle&ei=GbFeVb2TN5LBgwSx2wE&usg=AFQjCNFYi9baCvT_d4rVefOqN6PyeZnygg&sig2=qXqC0adNFjvSc5TDyAVBNw

 

Yes I have more math to present. To answer your questions:

 

A photon is not a lepton. I propose a lepton is an orbital system of photons. I will address the spin issue shortly, but the term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense.

 

What do you mean by correlations to your left hand and right hand neutrinos? The spin is based on direction of propagation. I agree they don't interact with electromagnetic force because the lines of force cancel each other out in the orbital system.

 

Those articles are interesting but why is it the the W-Boson is 100 more massive than a proton but decays to an electron and antineutrino?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the first rules in particle physics is that particles can only decay into less massive particles. This follows from the conservation of energy/momentum laws.

 

Particle spin is an intristic property of elementary particles you cannot slow down or speed up the spin of say an electron. It is modelled as angular momentum but it isn't the same.

This basic link covers it in simple terms

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-spin/

 

your model is applying spin as an angular momentum rotation at least according to what I've read and that simply won't work out once you apply spin statistics.

 

It's not nearly the same as say a rotating planet.

(Which is why I referred to Belly phase)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have more math to present. To answer your questions:

 

A photon is not a lepton. I propose a lepton is an orbital system of photons. I will address the spin issue shortly, but the term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense.

I think it's safe to say that the quantum nature of spin is recognized. The question has to do with how you get spin 1/2 from a spin 1 particle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest one of the best books covering the topic of the spin 1/2 particles and spin 1 particles is this book. Quarks and Leptons. Spin 1/2 electrynamics is an entire chapter covering Maxwell equations and Dirac equations. It also covers spin 1 in the same detail.

 

it is at the introduction level but you will need strong differential geometry.

 

http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471887412.html

 

I wouldn't even want to begin posting all the related formulas.

 

If you can't afford textbooks then a good option is to research QED.

 

This paper isn't too bad though

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikhef.nl%2Fpub%2Fservices%2Fbiblio%2Fpreprints%2Fh90-22.pdf&rct=j&q=electrodynamics%20of%20spin%201%2F2%20particles%20pdf&ei=NgZgVZbwMsezggTLiYGABw&usg=AFQjCNFhIonZPsFSrKFLMNIm27x9Kv2eWQ&sig2=Gtx9_GzeEV0HxXEGHc7SaQ

 

These are good articles in the mathematics involved.

Particle Physics

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2

 

If you want the equation for fermion actions coupled to gravity see page 376 of the last link equation

 

6.8.103.

 

Equation 6.8.104 covers your bosons (integer spin particles)

 

You will need to extensively study both articles to fully understand those two equations.

Forgot to add one article.

 

The Construction of Spinors in Geometric Algebra

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0403040v2

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That tiny clarification completely avoids the much, much larger question of how you think photons are traveling any kind of circular path, and what evidence you have for this.

 

The most compelling evidence are in Electron–positron annihilations:

"While these positrons may be fast moving at first eventually they encounter matter and slow down. Soon, they will encounter an electron in an atom and annihilate with it. In doing so, the total rest energy of BOTH particles, 2 times 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV is released. This release most commonly occurs by producing two particles of light called photons or gamma rays. These photons are emitted in opposite directions and each have an energy of 0.511 MeV. (The reason TWO photons are produced may seem a bit complicated, but two are needed to conserve both momentum and energy. Briefly, since the electron and the positron were at rest, the total system had no momentum. Thus the available energy of 1.022 MeV is accounted for by the emission of the two photons while zero total momentum is achieved by having the two photons going off in opposite directions.)"
other evidence of photon orbital systems:
"Neutral Meson Decays into Two Photons from Lattice QCD"
"High Energy Photons from Proton-Nucleon Collisions"
"The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced"
"The π0 decays in about 98.8% into two photons"
Theoretical evidence:
"They worked out that – very rarely – two particles of light, or photons, could combine to produce an electron and its antimatter equivalent, a positron."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you have here are interactions that produce photons. That's all part of the standard model. Nothing that actually tests your model. Further, none of these examples are related to atomic structure.

 

What's the connection with a circular orbit? What is the interaction that makes the photon travel in a circle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as how particles including the photon can decay into other particles. A common mistake is thinking a certain particle can decay into any other particle.

 

Particle decays follow numerous conservation rules.

 

Conservation of Lepton number, charge, baryon number, spin, isospin,parity, energy/momentum,color, flavor.

 

Think that's all of em might have missed one or two.

 

Griffiths "Introductory to particle" physics has an excellent coverage on this.

 

Further details though can be found under Eightfold wayen, baryon octet and meson nonet.

 

You can have intermediate or multistage decays as well provided they follow the rules above.

 

The four forces use gauge bosons as the force carrier, photons for electromagnetic, W and Z bosons for the weak force, gluons for the strong force. Graviton hypothetically for gravity.

 

All bosons are integar spin only.

 

Now one key detail..

 

A particle is identified by key properties. Spin, charge, mass

 

a photon has spin 1, it cannot have spin 1/2 if the particle has any other spin other than 1 it is not a photon. Same goes with the other properties.

 

Swansort has already asked a key question on the photon in regards to orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.