Jump to content
nobody

Hypothesis: Matter is Light

Recommended Posts

!

Moderator Note

As this is a Speculative article I will move this thread to our Speculation forum. Please take the time to review the Speculation rules in the pinned threads at the top of page one on that forum.

Secondary the forum rules require that as much effort as possible be taken to post the material here. So please post relevant sections of your document for discussion here.

By the way welcome aboard. 

 

Now that is out of the way. I will read this in more detail later on. However one immediate question comes to mind. 

 How do you plan to account for the electron spin 1/2 fermionic statistics and polarity states as per the Pauli exclusion principle with 6 spin 1 bosonic photons ?

 Each polarity state has identifiable transverse and longitudinal polarity components. With bosons the wavefunctions are symmetric however with electrons you will assymetric wavefunctions  as per fermions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

I will also issue my standard warning to people: do not download Word documents from unknown sources.

@nobody You need to present your idea here. If, for some reason, you need to link a document with extra details then please save it as a PDF first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your help and question.

Your question about spins:  I dont know.   I am working on the spins.

Your question: polarity states as per the Pauli exclusion principle with 6 spin 1 bosonic photons. 

In the electron model there are 3 orthogonal planes each having two orthogonal phases thus allowing 6 orthogonal photons having the same center without encountering the Pauli exclusion principle.

 Your question: Each polarity state has identifiable transverse and longitudinal polarity components. With bosons the wavefunctions are symmetric however with electrons you will assymetric wavefunctions  as per fermions.

The summation of the fields of the six photons is symmetric in three dimensions.

Thank you for the advice about word documents.

I will add a couple more comments to the conclusions and re-post as a pdf.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

— "De Broglie waves are light waves in a deep energy well, and the associated velocities are the speed of light at the local energy density"

I can send matter waves and light along the same path, and the light travels at c while the matter waves don't. So this is rubbish.

 

— As for your calculations about the electron in a Bohr orbit:

1. You don't clearly explain what you are doing, and why (so there's no incentive to try and check for errors)

2. The Bohr model is wrong and not the QM model, so what's the point? (so again, there's no incentive to try and check for errors)

 

— The classical radius is not the physical radius of the electron. It's another item where the classical prediction (if you can call it that) fails to match up with QM and experimental results. Any line of discussion based on it being a physical value is doomed to failure.

— How do you get a photon to move in a circle?

— I second Mordred's question about fermions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you swansont for your comments.

The mathematics presented show that the energy well that the speed of of light c is the same speed as calculated for the De Broglie waves.

The concept of photons moving in circles is an extension of Einsteins 1911 paper on the relativistic bending by the gravity (energy well) of the sun and was verified in the eclipse of 1918.

The energy well of an electron is 0.511 million electron Volts. At the radius of an electron a photon travels at a VERY LOW speed of light and at that speed the wave length is the circumference of an electron as the energy well wraps the path into a circle. 

I have no idea how to make an electron by bending light, I am only describing the resulting electron.

Rolling a coin provides a good visual parallel.  On a level surface a vertical coin (photon) rolls in a straight line like a photon in free space.

But at many zoos and similar public places there are vertical exponential horns in which the public rolls coins  for the pleasure of watching the coin spiral from the gently sloped top end to the steep lower end as the friction slows the coin and the change in altitude adds energy to the coin as the coin descends, smaller circles at a higher circle rate until it hits the vertical part of the horn and falls out the bottom.

 In a gravity field the horn is a two dimensional energy well conceptually  very much like the three dimensional energy wells of every mass in the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mechanism for the coin slowing down as it circles the horn at the zoo, is well understood.

By what mechanism does a photon slow down in a gravitational well ?
Can it slow down ?
And how does that affect Physics as we know it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nobody said:

At the radius of an electron a photon travels at a VERY LOW speed of light

Photons - just like all massless particles - always travel at c. They cannot do anything else.

5 hours ago, nobody said:

The concept of photons moving in circles is an extension of Einsteins 1911 paper on the relativistic bending by the gravity

You need an extremely strong gravitational field to bend null geodesics into spatially closed curves; what’s more, the smaller the radius of this circle, the more gravity you need, so to speak. The only physical example of a scenario where light deflection of this kind happens would be the photon sphere just outside the event horizon of black holes. On atomic scales and for everyday circumstances, gravity is entirely negligible, even for the most massive of particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your question MigL

1. How does this affect the world of Physics as we know it?

The well proven Standard Model describes the properties of 17 elementary elementary particles, but has no information about why they have those properties or what are their internal components.  The focus of this research is to develop a theoretical model that describes the internals of those in a manner that conforms to the Standard model. This research began with the Hypothesis: Matter is Light and developed a mathematical model of internals of an electron an electron that accurately fits the Standard Model. end revealed much  about the internals of eight of the 17  elementary particles of the standard model.  I have always wondered why the charge of quarks have charges of 2/3 and -1/3 an electron charge -- now I know both why this right, and how to make a the negative charge. 

And oh by the way, it reveals the nature of dark energy.

How does this affect the world of Physics as we know it?  In every way it supports the existing theory and extends it the  to  exciting new research into the internals of every particle

2. By what mechanism does a photon slow down in a gravitational well ? Can it slow down?


The world of Quantum Physics every thing is is dominated by the theory of general relativity.  The fact that it can slow down is demonstrated by the fact that light from stars are bent in the path is near the sun.  Einstein calculated the amount of bending in his 1911 paper on relativity.   His calculation was verified at the eclipse in 1918. Because if the high energy densities and short distances in the world of Quantum Physics every thing is is dominated by the theory of general relativity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nobody said:

Thank you swansont for your comments.

The mathematics presented show that the energy well that the speed of of light c is the same speed as calculated for the De Broglie waves.

What is the evidence that this energy well exists?

 

Quote

The concept of photons moving in circles is an extension of Einsteins 1911 paper on the relativistic bending by the gravity (energy well) of the sun and was verified in the eclipse of 1918.

Mass is required to make light bend (a lot of it) but aren’t you claiming photons do this on their own?

 

Quote

The energy well of an electron is 0.511 million electron Volts.

That’s its mass.

Quote

At the radius of an electron a photon travels at a VERY LOW speed of light and at that speed the wave length is the circumference of an electron as the energy well wraps the path into a circle. 
 

why doesn’t it travel at c?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your question Marcus Hanke

Hanke:  You need an extremely strong gravitational field to bend null geodesics into spatially closed curves; what’s more, the smaller the radius of this circle, the more gravity you need, so to speak. The only physical example of a scenario where light deflection of this kind happens would be the photon sphere just outside the event horizon of black holes. On atomic scales and for everyday circumstances, gravity is entirely negligible, even for the most massive of particles.

Excellence question.   One of the aspects if the theory of relativity E=M * c squared,  is that energy can be described as mass and mass can be describe as mass, e.g the mass of an electron is often described as 0.511 MeV (an amount of energy).  In this theoretical approach,  the effect of mass and energy together on the fabric of the universe is defined as an energy dent. In this context, because of the astronomical distance from the sun, the light is bent a little i.e. the effect of the energy dent (mostly gravity) decreases with distance as the square of the distance.  At the astronomical distance the slope of the effective energy density is low enough to bend the light a little.

But the distances in Quantum Physics are not astronomical, they are sub-microscopic.  A particle is a a very high energy density in a very small volume.  Thus the slope of the energy dent can turn a photon in the radius of an electron, as described in the original posting.

Your question helps me to elucidate more of the implications of the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even so, it takes something as massive as the Sun to 'bend' light by miniscule amounts ( seconds of arc ).
For an elementary particle such as an electron, to bend light into a loop around it, it would need to be massive enough to throw up an event horizon and have a photosphere, as Markus points out. In effect, a mini Black Hole.

Now BH mechanics are increasingly well understood.
If you fire something at them, they absorb the incoming mass-energy and become larger.
Elementary particles instead, scatter and produce additional particles from the kinetic energy.

This is what I meant by "How will your assertions affect Physics ?".
Your assertions seem to change tings in ways that DO NOT fit observation.
You really want to keep going with this ???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your  question swansont

1. What is the evidence that this energy well exists

You will very personally experience the energy dent of the earth if you hold a brick two feet above your toe and release it.

3. Why doesn’t it travel at c?

It always travels at c but is affected by both energy and mass in its region.  For example a prism is able to sort light by color because the speed of light in glass is slower than the speed of light in free space.  Sun set and Sun rise start with red colors because the variation of the atmospheric density with altitude sorts the colors by wavelength just like a prism.  The speed of light is slower in the lower atmosphere thus nbending the light around the earth.  In the desert, the atmosphere is is very hot near the surface of the ground.  Because of this temperature difference with the air above the air density near the ground is lower than the air above.  Because of this density difference, the speed of light near the ground is faster than the speed of light above light bends upwards. A mirage occurs when the blue light from the sky is bent so much you see sky while looking at the ground.

2. Mass is required to make light bend (a lot of it) but aren’t you claiming photons do this on their own?

No on its own (free space) a photon will travel in a straight line at c0 the speed of light of light in free space where Mu = Mu0, the magnetic constant of free space. and Episilon = Epsilon0 the electrostatic constant of free space. 

Mass and Energy are different aspects of the same thing -- both make an energy dent.  The energy dent affects both Mu and Epsilon thus changing the speed of light.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nobody said:

Thank you for your  question swansont

1. What is the evidence that this energy well exists

You will very personally experience the energy dent of the earth if you hold a brick two feet above your toe and release it.

That’s not enough of a well to make light travel in a circle. I know this because I can see things.

 

12 minutes ago, nobody said:

3. Why doesn’t it travel at c?

It always travels at c but is affected by both energy and mass in its region. 
 

Let’s assume a region with no other energy or mass. 
 

12 minutes ago, nobody said:

For example a prism is able to sort light by color because the speed of light in glass is slower than the speed of light in free space.  Sun set and Sun rise start with red colors because the variation of the atmospheric density with altitude sorts the colors by wavelength just like a prism.  The speed of light is slower in the lower atmosphere thus nbending the light around the earth.  In the desert, the atmosphere is is very hot near the surface of the ground.  Because of this temperature difference with the air above the air density near the ground is lower than the air above.  Because of this density difference, the speed of light near the ground is faster than the speed of light above light bends upwards. A mirage occurs when the blue light from the sky is bent so much you see sky while looking at the ground.

But the light doesn’t go in a circle.

 

12 minutes ago, nobody said:

2. Mass is required to make light bend (a lot of it) but aren’t you claiming photons do this on their own?

No on its own (free space) a photon will travel in a straight line at c0 the speed of light of light in free space where Mu = Mu0, the magnetic constant of free space. and Episilon = Epsilon0 the electrostatic constant of free space. 

Mass and Energy are different aspects of the same thing -- both make an energy dent.  The energy dent affects both Mu and Epsilon thus changing the speed of light.

So these particles can’t exist in free space. Or anywhere not near a black hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to our technical expert Mordreds

How do you plan to account for the electron spin 1/2 fermionic statistics and polarity states as per the Pauli exclusion principle with 6 spin 1 bosonic photons ?

In my understanding the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply because each of the 6 photons are orthogonal to every other photon either in phase or spatial plane.

Spin?  I hope the spin topic will be resolved through this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is the problem it is the particle spin that is involved in the Pauli exclusion. It is also the spin that invalidates your theory with regards to the conservation of spin. Other violations include conservation of charge, conservation of lepton number. If I go through the complete conservation laws of particle physics it's likely your violating every one of them.

To put it bluntly your proposal has zero chance of being correct for the reasons myself and others have identified. 

For example bosons due to their quantum number symmetry relations can be stacked to an infinite particle number density in the same space and will not suddenly form a particle with anti symmetric quantum number wavefunctions as is the case with fermions which comprise the matter particles. (That would be a conservation violation. Accordingly due to those assymetric wavefunction relations fermions of the same wavefunction state cannot reside in the same localized space. Hence matter particles take up space which the behavior of a matter particle. While bosons do not. 

Lastly your not applying any of the correct formulas to describe the particle states. This detail is required to define all particle interactions given by the Feymann path integrals. Your model will not work with those integrals either...

