Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: A Quantum Theory

  1. #1 A Quantum Theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    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


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    PAPER TWO

    On a New Interpretation Concerning the notion of Classical Spin and a Zero-Net Energy Vacuum

    Part One

    (1) On the current nature of particles

    It seems that the current nature of the electron is pointlike. There are actually very logical reasons why physics has gone down this path, and this
    path is of course, totally experimental. However, even these experiments have left gaps in how to unify the physical equations. To begin, even though we
    know the electron exists in some wavicle form, all, and hence the use if the word ''all'' attempts have failed to provide it in having any satisfactory
    structure, such as a dimension of width.One could even question (on this experimental evidence), that the electron does not even have a structure about it,
    but that is ludricrous, hopefully obviously ludricrous, because how can something 'as in any kind of quantity,' be known to exist without having a structure?

    Not only have i been frustrated these last few years concerning this subject, over this time i have been able to eliminate some of these problamatics I
    speak of.

    (2) An Investigation into the Nature into density and dimensions

    Density is inversely related to its mass. Even though we can measure to some approximation of mass contained within the electron, we still end up with
    a problem physics has continued to proceede without properly analysing. This analysation is in fact, for anything to have a mass, which also means to have
    internal rest energy or even an energy density, it would require some surface area. Density is given as which means that to have a volume would
    some external space surrounding it, just like a shell, but a very, very small one. So the question i ask are simple;

    1; Does then electron have a structure?
    2; If it has no structure, then how can it have a density proportional to a mass?

    The last question, could be seen as a ''Red-Herring,'' since we needed a new physics where the electron was no more classically-spinning... This mean't that
    we had to change the current one, but the Red-Herring is now revealed as causing more problems which it could solve. How does an electron have a density
    it had some kind of volume, and equally, how could it have no volume if it contains a mass?

    Scientists amswer this by saying the electron is ''pointlike'' which is by definitionl, a quantum objectn existing in zero-dimensions! Yup. In some strange
    paradoxical sense, this material three dimensional world is made up of zero-dimensional objects! It sounds obsurd, at least, to me anyhow. I simply cannot
    believe that this tangible world around me is not made up of a contradictory world where nothing can really exist.

    [Conversations Between Two Physics Students

    I will not divulge too much into the broader reasons behind showing these conversations, but i will state that in conversations with a PhD student in
    string theory said i was confusing things; he stated:

    ''the point of an equator of a sphere with a radius equal to the compton wavelength of the electron is [like] having .''

    There is actually no difference. My explanation given is just the same example, just a different way of concluding the results. In effect, an electron would
    need to spin multiples of lightspeed. Now, he also explained;

    ''Needless to say, this assumes that the electron is an extended body. This is how we know the classical interpretation of ``spin'' is wrong,
    and that the electron is, in fact, a quantum object.''

    I had to admit, i couldn't understand this reasoning. Why can't we have a classical interpretation... why can't it just be not fully understood because
    certain factors have not been taken into consideration? Of course, saying all this, it is true that mathematically-speaking, the equations that describe spin
    and those that decribe momentum are alike. So we have come to believe that spin is but the angular momentum, and no longer this world where quantum objects
    are not entirely quantized at all.

    So What Now?

    Well, i came to understand recently reading a paper [1] helps us get an insight into my theory. It was from my eyes, perfectly the same assumptions i had
    made, and that was that a spin did indeed have a relation, as the paper notifies the reader;

    ''The spin, when observed from the laboratory frame (in which the Dirac equation is solved), appears to be contracted by the Lorentz-gamma factor.''

    The paper then gives the required equation, and if one took a high enough spin, then one could have some kind of observational effect whenever we attempt
    to find some structure to an electron... But my arguements are not baseless on these thoughts alone. We must take into account if there is a Lorentz
    Contraction which had a Classical Spin, then the contraction must be quite large for even the smallest peice of matter in the universe. So maybe the electron
    is potentially-bodily-extended in spacetime, then its spin is holding back the true identity of its structure, even if it became polorized; but these things
    will change as time passes, and exerimental evidence increases.

