A Photon Flux Hypothesis And Luxon-Theory

Added: I am simply a student of physics, and i want to make it known that this is not a publihed theory in the sense i am a published

scientist.

Abstract

It seems that today, quantum physics is facing one of the most difficult challenges; this is the nature of gravity,

and as a question of this paper, whether it is quantized as a graviton at all. We will investigate action

distances (but not in the usual academic meaning of action in physics), but speculate on a whole new plethora of

idea's which could hold experimental possibilities. In fact, i speculate that there could be relations between the

wavelength and frequency of any photon to the product of mass that is created. If this is so, then it could be experimented

to some approximation and find any particular patterns between particle massess, and the photons wavelength's that create them.

Paper One

Part 1

The Photon-Flux Theory

I believe, as many scientists have come to believe, is that at some early time in the universe, there was an event

which leaked photons from the fabric of the universe, and ''somehow'' transformed into matter. Some have even

postulated that the gas of photons would have changed into charged polarizable gravitational matter... The

And this is where we come to our first paradox;

1) How can a photon change into matter if matter is a gravitational inertia and a rest inertia?

The qeustion is simple. It's basically asking how energy like photons, which the Standard Model would have us

believe that the tiny little quanta of energy is massless, but if it did, it would have a mass on ridiculous scales

like 10^-51kg of solid matter. But it may interest you to know that there is actually no standing proof that can

diprove the notion that a photon has a small amount of inertia: A finite amount actually. In fact recent experiments

may be providing evidence that is may have a very, very, very small mass indeed.(1)

When Doctor Einstein developed his theory of both the special and general relativity, a famous man called Paul

A. M. Dirac - a mathematician and phyicist, showed mathematically a new type of matter. This was antimatter, and

essentially, as i have come to appreciate what it means to me, is that inertial, gravitational mass could tranform

back into the pure energy of gamma photons! The prediction of the equation , was according to many, the

first mathematical hint of an antimatter relationship, where pure energy photons flux into differenetial types of matter,

and vice versa.

We have even varified this in the labs! In the year of 1996 in september, scientists created matter out of pure

light using electrons as catalysts. This is called ''Luxon Theory,'' and it [proposes] that all types of matter known

in the Standard Model are but different forms of ''trapped light.''

My attempt was to create a model that could satisfy a reason to how a photon could transmutate into matter, when both

even very uniquely different qualities.

(1) - To grasp the scale of how small a photons mass is, take the following into consideration. There are real

particles in the ''observable receeding'' universe, and this amazingly only takes up about % of all spacetime! So

the size of a photons mass, would seems infinitessimal from a cosmological viewpoint, one that may as well never change.

Part 2

Inertial Energy

As we are all taught at college-level is that matter has a form of inertia and thus a rest energy. But when an electron

and positron collide they somehow ''cancel'' each other, or even better, reduce each others fluctuation back into frequencies

of photon energy. This part i have just spoke about, is really quite important for the predictions of my theory. The Photon-Flux energy

has some relation to an inertial energy synonymous with a relativistic mass squared, so the inertial energy would also be

a squared quantity. But a massive leap is assumed between the dimensions of the Photon-Flux Equation as one Unites it has an

inertial mass, whilst the other says its has no mass at all. The conclusions i make is that the Photon-Flux Equation

must be describing potential inertial mass and a potential inertial energy.

The Photon-Flux Formula would have to be given as:

where the sqaured amount of inertial energy is in fact interpreted here as being the flux of a critical energy, condering

where is the sum of a critical energy density within the relativistic object. At this level, the function must

be tranformed into specifying a mass with inertia.

Part 3

Inertia The Definition, and a Relativistic Mass Relationship?

Inertia is a property of matter which opposes changes in velocity, and relativistic mass is a change in energy as matter increases with velocity,

so there may indeed be a relation. I state, that the inertia of a system is the resistance to an increase of energy due to the acceleration of a system.

And the resistance to change is related to the system not willing to use up energy unless acted upon by some external force.

So inertia is also the resistance to a deceleration due to reserving the energy of its local system.

