Butch

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

Planck's constant comes from Planck's attempt to explain the black-body spectrum; he assumed that the energy levels were multiples of a small value in order to solve the problem. It has nothing to do mass.

Planck units are just a set of units that use Planck's constant in their definition. It says nothing about mass being quantised. In fact, the Planck mass is pretty big (relative to atoms, etc.): "One Planck mass is roughly the mass of a flea egg^[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

The process described previously (division to a fraction) fit with Planck. Never said it had anything to do with mass, not so far anyway... That is why I am left trying to discern a quanta of mass. I do believe that the Planck length applied to photon wavelengths might provide an answer... if indeed a photon is a gravitational phenomena. The logic I am pursuing is that at some point when the wavelength shortens the photon becomes a gravitational well, that is it becomes a quanta of mass.

Swansont, I recall when I first stated that a photon was a wave packet in a gravitational field you said "You will have to prove that." I appreciate that you did not discount the possibility, off the cuff. I have seen no science that says it cannot be so! Proof is something that does not exist in science. Acceptance is something I know must be earned through a great amount of work. I am doing that work and have reached a road block at the quanta of mass. 

Perhaps you can help me with something... I understand that Hf provides the energy of a photon... With what units? I could substitute 2 as a constant and say 2f is the energy of a photon... I know I am missing the concept here, can you help me out?

I think I get it via Strange... Planck is saying that energy is in discrete levels, energy quanta?

Thus the wavelength of a photon could not be less than the Planck length?

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Gravity is warped space. Light travels along the curved path. No mass.

No negative gravity.

Does a gravitational well have mass? Does a mass have a gravitational well? Are they really different?

Isn't mass just warped space?

Just now, swansont said:

Light is affected by gravity.

Yes it is, so it must have mass! Look at it this way, the output of a wall outlet is alternating current, the average of that output is zero. If a photon were a wave in a gravitational field, it would be an expansion and contraction of that field locally. Such excitation might express negative gravity as well as positive gravity, both being absolutes (There would be no repelling gravitational force), however the photon would appear to have zero mass, but would still be affected by a gravitational anomaly.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

What was the proof? And for what?

As gravity is caused the the geometry of spacetime, the paths of all particles are affected whether they have mass or not. 

Planck's constant and Planck units.

Gravity is the geometry of space time. How does the gravitational field differ from mass?

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Assuming you refer to 'rest mass', surely it must be since mass is a property of particles and energy and the smallest mass must therefore be given by the rest mass of the smallest indivisible particle or quantum of energy?

 

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

What you are searching for mathematician would call searching for lowest common denominator.

Suppose so we have rest-mass of proton m_p , rest-mass of electron m_e, etc. etc. with the all other particles, isotopes and so on.

After dividing m_p, m_e, etc. etc. the all other known masses, by m_q you will get integer multiply of m_q which fits in all of them, without any fractions.

 

To calculate m_q, programmer should gather the all masses of known particles together in database, and start dividing until there is fraction.

 

The problem here is that masses are measured with limited precision.

This was the "proof" for Planck as I understand it... I am thinking that a particle with the least possible mass for a particle might be constituted by entities having the absolute least mass possible, that is the absolute minimum via Planck.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

The smallest possible mass is zero. Photons have zero mass.

Ahh, I have considered this! It seems non sequitur, as an entity with 0 mass would not be affected by a gravitational field, unless of course that phenomena were gravitational.

Is there an answer? If not please share your opinions! A hypothesis I am developing can only be quantized by the smallest possible mass, I cannot locate any information...

Thank you, you always make things pretty clear... 

Do gravitational force and escape velocity have a direct and constant relationship, specifically is the gravitational force at the schwarzild radius the same for any body? If so what is it?

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's the cosmic microwave background, which has no function, as such. We know the source of it. Is that what you mean?

Hmm... Big Bangers believe they know the source of it!

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the wave function of this true particle?

That depends on the slit and the horizontal position of the particle passing through it.

If the particle is to the left, the well will have greater gravitational attraction on the left than the right and the particle will be deflected to the left.