    [1] - J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 34 (2001) 2795–2805, www.iop.org/Journals/jb PII: S0953-4075(01)20313-7
    Dynamical signature in spatial spin distributions of relativistic electrons
    P Krekora, Q Su and R Grobe
    Intense Laser Physics Theory Unit and Department of Physics, Illinois State University, Normal,
    IL 61790-4560, USA
    Received 22 December 2000

    Part Two

    On the Pressure of the Vacuum

    There maybe more ways than one to see if a particle like an electron should indeed have a structure. I need to now divert the attention of the reader to a
    new type of thought experiment, one that could perhaps even explain why an ''innate property of force'' is found naturally at quantum vacauum
    values of zero-point energy. The question i asked, came as thus:

    ''In a dense liquidic solution, whether being very dense or not very dense, exerts a (uniform - if in the center of a gravitational field) pressure on a
    materials surface that are submerged. So if you submerged a marble in a bowl of water, the pressure of the water when submerged will be tense upon the
    surface of the object.I now speculate the nature of spacetime, and treat it as being fluidlike; in many ways it is fluidic, as matter distorts spacetime
    round it and drag it with it, much like the viscosity of water drag. I wonder about a particle being being akin to a system submerged in a dense fluidlike
    system, where the particle is affected by a pressure exerted on it equally because of the energy density of the vacuum.''

    Through these assumptions, one final conclusion was made...

    ''Wouldn't such a force exerted on particles not try and locate particles to a specific area of spacetime and make its momentum even more uncertain? ''

    How would you Measure the Force Exerted on a Particle?

    First of all, it must be clear one can only use such a force exerted on the area of a particle if it is not pointlike. Scientists like mathematician and
    prof. john barrow, believes the energy density of the universe affects the motion of matter (just like a drag force) is not in fact zero, as Einstein
    had believed. In fact, the Casimir Force has been proven experimentally, and just recently, a positive Casimir Force has been detected by changing the
    experimental plates to one being made of silicon. So, as many scientists keep reporting - it seems that the Dirac Sea correctly predicts hidden virtual
    particles that are in the vacuum interacting with real matter under the uncertainty in energy and time , which allows a particle to
    pop into existence with an undefined energy, allowing superluminal properties.

    So the force exerted on a system in this vacuum, will be analogous to the system in the fluid, as there will be a density of force applied on the surface
    of the said system. So the force acting homogeneously over it is by definition the vacuum energy. The natural consequence of having a real force exerted on
    a particle So the pressure (or stress energy) on the system's surface, also depends on whether it even has a surface area.
    I would bet there is, and if there is, (albiet as small as it is), there is a natural pressure on its position in respect to the density of the vacuum which
    would explain a stress-energy that causes quantum systems to have an ''innate force''. The force is thus created from the undertainty principle, and how
    it would treat the system.

    Part Three

    Added Assumptions

    (If there is a wall of density, then the energy which is evidently locating the particle down, could find itself constantly wanting to tunnel through
    spacetime.) I also imagine that a particle trying to move through this energy density would cause a distortion in the Dirac Sea (or if you wish, the
    Zero-Point Field), just as much as a photon with momentum distorts the fabric of space and time and can then couple to the gravitational field.
    So matter (with a real surface spin) would distort the zero-point field all the time, and excite the energy in a slice of spacetime; this seems to go well
    with experimentation [2], since the presence of matter at small levels can excite vacuum energy into existence, containing a very small amount of negative
    matter!

    [ref 2] - Alfonso Rueda and Bernard Haisch (2005). "Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis"
    (PDF). Annalen der Physik 14: 479–498.doi:10.1002/andp.200510147

    In the reference just given, the hypothesis based on the cause of inertia has to do with an electromagnetic and gravitational coupling to the zero-point
    field. This idea goes very well with my thoughts on a photon with a mass, interacting via being simply an excitation of a gravitational field exhibiting
    a negative energy density. If indeed there is a real drag force on particles as they move through this aether of quantum virtual particles, then real
    particles must be able to have a drag equation according to the density of the vacuum. But that's not only it. It can have a drag, such as an electron, but
    so long as it had a structure, and one which obeys the classical formula of .

    One rather notable mathematical formula called the Reynolds Number would certainly hold some secrets in how to calculate a drag force over some change in
    distance and if you like, time. For instance, a system with a velocity can have a relationship with density given as:



    So from here, i would imagine that we could only approximate the given force of density on the surface area of a particle, indeed if it has one. If it hasn't
    got one, then indeed, most of this work, if not it all is pretty worthless. More analytically and formally related to the reasonable assumptions I have
    made on whether the electron has a surface area (albeit as small as it would be), and also assuming a classical view that it would have an area that would
    move in a given direction, I calculate the following:



    where (A) is for area.

