Relativity+ : The Theory of Everything

[Farsight]

Not adequately. I don't have the photon properly modelled. A guy has written me an animated lattice simulation program, but I've been pushed for time and haven't got to grips with it yet. And the references frames are somewhat superfluous, and I need more Latex practice. But see Special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where we read:

 

The energy and momentum of an object with invariant mass m (also called rest mass in the case of a single particle), moving with velocity v with respect to a given frame of reference, are given by

 

E = γ mc²

p = γ mv

 

The γ is the Lorentz factor = 1/√(1-(v/c)²), which is based on Pythagoras' Theorem where for SR time dilation we're examining light reflecting between moving parallel mirrors, and we're working out the height of a right-angled triangle where the hypotenuse is c=1 and the base is our velocity as a fraction of the speed of light. The two expressions are combined to give the familiar expression E² = (mc²)² + (pc)².

 

People say that for a massless particle like the photon, m is zero, giving E=pc, wherein v=c and the photon always travels at the speed of light. This leaves the reference frame somewhat superfluous. Move towards the photon and you'd see an apparent increased energy E associated with an apparent increase in frequency. But the photon hasn't actually changed, your measurement of it has changed. People then talk about a particle moving at velocity 0 as having no momentum, giving E=mc². Again the reference frame somewhat superfluous. Move towards the particle and it appears to then have momentum, but it hasn't actually changed.

 

What's important with the above with respect to pair production is that we start off with a photon of just over 1022keV photon and end up with a 511keV electron and a 511keV positron, with a little separation energy. If we keep pace with the electron so that it has velocity 0 in our reference frame then E=mc² applies. The electron has mass, but no momentum. If we then encounter another positron, we find that our electron annihilates to become a 511keV photon which departs at c, and E=pc again applies. The photon has no mass, but it does have momentum.

 

The expression E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² isn't getting to the bottom of what's happening here, and to be blunt, is something of a cop-out. The important insight is the symmetry between momentum and inertia. If you could contrive things such that a photon was motionless you couldn't measure any momentum. You'd be measuring it as inertia. The easiest way to understand this is to think of a cannonball. If a cannonball hits you, it's hard to stop it moving, because it's got momentum. But if you hit the cannonball, it's hard to start it moving, because it's got inertia.

 

We can't move at c, so we can't contrive our reference frames such that the photon is motionless. But pair production does this for us. The electron can be robustly modelled as a circulating photon (see Williamson, J. G. ; van der Mark, M. B. ; “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 1997). The zitterbewegung indicates that there is indeed a circulatory motion, and the spin 1/2 indicates that it's a double circulation. This means that whilst the photon is not technically motionless, it isn't moving in aggregate with respect to us, so it's effectively stopped. Hence the momentum appears to be inertia. Which is better known as mass.

 

Charge is the next thing that falls out of this. It's pretty simple too. Think moebius.

[PhysBang]

I think it should be fairly obvious that this book is stunningly premature. The author is claiming to have a theory of everything but cannot yet do the basic mathematics that we would use to verify that his theory meets today's basic physics.

 

Frankly, this book is the physics equivalent of a Nigerian scam. The author goes on the internet promising a stunning reward for a little cash investment, but there is nothing to deliver.