In this following work, I attempt to put my ideas down to math. But first a quick summery of the predictions that are justly made:

The gravitational charge which is an innate property of inertial matter acts on the inner structure of a system when a moving or sitting still.

It generates the relativistic mass of a system, and is theorized that a system has a natural force of resistance to acceleration unless provoked by

some external force. So in effect, it basically means that inertia is the force of resistance to a change in relativistic mass (1), which must arise from

the gravitational potential. It is logically evaluated this way based on two major rules and that is, where, if the gravitational charge of a system

must give rise to matter and therefore inertia. It must also refer to a relativistic mass as well. And that the relativistic energy of a system also

adds to the mass of the system, as exampled by having a tiny relativistic photon, with a relativistic mass, that can add to the mass of a system, if

it is confined within the structure of a box. If it increases the mass, it equivalently adds to inertia as well.

(1)- Most physicists would agree that M=F/a was adiquate enough to describe what inertial mass really mean't, but truth be known, the equation tells us very

little about how energy can change into matter, and even do the reverse. What about the wavelength of a photon? Is the wavelength of a photon inversely-

related to the mass of the particle it transmutates into? Knowing we have a finite amount of different wavelengths, could this possible provide an

answer to the Heirarchy Problem. And what about the gravitational charge of a particle with mass? If it can have an electric, it can surely have a

gravitational one as well. The gravitational charge you imagine simply as being an ''innate property'' which generates the matter itself. Obviously i am

indicating a theory here that does not require a Higgs Mechanism. I find it a superfluous theory and not very logical.

Part Four

Back to the analyzation of Inertia

All objects resist changes in their state of motion. All objects have this tendency - they have inertia. But do some objects have more of a tendency to

resist changes than others? Absolutely yes! The tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion varies with mass. This varying property

is evidence that inertia may be dependant on the mass of a system, and ultimately, the relativistic energy of a system.So it can be said that inertia can

be measurable, so the more mass a system has, the more inertia it has. Then it can be said, that inertia is dependant on the mass content of a body. But

mass is normally considered an unchanging property of systems, unless the mass is moving. In this case, the mass that moves has more mass content than the

stationary system. This increase in relativistic mass directly alters the inertia of a system. Unless acted upon by some foreign force, the inertia of the

system will remain the same, and hence the resistance to change.

It shouold be quite obvious now that i am poistulating an equivalance to the relations of relativistic velocities as the active purpose behind things with

''rest mass''.

My Theory on Inertial Matter and Relativistic Matter

So let's derive some math to see if it can be seen from a more, precise side. I make a very bold statement here, the following is a mathematical certainty

that a photon-flux theory (even depending on the rules provided within this paper), that you can proove that relativity can allow a photon with a finite

inertia to flux into a more solid inertial (or heavier) compactification, because, afterall, it has been proven as one of the most experimented facts that

the weight or even the entire mass itself of matter has deep interelations that create this force we call Inertia.

Consider that (which is a general condition)(1), now this means that Einstein equated matter as the same quantity or value or even being the same

thing as matter itself! In a more pragmatic term, scientists can simply say then that , where naturally is the inertia.

(1)- I even speculate here that if the photons wavelength determines the weight of the matter it fluxes into, then there could be principle of least action

of a said inertial energy. Thus, it could be interpreted as the action of a system in a ground state, which would then create the smallest known particle,

which is an electron so far, but a string i guess it could be.

So mass equals or is the same as the inertia of the body in question. Now lets use a little algebra, and a few reasonable speculations:

Inertia must equal the rest energy and the momentum of the particle. So:

Prove that inertia can be given as the product of inertial mass plus its relativistic mass;

the small signature for the momentum is used as a trace of information, thus:

by rearranging:

So if you added the inertial mass in question (given any constant value) with the addition of some relativistic mass, then we have:

So naturally, we have used the upper case for momentum a relativistic gamma relation. If we remove the zero value of the gamma relations on both sides,

we are left with this simple formula:

so we have an inertial mass from inviting a relativistic velocity minus its equivalent inertia. From here, the equation can be interpreted as how

something has an inertial mass, and that is when you take the same quantity and take it from the relativistic velocity, which zero,

so all of this simplifies to a proof of Einsteins Weak Equivalence, so that:

Inertial mass is the same as the quantity of mass as well. Now since we are talking about mass and relativistic mass relationships, i now want to

derive for density relationships. So following these derivatives, we use wavelength of a thing as important as upon the square of any

wave, a density indeed can be given, but for the sake of simplicity, let us not get too entwined into that. Let's assume though the following, albeit as

simple as it is:

solving yet again for the left hand side (warning, do not get mixed up where v is a volume.

which solves to

This should be seen as simple equating and rearranging, knowing that . So in a funny kind of way, when Einstein pondered whether

relativistic mass when added to any inertial system only added more gravitational mass, the derivation of finding simply inertia as mass seems

quite logical. Even though this may seem like an unimportant derivation, you might be surprised to learn, as i was, that it' simply

not that inertia equals the rest mass of a system, but by the mathematical symmetry behind manipulating the relativistic momentum seems to have agreed well

with my predicted theory.

(1)- I even speculate here that if the photons wavelength determines the weight of the matter it fluxes into, then there could be principle of least action

of a said inertial energy. Thus, it could be interpreted as the action of a system in a ground state, which would then create the smallest known particle,

which is an electron so far, but a string i guess it could be.

Part Five

Could the Photon have an Antipartner?

Let us assume the graviphoton, which is a photon existing as an excitation of the gravitational field. Let us assume though that this photon has a

gravitational charge density at around the required values, such . That's very small, but with a real mass, it can have also a real electric

magnetic charge. This would mean it would have an electric charge many times greater than the small gravitational charged mass in comparisson; .

Such a particle could be allowable to be a graviphoton, only if its energy is negative, so that the gravi-relationship between the momentum of the photon

would be a negative energy particle, with its momentum vector thus recognized as:

It's energy is thus negative:

[ref. 4]

Which does seem hard to believe, i'm sure from anyones eyes, but i personally question what properties could be found by attempting to relate possible

theories in this paper, with this negative energy momentum which is absolutely analogous to a photon particle, but has an energy of momentum which acts

more like a decisive little antiphoton. Of course, this is purely speculation, but would not one think that if antimatter relationships are based

on mirror-like properties of CP invariance and violation, that it is completely analgous to a photon with a ''supposed'' no charge, to one which can

exist with an actual negative energy density, and thus a negative charge?

But, unfortunately, we have never found a graviphoton, which may be suggesting that something has indeed gone wrong somewhere in modern physics, because

it is a particle that should be detectable. But that certainly doesn't mean it can't exist.Might it be that we have our physics on the photon all wrong by

saying:

1) It has no mass

2) It has no charge

We can experimentally speculate that the mass of a photon, indeed if it has one, dreads a tiny value however, it doesn't make 1) an absolute truth, so i

state physics right now might be niave not consider that maybe it hasn't got a very small mass, with a tiny gravitational charge. It then begs to ask the

nature of some quantum mechanically-charged relationships between gravity and electromagnetism. But for a photon to have an antiparticle which is to be in

these speculations, the photon we normally see invading a warm summers day would need to have something very strange indeed: Opposite properties, meaning

the photon would need a positive gravitational charge and a positive electromagnetic charge.

Going back to axiom 2), consdiering the photon has no charge is not by any means based on mere speculation by doped up physicists. For example, if you like

to chase up links on the web for information on subjects like this, i suggest the following:

[PDF] -Editorial changes in red

447k - Adobe PDF - View as html

It is the main reason why the photon has no state. of rest. ... 6. Why do the photons possess no charge? ...

the photon has no transverse. component ...http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/A...oton-final.pdf

Photon: Information from Answers.com

... photon is proportional to its frequency, which is why a single photon of ... The photon is massless,

[1] has no electric charge[14] and does not decay ...www.answers.com/topic/photon-2 - 294k - Cached

However, at least the recent results of a possible mass of , as wild as it may seem, doesn't really surprise me, since quantum mechanics gets

weirder everyday nearly. Now as this paper comes to its final stages, i want you to weigh the evidence accordingly. The truth is, is that i don't

just believe the photon has an antipartner (which by literal terms, i mean one that is not ''its own''), both the photon and antiphoton must combine

to create solid and tangible fluctuations of matter, just as much as we have observed two electrons reducing back to the gamma energy Photon Theory gains

interest in. I am not eager about the responses i will receive concerning my theory of the antiphoton being a graviphoton, because my theory truely does

challenge every aspect of known science; but in doing so, i have tried to remain as scientific as possible.

Personally so far in this paper, i feel that inertia under a relativistic analysis gives us an insight into not only why it takes an infinite amount of energy

to accellerate an electron to the speed of light, but that really it would require an infinite amount of inertia. What would that mean i asked....?

Naturally, it frustrated me until today. It's not that the electron itself would require an infinite amount of energy, but instead it would need to be a

tachyon particle itself, which as far as i have come to understand physics, is that a tachyon would seem to have an infinite amount of inertia, simply

because it's speed is not finite.

To end, i also strongly suggest that the future of physics and physic-buffs alike at least come to accept this theory when cocnerning how we have the irrevicable

evidence to support Luxon Theory, and my new interpretation, the photon flux as being serious answers to the Hierarchy Problem. Call it a hunch, but i'm

sure they are related.But what's make it interesting for me, is that if the wavelength or frequency are related to such problems in lets say, the quantity

of a mass, then this is at least testable.

[Ref]

[1]Inertia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History and...|Interpretations|Rotational...|See also

Inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. Sir Isaac Newton...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia - 78k - Cached

[2]LUXON THEORY - THE CAUSE OF ALBERT EINSTEIN `S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

The cause of relativity, the law of conservation of energy, the phenomenon inertia & energy, the mass-energy-equivalence E=mc 2www.tardyon.de - Cached

LUXON THEORY - ENERGY

... the phenomenon energy, the mass-energy-equivalence E=mc 2, the special theory ... derivation of the law of conservation of energy from the luxon theory: ...www.tardyon.de/luxon.htm - Cached

[3]Similar Theories: Heraclitus, Kelvin, Ziegler, Schrödinger and ...

Unified field theory from a different perspective. ... Luxon theory by Daniel M. Kirchmann. Luxon theory. Do quantum particles have a structure?

...www.unitytheory.info/similar_theories.html - Cached

[4][PDF] Gravimagnetism

875k - Adobe PDF - View as html

mathematics describing gravity and electromagnetism. An isomorphism ... graviphoton transactions with a particle 14 billion years on the other side of the

big ...mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf - i recommend on page 14 ''THE GRAVIMAGNETIC PLANK CONSTANT'' which would be essential in finding out how to

calculate certain theories within my paper.

Other references

1) Matt Visser, What is the 'zero-point energy' (or 'vacuum energy') in quantum physics? Is it really possible that we could harness this energy? from Scientific American Magazine, August 18, 1997

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy"

2) Loudon, R. (September 2000). The Quantum Theory of Light (Third Edition ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-850176-5.

3)^ Feynman, Richard P. (1985). "Electrons and Their Interactions". QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 115. ISBN 0-691-08388-6. "After some years, it was discovered that this value [−g/2] was not

exactly 1, but slightly more—something like 1.00116. This correction was worked out for the first time in 1948 by Schwinger as j*j divided by 2 pi [sic]

[where j is the square root of the fine-structure constant], and was due to an alternative way the electron can go from place to place: instead of going

directly from one point to another, the electron goes along for a while and suddenly emits a photon; then (horrors!) it absorbs its own photon."

4) Highly recommend, ''Spacetime and Beyond,'' Fred Alan Wolf, Bob Toben and Jack safrasi.

5)^ Stern and Gerlach: How a Bad Cigar Helped Reorient Atomic Physics. Bretislav Friedrich and Dudley Herschbach Physics Today December 2003, page 53

http://scitation.aip.org/journals/do..._12/53_1.shtml