    So if an electron, indeed all particles have a surface area, and if the laws of physics concerning the energy density of the universe does indeed interact
    with the momentum of quantum objects, the force of pressure exerted on the system will exist as it moves through it, and ‘’ploughs’’ through it with a
    force of drag. In fact, we do have a drag formula in physics, and here i derive it with a ''tweak'' by just adding to both side the dimensions of acceleration
    time the distance.



    (where is the drag coefficient which ultimately measure the drag of a system.)

    This is the famous drag equation, with only one tweak i made, and that was by applying the dimensions or acceleration times distance making a vector
    product i was allowing to leave in the equation, because we may (by the choice of whoever desires to look for the following), want to calculate a total
    density over some given distance, and then integrate it with respect to velocity. However, moving on, one also knows these dimensions are not necesserily
    needed, so it can reduce to:



    The importance of this equation, is that it take into respects the main conditions scientists believe causes the friction, even though, last time i checked,
    any drag equation has a flaw that hasn't been rectified, and that being all the natures of whatever causes drag is not fully understood. , which has
    been explained so far in this paper, is the drag coefficient, which is a dimensionless parameter. So here we are using the equation to calculate the drag force
    of a system moving through the density of the vacuum, with an exerted force in the opposite direction acting on the force of the movement vector.

    Final Thoughts

    I wonder how much validity an only-photon universe model (which seems to have become a popularized expression, but it also depends on how much validity
    there is in this paper. It makes more assumptions than that of which it can solve so far. I like the idea that the photon must have some kind of mass, but
    i feel that this pet theory of mine could be highly distorting my clarity of physics in general, which is complicated at best. Either way, here is the Luxon-Theory
    in its most simplest form, and i hope it could help the progression of needing to answer questions like these in physics.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Well you pretty much figured out the format I can tell when my eyes glaze over in the abstract.

    Just some quick points:

    1. The energy of a photon is given by its wavelength. Because of this, the mass of any created particle (such as the creation of an electron/positron pair) is indeed dependent on the wavelength of the light creating it. Like you need gamma rays to create electron positron pairs. This isn't a new idea, it's pretty well established.
    2. Photons have inertia. This is the principle behind solar sails.
    3. Photons are their own anti partners.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Hello,

    Yes, photons do have a finite inertia, this is why i question the weak equivalence principle which relates a solid tangible gravitational mass to that of something which must differentiate under F=Ma.

    Indeed, photons are their own antipartners. But this is a mathematical notion. What would an antiphoton be, if indeed there was any? This is why i speculated their existence, if maybe not happy within speculating.

    BUT more interestingly, you said

    The energy of a photon is given by its wavelength. Because of this, the mass of any created particle (such as the creation of an electron/positron pair) is indeed dependent on the wavelength of the light creating it. Like you need gamma rays to create electron positron pairs. This isn't a new idea, it's pretty well established.

    It's established for any good photon-only universe theory, also known as a Luxon Theory. I present it as an evidence that all matter is but trapped forms of light rather than it being a mere hypothesis, it is a testable theory.

    Thanks¬

    ManyNames
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Hello,

    Yes, photons do have a finite inertia, this is why i question the weak equivalence principle which relates a solid tangible gravitational mass to that of something which must differentiate under F=Ma.

    Indeed, photons are their own antipartners. But this is a mathematical notion. What would an antiphoton be, if indeed there was any? This is why i speculated their existence, if maybe not happy within speculating.

    BUT more interestingly, you said

    The energy of a photon is given by its wavelength. Because of this, the mass of any created particle (such as the creation of an electron/positron pair) is indeed dependent on the wavelength of the light creating it. Like you need gamma rays to create electron positron pairs. This isn't a new idea, it's pretty well established.

    It's established for any good photon-only universe theory, also known as a Luxon Theory. I present it as an evidence that all matter is but trapped forms of light rather than it being a mere hypothesis, it is a testable theory.

    Thanks¬

    ManyNames
    Also, can i add to the bolded part, that i have personally linked this as a possible solution to testing and solving the Hierarchy Problem. I think that so far is original.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •