Jump to content
nobody

Hypothesis: Matter is Light

Recommended Posts

In a similar manner because the theory does address transition processes it cannot violate the mathematics describing those transitions, or the laws conservation relating the transition processes.

MigL question:  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.

Same answer this theory does not address transitions  YET.

Still working on Spin -- it should be addressed in this theory,  but even though I see the elements of spin in the models, I don't yet see how they are observable (measureable) from the outside. 

My questions are on topic.  When this theory addresses experimental data that is not accounted for in the standard model, that is a strong argument for the importance of this theory as a needed extension of the standard model.  That is not a criticism of the standard model and certainly not a criticism the experts on the standard model.  Like this theory does not address transitions, the standard model simply does not address a number of aspects of the published experimental data like the measured photon size conundrum, what is dark matter, why do some quarks have 2/3 of an electron charge.  

This theory is absolutely necessary to extend the standard model to accurately describe the new set of experimental data.

Share this post


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

In a similar manner because the theory does address transition processes it cannot violate the mathematics describing those transitions, or the laws conservation relating the transition processes

!

Moderator Note

I have not read your document (I am not involved in this discussion) but I don't see the relevance of "transition processes". The problem would seem to be one of creating a charged particle from an uncharged one. So please address the objections raised.

 
12 minutes ago, nobody said:

This theory is absolutely necessary to extend the standard model to accurately describe the new set of experimental data.

!

Moderator Note

What "new experimental data"?  Please be more specific and provide references to support your answers.

 

Share this post


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

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

Oh, that explains things...
You are working with a theory that has been relegated to history for almost a century.
( and which, while useful, had many problems )

Are you going to reference the 'raisin bread' model of the atom next ?
I expect it since you keep asking what are fundamental particles composed of...

3 hours ago, nobody said:

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?

 

Share this post


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

Dark Matter 200126.pdf 162.07 kB · 0 downloads

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

 

I have a theory that addresses all the mass terms and principle quantum numbers of all elementary particles. The lepton mass mixing angles are described by the PMNS matrix. That incorporates the Higgs field and Yukawa couplings.

The CKMS matrix with the above matrix handles all the elementary particles.

They do so without the violations I mentioned that you need to mathematically prove you do not. Not simply assert. If you like I will show you the difference between how bosons behave compared to fermions with regards to the Pauli exclusion principle.

By the way elementary particles are not comprised of other particles. They would not be elementary if they did. 

The electron has no internal structure it is not composed of other particles.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


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

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.

The processes of transition whatever you mean by that has nothing to do with lepton numbers.

The lepton numbers go as follows non lepton =0. Positive lepton +1, antiparticle lepton -1.

For any particle decay the lepton number on the right must equal the lepton number on the left of the equal sign. (Conservation of lepton law) so let's look at your claim.

6 photons =1 electron.

(6×0) does not equal 1. Equals violation.

Share this post


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

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

There are no calculations in that document that concern photon orbits in curved spacetimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Mordred, your question helps to define the areas where further work is needed to fit these hypotheses into all aspects of the Standard model.  That will help to focus my continued effort.

My faith in this began when I found the demarcation line between quantum light and dark matter

Forgive me for taking so long to realize that we are talking about two different pages of the book of Quantum Physics.

In my (new) understanding, Quantum Mechanics is the rules and mathematics by which particles change through high energy impacts. While I depend on the rules on conservation momentum, conservation of spin (angular momentum) etc. in Newtonian Physics calculations and thus understand how they apply to Quantum Mechanics. I can also read the equations and understand the particle transitions which describe the intermediate and end products of the process of change. But you are right, I know nothing about the mathematics describing how the energetics of these processes take place. Fortunately, as shown below, I don’t need to.

In that context, let me coin the name for what I am doing as Quantum Statics. I am not discussing how particles came to be or the processes by which they change. The first step has been developing a mathematical model describing the nature of the fabric of the universe that fits all the experimental data known to physics. The second objective was to use the mathematics of this “fabric model,” to develop free-space-zero-velocity models of the elementary particles as defined by the Standard Model. The mathematical model of a moving photon will be investigated in the future.

This model of nature of the fabric of the universe rests on:

Since both ε and μ are variable in different local condition c is variable under local conditions.

C = 1/√𝜀𝜇 where c is the speed of light, These two properties make

ε is the electrical permeability electromagnetic waves

μ is the magnetic permeability possible (and nothing else).

The Einstein 1911 theory, and 1918 verified that light travels by relativistic mathematics and that that curvature varies with the slope of the gravitation density.

A mirage bending light upwards as much as 5 degrees demonstrates that light speed is inversely related to local mass density and that a relatively small variation in mass density generates significant curvature. The error in the frequency of the mathematics of the Bohr atom revealed that like light particles the motion of particle is described by relativistic mathematics (according to general relativity, everything does).

The Michaelson-Morley experiment has historically interpreted it to exclude any fabric to the universe i.e. there is no such thing as ether(aether). Recognition that matter is light reinterprets the Michael-Morley experiment as verifying that the physical arm and the light beam have identical length properties as a function of velocity (Lorentz contraction?).

