The magical creation of the photon.

[Little Bang]

One more point Craig, you can have a disagreement with someone who believes that God created everything and ask them how do they know. Their response is to place the Bible in their hand and say because it's right here. It is very difficult to have a realistic discussion when every point is might with " Because the Standard Model says." How do I argue with that? Particle theory is so stuck in your mind that instead of having the four waveforms collapse to make the electron positron you had to add the gamma ray photon to come up with five.

[freeztar]

Little Bang, please take a look at this thread. I believe it gets to the heart of what you are arguing here.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/15040-science-close-minded.html

[Little Bang]

Freeztar, in sense you are right. I'm curious as to how the standard model addresses the BB. You can make the claim that the BB is not related to this thread. That is not true because my hypothesis is dependent upon the BB being an explosion of electromagnetic energy. Theorist say the universe was dark for somewhere around the first four hundred million years but according to mine it would have been nothing but light for around two hundred million years.

[CHADS]

To Craig D ...

 

The Electron is moving fast so it occupies a different region ... in the process of interacting with the laser it moves into the constant photon stream .... it can slow down but not without its quantumn inertia allowing to scoop up 5 photons.. it cant occupy the photon stream becuase it has mass ... it spits out the 5 photons which are used to being in a photon stream

but singularly ... so the electron disturbed the bees nest the photons say this is what produced me ... an electron and it has to go away so here is its positron!.

You need the Electron ... its not a photon!

The electron was the dimensional violater of the photon stream so it had to be pushed back as quick as possible or be destroyed.

 

The Photon knows the Electron inside out and it shouldnt be there.

 

Virtually they are already going away from the stream so they can be observed i would assume(I havnt seen this)

 

But all wants to go to the Photon stream so dosn't get pushed too far away !

 

So did the origional high energy electron survive and return to its proper place?

 

Did it leave its signiture on the Photon stream which was destroyed by the positron and carried out by photon stream constituents?

[Little Bang]

Any theory that adequately explains the observed phenomena of the universe will also explain the beginning of the universe. In order to do that we must be able to explain mass, inertia, gravity and charge. I can explain the first three but I am having a difficult time explaining charge. The reason for my difficulty is that I cannot explain how a photon is produced. The standard model has its own picture of how the photon is created. Some have tried to explain the Stanford linear accelerator experiment with the standard model. In my opinion I find that explanation woefully inadequate. The photon has both an electric and magnetic component at 90° to each other. How do we make a photon from virtual particles that has these two components. The determination of whether a field is electric are magnetic is totally dependent upon the motion of the observer with respect to the field. Does that mean there is some relationship between observer and photon? When I use the word observer that does not mean a conscious brain, it refers to a frame of reference. For example when I say a clock in orbit runs faster than a clock on the ground, each clock is it's own frame of reference.

 

As mentioned previously in this thread I think the thing we call space is the 3D representation of all the electro-magnetic energy in the universe. One might call that representation the Aether. Assuming this to be true then the creation of a photon could simply be a disturbance in the Aeither caused by the acceleration of positively and negatively charged particles. Using this line of reasoning has not produced a 3D image in my mind of what the wave looks like. Does that mean the logic is wrong? Maybe, but it's a line of reasoning that will pursue for awhile.

 

I am currently working on a rather lengthy explanation of mass, inertia and gravity. Obviously, since I think mass is some sort of wave, I am pursuing the idea that charge is related to how the wave is put together to make the electron and proton.

 

Craig, I owe you a great debt of gratitude for your suggestion.

[Little Bang]

I owe a great debt of gratitude to Craig for suggesting speech recognition. I don't have a clue as to why I didn't think of it myself.Ninety nine percent of this post was down with speech recognition. It may turn out that he has created a monster. I now have the ability to expound at length about what is going on in my head. How I think the photon is created well be a lengthy march through many areas so bear with me.

 

This thread was started in an attempt to explain the photon. It has solidified my conclusion that the standard model does not explain reality. I am not saying that the standard model is not an elegant theory and it does make many accurate predictions. If we are too find a better explanation of reality we must explain phenomena in which the standard model fails. The items that the standard model cannot explain, without the use of hypothetical particles, is mass, inertia, gravity and charge. Those hypothetical particles are of course the Higgs and the graviton. The standard model makes no attempt to explain inertia or charge. For the rest of this post instead of using statements from the standard model to show my logic wrong why not use logic itself or experiments that conclusively prove my thinking wrong. If an atheist and a Christian are discussing the existence of god and the Christian keeps referring to the bible as proof, what is the point of the discussion.

 

Most physicists and astronomers think that the universe started from a single point. If all the mass and energy in the universe was contained in that single point then gravity could not have existed otherwise the big bang could never have occurred. If gravity did not exist before the big bang, that should give us a clue as to the workings of gravity. I have heard the phrase " The big bang was an explosion of pure energy. Is there some kind of pure energy other than electromagnetic? If that were the case did gravity now exist? Observation has shown that light is bent by a gravitational field. Many scientists believe that the photon also has a gravitational field. If that is true then the instant after the big bang gravity was turned on. This would suggest that gravity is related to some component of electromagnetic energy. What possible connection could there be other than time?

 

When I use the word clock I am referring to a frame of reference. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread a clock in orbit runs faster than a clock on the ground. What I perceive this to mean is that with respect to the frame of reference of the earth events are occurring slower in the frame of reference in orbit. If I use a telescope to look at the clock in orbit and a particle is moving with respect to that clock I can calculate the velocity of the particle using the clock in orbit. If I calculate the velocity of the particle using my clock on earth the velocity will be greater. The Point I hope I am illustrating is that as a particle falls toward earth its downward velocity is always greater than any upward velocity because its clock is slowing down as it falls. You could ask the question, " OK, if that is true why is it that I still feel gravity when I'm sitting motionless in my arm chair ". That is because every atom and molecule in your body has their own clock and they are bouncing around in all directions creating the acceleration that you feel. An experiment that would prove or disprove this would be to take a mass down as close as possible to zero and see if it loses weight.

 

 

If you are in a rocket ship out in space and you fire the engines with just enough force to create one G of acceleration it feels just exactly like the acceleration you feel in you're armchair. We all know this as inertia. Why do they feel the same? They feel the same because they are caused by exactly the same thing. When you accelerate a particle in free space its clock slows down creating what we call acceleration. I don't expect a single reader to buy my argument, but I do expect them to wonder about the fact that no one has ever shown a working relationship between gravity and inertia. Mass and charge will be next.

[modest]

Many scientists believe that the photon also has a gravitational field. If that is true then the instant after the big bang gravity was turned on. This would suggest that gravity is related to some component of electromagnetic energy. What possible connection could there be other than time?

 

Photons have energy. Energy warps spacetime. That is the connection between electromagnetic radiation and gravity. In general relativity the variable is called "radiation pressure" and it's there in cosmological models as well. It's actually important to consider because the universe used to be radiation dominated.

 

It is well-described here: Cosmology: The Science of the Universe - Google Book Search

 

~modest

[Little Bang]

You right modest, at one time the universe was nothing but electromagnetic energy. The question is, what are the circumstances that turn a wave into an electron and an anti-electron. Whatever that process is would also make a proton and anti-proton. The only difference in the two would be that the length of the wave that makes the proton anti-proton would be shorter.

[Little Bang]

In post number 125 I said that I would explain the creation of the photon after describing gravity, inertia, mass and charge. I have since discovered that to be an impossibility. In order for me to understand how waves are put together to make charge a must first have a picture in my mind of how the wave looks in three dimensions. If I look at a graphic representation of an electromagnetic wave it shows an electric component and at 90° to that the magnetic component. All of us know that to be an inaccurate description of what the wave actually looks like. I suspect that any of the readers who have followed this thread are intellectually in the top 5% of the world. The view that I am trying to put together of reality did not originate from me instead it came from the input and information provided by the members of this forum. Obviously I am not in agreement with current thinking about the makeup of the photon. The use of the intellectual and imaginative powers of the members would be of great help in my quest to understand the makeup of charge but I also respect the fact that most of the members adhere to the SM and QM. If by chance I do find the answer I shall return, otherwise I probably will not post on this thread again.

[Little Bang]

Before going on with this thread I would like to explain something about myself. I am 68 years old,my mind and memory still function relatively well. I have absolutely no agenda. If we were to come up with a new theory of everything I could care less if one of the members were to publish it and collect the Nobel prize with all of its glory. I have very little time left in which to discern the truth and the truth is the thing for which all of us should be searching. As the reader is well aware I have stated my displeasure with the standard model and even quantum mechanics in that they cannot explain all the observed phenomena. I have a son-in-law who owns a collision repair shop. He has spent a good portion of his life learning how to repair wrecked cars. If I were too go to him one day and say that I had a better way for him to repair cars. He might listen to what I have to say but would be very unlikely to try it. I am an expert at nothing but have a working knowledge of almost any field you can name. A substantial portion of my knowledge in physics came from the members of this forum.

 

An important part of the standard model and quantum mechanics is the use of the virtual particle. The space of the universe is supposed to be filled with virtual particles. One of the reasons virtual particles were invented is because particle pairs have been detected popping into existence from nothing. If I want to prove that virtual particles don't exist I must show another way for particle pairs to pop into existence.

 

I think all will agree that every cubic meter of space in our universe has electromagnetic waves passing through it. Every frequency to some extent can be found in each cubic meter, from cosmic rays to the infrared. The Stanford linear accelerator experiment mentioned in several posts above has shown that a collision between two waveforms can create an electron anti-electron pair. One or two members has tried to explain the results using the standard model. I saw a program on the discovery channel about six months to a year ago on the existence of killer waves. Sailors have been claiming the existence of killer waves for centuries. Using satellite technology they have shown that killer waves are much more prevalent than previously thought. The random addition of waves is apparently what creates these giant waves. Why is it not possible for the same thing to happen in any part of our universe? In my opinion this is much more likely than the universe being filled with the hypothetical particles required to transport the photon.