With 2 slits then, you would have an interference pattern.

The particle is not a wave but produces a pattern like a wave.

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

All particles are wave phenomena. Have you heard of the electron microscope? Or the double slit experiment? Or quantum theory ...

Yes, I have, I am saying that a true particle is a gravity well that has a wave function, but is not a wave.

n = 1

n>1

n<1

Just now, Strange said:

Angular momentum does not have the same dimensions as velocity, so this must be wrong.  

Sorry, misspoke... I of course meant angular velocity.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Well then, let's have the math.

Right now the math I am toying with is that the proto-particles orbit each other at a distance equal to the sum of their schwarzchild radii, hence their angular momentum equals c. I did not pick this out of thin air! When charting the particles separated by 2:

1/(x+n)^2 + 1/(x-n)^2 

If n=1 the curve between the two is smooth and I believe describes a near conical section, that is a section of distorted cone.

If x<1 this curve becomes rather acute.

If x>1 this curve becomes almost obtuse.

I will post examples shortly.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not “actually” a particle. But neither is the electron (or neutrino, quark, proton, or any other). On the other hand, it is exactly as much a particle as any of the others. 

I understand what you are saying, however if the proto-particle holds up, particles are made up of gravity wells, while the photon is a wave phenomena. The curvature of the gravity well passing through a slit would produce a wave function as the proximity of the center of the wells to one side or the other, the inverse of what happens when a wave packet passes through a slit. So there is a distinction between wave packets that have a particle nature and particles that have a wave function.

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

This applies to the neutrino, but not to the photon, which is demonstrably massless.

If photons had a non-vanishing rest mass, several things would happen:

• Conservation of electric charge would no longer be guaranteed
• The Coulomb law would no longer be purely inverse-square; specifically, it would be weaker over large distances
• Static magnetic fields would show differences in behaviour

On a more theoretic level, quantum electrodynamics would cease to be renormalisable, which is a big problem, since one could no longer extract any physical predictions from it. All these things can be experimentally tested, and to date no hints of any of the above has been observed, so very stringent limits have been experimentally placed on any non-zero photon masses.

Note also that the photon having a rest mass would also bring down pretty much all of the rest of the Standard Model, which is obviously a problem.

Understood, however is the photon actually a particle? Could it be that it is simply a wave packet that exhibits behaviour lime that of a particle?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What distinguishes the photon's particle nature from any other? Electrons, for example, have a particle nature. But they have a wave nature as well. Same for protons, and quarks, and muons, etc. They all obey the deBroglie relationship that their wavelength is h/p. So what distinction are you drawing here that you get to categorize a photon differently?

!

Moderator Note

Well, you know the rules here. Ask questions if you wish, but if you are discussing a model you have better actually have a model to discuss.

 

Yes, it is a model, what distinguishes it is that the basic building block cannot exist solo. I would like to include some other minds in playing with it.

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are particles without mass and particles without success in. (But, interestingly, none without both. Yet.)

From what I have been reading, it was thought that there were particles without mass, but it seems they are particles with very little mass. Although a photon has a particle nature that does not make it a massless particle.

Did auto correct undermine your statement? "success in".

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are particles without mass and particles without success in. (But, interestingly, none without both. Yet.)

There are a few scientific ideas like this. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

The preon models propose a particle that is the building block of the universe, the proto-particle is not quite a particle... It must exist in unison with at least one other proto-particle for the system to be a true particle. Yes there could be more than two proto-particles in the system. I am currently investigating this as it might apply to chirality and charge, any help here appreciated!

Mass and spin, a particle must have mass and spin... However I believe that for a particle to have more than one property it must have underlying structure, for the sake of this discussion let us assume that this is the case.

This idea presents a quandary for certainly a particle must have spin and mass to exist.

The solution to this is what I call the proto-particle, the most primitive building block of our universe.
Let us consider a particle with a single property, is that property mass or spin? Certainly it must be mass for without mass there could not be angular momentum.

My investigation of what this particles structure might be began with the idea that it was a gravitational well and nothing but a gravitational well, one that has limits of infinity.