The term “energy dent” should probably be changed to “potential energy dent” to more correctly describe an area that it takes energy to climb out of. The current theory of photons shows that in order to be a particle they must be a range of velocities with fastest portions of the photon going faster than the group velocity and the slowest going slower than the group velocity. As the fastest portion of the photon pass the mean group position it begins to climb out of the potential energy dent, losing energy and slowing down. Conversely as the slowest portion is overtaken by the mean group position, it begins to slide up the rear end of the potential hill and is accelerated. If the depth of potential energy dent is one less than a quantum at that frequency, the energy escapes into unquantified dark matter.

The proton radius conundrum is experimental evidence of two particle sharing their potential energy dents, thereby reducing their local light speed and thus reducing the diameter of the photon.

Edited by Strange
Replace PDF with text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could include some science in your responses. Even better would be science that addresses objections that have been raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

@nobody Stop posting PDF files with text that you could just post here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,  I have read through my math, and as of your input, see that it only implies the energetics of the 6 photon electron.  I will re do the math and present them here.  In may take several weeks.  

Thank you for your help.

Review of where we are is attached.

Edited by Strange
File deleted

Share this post


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

Review of where we are is attached.

!

Moderator Note

Stop doing that. If you cannot follow the rules when you return, the thread will be closed.

 

Share this post


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

Gentlemen,  I have read through my math, and as of your input, see that it only implies the energetics of the 6 photon electron.  I will re do the math and present them here.  In may take several weeks.  

Thank you for your help.

Review of where we are is attached.

I should point out to you that you don’t seem to be following the scientific method, which is a big red flag. You appear to have arrived at a conclusion (electron is composed of photons), and now you are working at making everything fit that conclusion. That is not how science is done. In the scientific method, you start with the data - in this case the known dynamics and properties of electrons -, develop a model to describe that data, and then test that model. If the model does not work, you either amend or abandon it. Crucially, any new model must fit in with all the rest of what we know about physics. If you come up with an idea, and then find yourself unable to abandon that idea even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work and cannot work, then you have a problem.

I think you should stop wasting your time with this, and reinvest your resources into learning what we already know about the physics of particles. Only when you are familiar with what we already know, can you make meaningful inroads into what we don’t know yet.

Just some friendly advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please close this topic, Matter is light.  I hope to reopen it after further study.  Thank you all for your comments. 

Share this post


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

Please close this topic, Matter is light.  I hope to reopen it after further study.  Thank you all for your comments. 

!

Moderator Note

Done. When you come back and either request this thread to be re-opened or start a new one, please make sure you follow all the rules of the forum.

Speculative theories need to be supported. 

You need to present your case here on there forum, not by posting documents.

Thank you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Reopened at the request of the OP. Remember:

Speculative theories need to be supported. 

You need to present your case here on there forum, not by posting documents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The experiment of creating an electron-positron pair from light was proposed in 1934  and accomplished in 1997 by D.L. Burke as reported in Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626 – Published 1 September 1997.  The experiment was reported more fully by C. Bamber et al. in Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6 GeV electrons with intense laser pulses (Phys. Rev. D 60, 092004 – Published 8 October 1999)  Their data supported by their theory suggest that five photons were absorbed in order to make one electron - positron pair

Hypothesis Matter is Light has thus been strongly supported by direct experiment.

Share this post


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

The experiment of creating an electron-positron pair from light was proposed in 1934  and accomplished in 1997 by D.L. Burke as reported in Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626 – Published 1 September 1997.  The experiment was reported more fully by C. Bamber et al. in Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6 GeV electrons with intense laser pulses (Phys. Rev. D 60, 092004 – Published 8 October 1999)  Their data supported by their theory suggest that five photons were absorbed in order to make one electron - positron pair

Hypothesis Matter is Light has thus been strongly supported by direct experiment.

Okay, I believe you.  What now?  I tried to tell them something like this and they down-voted me into oblivion when I first started on this forum.  For some reason, I have lost my right to vote.  I expect to get randomly banned for no real justifiable reason sometime soon over it.

Do you know how they were able to distinguish between a photon and electron in the experiment?  That also seemed to be a fundamental issue which is in dispute on these forums, not to mention the fundamental theorem of calculus...  It may be just because strange is a Chinese speaking person from Italy, now. 

Do you believe that electrons can act more like photons or waves if they are not observed?  They also tell me that all electronic signals are made of light, because electrons are too massive to behave like waves.  What kind of light could this hypothesis even shed on this issue?  

Share this post


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

Hypothesis Matter is Light has thus been strongly supported by direct experiment.

By that logic a Neutron is composed of a Proton, an Electron and an anti-neutrino.
Silly me, I thought they were composed of 2 up Quarks, one down Quark and a whole lot of binding energy.
And that is the concept you don't seem to grasp; mass/energy equivalence, which explains your 'direct experiment'.

And no, mass/energy equivalence is NOT matter/light equivalence.
( although if Conjurer thinks so, you're in good company )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Conjurer,

It is generally accepted that electrons have properties as observable as particles such as the ability to exist while stationary and properties observable as waves e.g. diffraction.

The hypothesis matter is light simply recognizes the mathematical concepts.