 The other problem is your model cannot describe the family generations of the Leptons. So will not work under electroweak symmetry breaking of the family generations.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, nobody said:

One of the aspects if the theory of relativity E=M * c squared

This is true only for particles at rest in a flat spacetime background.

15 hours ago, nobody said:

Thus the slope of the energy dent can turn a photon in the radius of an electron, as described in the original posting.

How do you know this? It seems like you posit this as a claim in order to make an idea work - I am pretty sure you have not actually worked through the maths of this.
Having done a lot of GR maths over the years myself, I can tell you pretty much for a fact that six photons confined into a small region on the order of the electron radius will not travel on circular paths. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark Matter 200126.pdf

Thank you Mordred for your contribution of questions that require further research and definition.

The hypothesis inherently addresses all leptons, the more complex ones have not yet been described.  

The calculations are all based on total energy and electro-weak forces.

Attached is a discussion of the associated boundary between quantum matter and dark matter.

Things that should catch your attention include:

      1.  The theory predicts the difference in proton diameter when measured with electrons or the much heavier muon.  Do you have any other hypothesis for that experimental data.

     2. That the theory of the electron predicts the contents of quarks.  Do you have any other hypotheses that even address the contents of a quark, or why they come in 2/3 or -1/3 if an electron charge, or how you could have the negative sign on the 1/3 charge?

     3. Do you have any theory that address the contents of 8 of the 17 elementary particles?

Note: Your comments are assertions not mathematical or theoretically based evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nobody said:

3. Do you have any theory that address the contents of 8 of the 17 elementary particles?

!

Moderator Note

Questions like this are off-topic and irrelevant. Whether existing theories can answer a question or not says nothing about the validity of your idea. No one here has to defend existing physical theories.

Stick to providing answers to the questions and objections raised by others.

 
14 minutes ago, nobody said:

Note: Your comments are assertions not mathematical or theoretically based evidence.

!

Moderator Note

The objections raised by the other members are soundly based in physics. As such they are overwhelmingly supported by mathematics and evidence. No one needs to provide that mathematics or evidence here, because it is widely available in textbooks, etc. If you are not familiar with the science behind the various objections raised, it suggests you are not ready to present an alternative theory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep asking questions Marcus Hanke, they are fun.

1.  How do you know this? It seems like you posit this as a claim in order to make an idea work - I am pretty sure you have not actually worked through the maths of this.

Yes I did the math, the math is in the paper.
2.  Having done a lot of GR maths over the years myself, I can tell you pretty much for a fact that six photons confined into a small region on the order of the electron radius will not travel on circular paths.

As a general statement your statement is true but has an exception -- orthogonality.  In space there are three orthogonal planes. and an electomagnetic wave there are two phases, one in which at its peak all the energy is expressed as electric field, and one in which at its peak all the energy is expressed as magnetic field.  Traveling in a circle one wavelength long, two waves 90 degrees out of phase in time are also 90 degress out phase in direction and are thus orthogonal.  Three planes each with two orthogonal phases provide 6 homes for 6 photons, each orthogonal to the rest.

That is how two electrons can live in the lowest orbit a Bohr atom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put Mordred. 

I am sure that your understanding and interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct.  Furthermore, your ability and of others with your training to accurately apply both the concepts and the mathematics of the Standard Model to how to bring this new theory in closer agreement with that model is absolutely essential.

But your objections to the new theory are simply assertions.  For example, your assertion that it violates the conservation of charge is just not true.  This theory preserves charge absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nobody said:

But your objections to the new theory are simply assertions.  For example, your assertion that it violates the conservation of charge is just not true.  This theory preserves charge absolutely

!

Moderator Note

You need to avoid making assertions. 

If your theory does not violate conservation of charge then you need to explain how it does it, not just assert that it does.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This theory cannot violate conservation of lepton number, because it does not address any processes of transition.  It only suggests models for some of the elementary particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nobody said:

Keep asking questions Marcus Hanke, they are fun.

1.  How do you know this? It seems like you posit this as a claim in order to make an idea work - I am pretty sure you have not actually worked through the maths of this.

Yes I did the math, the math is in the paper.

No, it isn’t.

You have several equations and calculations, but they don’t support your claims.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.