It is simple enough to graph this well with distance the x axis and gravitational force the y axis. The problem was I had no reference frame for "x".

I have found that a more useful way to describe the proto-particle is by mapping the escape velocity with units of "c", I still don't have a reference frame for x, however as I continue my discussion you will see that is not important at this time.

This "particle" cannot stand alone... The gravity well that is the particle would collapse, however with the addition of a partner we produce a true particle with spin and mass!

The partners orbit each other producing angular momentum and providing the force (centripetal) needed to keep each proto-particle stable.

I suspect that they orbit at a distance between centers of mass of 2 times the Schwarzschild radius, but not certain about this yet.

We now have a particle with underlying structure that has mass and spin.

At what rate does escape velocity diminish?

Quarks are said to have no internal structure, however there are many types of quarks. On the face it would seem that they are defined by properties (Mass, Spin, Charge), how do we differentiate between properties and structure when many properties are defined by particles?

9 hours ago, Strange said:

There are people working on models like this, eg: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Bilson-Thompson

But, as swansont says, there is no evidence for this. 

Thanks for the link. I think they are over complicating by using the standard model as a guidepost, best advice you gave me was that my particle did not necessarily belong in the standard model.

Still having trouble determining a value for x=1, but making progress... Problem is determining mass density as well as the concept of the dimensions of the well being infinite.

In terms of math the slope at x=1 is 1 what is the slope at sea level on earth? It should be very close to 0.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

The charge of a particle is neither indeterminate nor relative. 

All composite particles have a charge of -1, 0 or +1. 

Only quarks have fractional charge. 

Could it be that quarks have internal structure that we are not aware of?

I suppose 2/3 would be incorrect in any case, charge would be 1/3.

That is of course if quarks have internal structure.

Have you seen the news concerning the detection of "ghost" particles?

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

No, charge is absolute. The field lines radiate outwardly from what we call a positive charge and inwardly for what we call a negative one.

Note it is one of the physical properties unaffected by relativistic transforrmations.

I'm pretty sure we have mentioned all this before.

I was speaking more in terms of Schrödinger's cat, when I said " indeterminate", it was unnecessary.

More important is the quantity of charge, does this thought relate to quarks in any way? Might it? I saw in recent news the detection of a ghost particle, is this a less massive neutral particle than a neutrino?

A single particle has an indeterminate charge as charge can be said to be relative. Two particles with opposite charges but bound in a system consisting of the two has a neutral charge. Three particles, one with an unlike charge bound in a system has a 2/3 charge? I am referring to composite particles.

Comments?

On 7/4/2018 at 8:42 AM, Mordred said:

Butch your graphs will not work as your trying to apply them. The reason is simple Gravity is the geometry itself. You must apply a change of a coordinate axis ie the x axis with the length contraction so your units themselves are affected. Also under GR gravity is a freefall metric so you need to apply inertia under the vector addition rules and the relativistic vector addition rules. The methodology you are trying to use is simply wrong. Try studying spacetime diagrams under SR and learn how it models time dilation due to gravity before attempting to invent your own.

Currently your following a garden path through a maze of incorrect conjectures and methodologies.

For example and I know this may lose you but there is no choice a GW wave is represented by the following.

gμν=ημν+Hμν each term is a geometry in and of itself they have a defined length of each unit of a graph ie the x and y coordinates. A transformation is how one describes the change between one graph to another graph. Specifically how each coordinate axis and length between coordinate units vary due to gravity. It isn't a waveform that is applied to a graph because the graph coordinates itself that changes

I believe what I need to address first is this... Since the particle actually extends to infinity, with its mass spread to infinity, any point at any distance relative to the origin point falls within the particle. Ignoring space/time dilation for the moment, how would I modify 1/x^2? I realize at a large distance this effect would be negligible, however I need to work close to the origin for now.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

Exactly what I was looking for! Thx!

Can someone show the math that describes light being trapped at the event horizon? Perhaps link? Googling this does not provide good mathematical descriptions.