A photon is a packet of waves of a given color (frequency) that that require a certain amount of energy (a quantum) in a wave length to exist it meets the Plank-Einstein Relation 

       E=hf.          (f = frequency = color)  h is Planks constant,

 
where E is the required quantum of local energy for  light of that color to exist.
 
The Plank-Einstein Relation implies localized energy dent in the fabric of the universe that is deep enough to keep a photon of that color together.
 
 The Plank-Einstein Relation also implies that if there is less local energy the energy dent is shallow and light runs over the edges of the energy dent and dissipates as dark matter unable to participate in quantum mechanical interactions.        
 
Good questions.  More in the next post.

Hi MigL

You are right  E= m c2  is a momentum equation not a mass energy equation.

But the widespread practice of reporting masses as energy (electron volts etc.) defines the localized energy (energy dent) required to keep that particle together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi MigL

It has long been known that an electron positron collision yielded gamma rays , i.e. matter became light.  The implication is that matter and light are two forms of the same energy.

In the experiments of 1997 and 1999, verify that under the right conditions that light can become matter.   Verifying that matter is a different form of light energy by creating particles from photons (light).

The Hypothesis: Matter is Light is an attempt to define the relationship between light energy as free photons and and light energy in the form of the elementary particles. 

Hi Conjurer,

It is easy to tell a photon from an electron.  A photon has no charge, very little mass, and zips around at the speed of light.  An electron has significant mass, a negative charge and puts around at fractions of the speed of light.  Something like comparing a speed boat with a canoe.

Your question "Do you believe that electrons can act more like photons or waves if they are not observed?"  There are interesting experiments going on  currently suggesting that the process of collecting experimental results can affect the statistics of those results.  The thought has been proposed and could be true, but in my understanding is far from proven.

Next question: "  They also tell me that all electronic signals are made of light, because electrons are too massive to behave like waves.  What kind of light could this hypothesis even shed on this issue?"

 The advantage of electromagnetic waves, and the light traveling in the light fibers of our internet is they are they travel at the speed of light.   You are right electrons are not competitive in speed.

But electron diffraction studies of things like crystals allow very high resolution because the waves comprising an electron are very small relative to visible photon.  Visible light ranges from 600 nano-meters to violet on the order of 400 nano-meters  i.e 6x10 - 7  meters in wave length.  The wavelength of an electron changes with speed.  At the low velocity of 1 electron volt (pushed by a single flash light battery, the wavelength is about 1 nano-meter (10-9 meters).  at 100 electron volts, its velocity is about 1 million meters per second ad the wave length is about 10-10 meters or less than 1/1000th of visible light wavelength.

10-10 meters  should read 10-10 meters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think of energy as some separate entity. Energy is simply the ability to perform work. It is a property not some substance in different forms. There  is numerous errors above concerning the differences between photons and electrons. I would suggest some further study.

 Particularly in how particle decays occur. However you haven't listened to many of the previous comments thus far. At least as far as to incorporating mainstream physics to see where your model is essentially invalidated by mainstream physics.

 

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 3:40 PM, nobody said:

The experiment of creating an electron-positron pair from light was proposed in 1934  and accomplished in 1997 by D.L. Burke as reported in Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626 – Published 1 September 1997.  The experiment was reported more fully by C. Bamber et al. in Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6 GeV electrons with intense laser pulses (Phys. Rev. D 60, 092004 – Published 8 October 1999)  Their data supported by their theory suggest that five photons were absorbed in order to make one electron - positron pair

Hypothesis Matter is Light has thus been strongly supported by direct experiment.

It's too bad you evidently don't understand what is truly going on with nonlinear Compton scattering. This article does not support your theory that matter is light. 

The details are in the paper did you miss the part where the virtual electrons are made real by the photon interaction. In essence you are delivering momentum to the virtual particle pair. It is not suggesting that electrons are photons.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mordred 

cosmology101.wikidot.com/main  looks interesting, I will spend some time there.  The Einstein page is no longer there.

However in equating energy and mass, I am merely agreeing with Einstein.  Quote below

E=MC2

Einstein Explains the Equivalence of Energy and Matter

hrb.jpg

 

To listen to Albert Einstein explain his famous formula:

voice Click here for a 1203 K .wav file.
voice Click here for a 436 K .au file.
voice Click here for a 109 K .mp3 file.

Einstein speaking "It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."
hrb.jpg
From the soundtrack of the film, Atomic Physics.
Copyright © J. Arthur Rank Organization, Ltd., 1948.
Image © Brown Brothers, Sterling, PA.
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your going to agree with Einstein then you must agree with the proper definition of energy and the proper definition of mass in terms of kinematics.

Mass isn't a substance either it is the property of resistance to acceleration determined via couplings to a field for particles.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


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

It has long been known that an electron positron collision yielded gamma rays , i.e. matter became light.  The implication is that matter and light are two forms of the same energy.

!

Moderator Note

Both have energy. This does not imply that matter is made of light.

This thread is closed. Do not bring this subject up again.

Feel free to ask questions in the appropriate part of the forum to fill the obvious gaps in your understanding.

 

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.