[Erasmus00]

As the reader is well aware I have stated my displeasure with the standard model and even quantum mechanics in that they cannot explain all the observed phenomena.

 

I'm still not entirely sure what phenomena you feel aren't explained by the standard model.

 

The Stanford linear accelerator experiment mentioned in several posts above has shown that a collision between two waveforms can create an electron anti-electron pair. One or two members has tried to explain the results using the standard model.

 

Its pretty straightforward to predict photons scattering to electron/positron pairs using the standard model, and the prediction does match the experiment. In general, if it doesn't violate a conservation law (angular momentum, momentum, baryon number, lepton number, etc) it can happen in the standard model.

 

Why is it not possible for the same thing to happen in any part of our universe? In my opinion this is much more likely than the universe being filled with the hypothetical particles required to transport the photon.

 

Electrons/positrons have very different properties than photons/em waves though. In particular, they carry less angular momentum, and obey very different statistics. There are technical problems with trying to represent electrons as bunches of electromagnetic radiation (you can't make a fermion with any number of bosons). Hence, simple wave addition of em waveforms can't give you an electron waveform. You need two different types of fundamental waveforms (electrons/photons)

 

Further, because of wave/particle duality, a universe filled with waves is the same as one filled with particles. Saying em radiation fills all of space is the same as saying photons fill space. Do you see?

-Will

[Little Bang]

Why wouldn't I suspect that what ever causes the charge and mass of the electron would somehow be related to that which makes the charge and mass of the proton? The annihilation of a proton anti-proton does not have any intermediate particles. They just go from matter to electromagnetic waves. Of course the SM ignores such stupid and childish questions.

[Erasmus00]

Why wouldn't I suspect that what ever causes the charge and mass of the electron would somehow be related to that which makes the charge and mass of the proton?

 

One indication they might not be the same is the substantially different charge to mass ratios, and the fact that the proton has sub-structure. However, the quarks inside a proton get their mass in the exact same way as electrons in the standard model.

 

The annihilation of a proton anti-proton does not have any intermediate particles. They just go from matter to electromagnetic waves. Of course the SM ignores such stupid and childish questions.

 

This isn't true. If you collide a proton with an anti-proton you get lots of exotics such as muons, pions, K particles, etc.

-Will

[Little Bang]

Do any of these temporary waveforms that the SM calls a particle have any realistic lifespan? No, any particle will have a life span of around 10^30 years. Any idea that suggests matter is a waveform must be excluded because it is outside the box in which you must do your thinking. If I say that the SM does not explain charge you claim that it does via the quarks. You mention charge to mass ratio. Suppose, for the sake of argument that the electron anti-electron were continuous waveforms in the shape of a torus with opposite rotations. A possible explanation of charge with the frequency of the waveforms that created them accounting for their mass ( M = fh/C^2 ). The same explanation could be used for the proton. How do I make the neutron? Collapse the torus that is the proton into the shape of a figure eight, something like a mobius loop giving it a neutral charge. I'm not saying that this is the way matter is made but I suspect that it points in the direction of the truth.

[Erasmus00]

Do any of these temporary waveforms that the SM calls a particle have any realistic lifespan?

 

It depends on what you mean by realistic. Certainly muons and kaons leave the detector before the decay

 

Any idea that suggests matter is a waveform must be excluded because it is outside the box in which you must do your thinking.

 

What do you mean by a waveform? In the standard model, all matter is both wave and particle.

 

If I say that the SM does not explain charge you claim that it does via the quarks. You mention charge to mass ratio. Suppose, for the sake of argument that the electron anti-electron were continuous waveforms in the shape of a torus with opposite rotations. A possible explanation of charge with the frequency of the waveforms that created them accounting for their mass ( M = fh/C^2 ). The same explanation could be used for the proton. How do I make the neutron? Collapse the torus that is the proton into the shape of a figure eight, something like a mobius loop giving it a neutral charge. I'm not saying that this is the way matter is made but I suspect that it points in the direction of the truth.

 

Now, you say the electron can be thought of a torus, while the positron can be a torus with a different handed rotation- but we need to be able to explain electrons of positive and negative spin/helicity, just like we need to be able to explain positrons of the same. Your model needs at least one more degree of freedom then the torus.

 

I didn't mean to say the standard model explained charge via quarks- I was simply stating that the proton is not a fundamental particle- the mechanisms that work for the proton might not work for electrons (electrons are, as far as we know, fundamental). Mass for a proton might come from a different mechanism then mass for the electron.

 

In the standard model, all conserved quantities (charge for instance) are really an expression of symmetries. Charge conservation really means that there is a symmetry of the theory.

-Will

[Little Bang]

Your right eras the torus idea has more holes in it than a couple of miles of fish net but so did the standard model in it's infancy. I'm not going to give up on the idea.

[Little Bang]

I need some help. I want someone to help explain the Stern-Gerlack experiment using the standard model.