Thread: Alternative theories for matter, wave and Universe

Hi, I am a new comer. It is glad to meet you guys who enthusiastic in physics.

I would like to share something different about physics where I try to understand physics in a whole in stead of piece by piece. The same science findings may have different kinds of explanations depending on the scientists who conduct the experiments. Although some theories and interpretations base on their findings were established, but they are still questionable and subject to further discussion.

I have reconstructed many of the old findings and new discoveries about physics. I have also put everything together into a common theory of everything, where the theory is powerful, universal and applicable to almost everything.

If you believe that the Universe is began from a big bang, then, everything appears in this Universe shall having the same ingredients.

Few of my key understandings are posted as follows:

Q1) From pair production and annihilation process, matter can be converted into wave and wave can be transformed into matter. Also in radioactive, matter can transform into radiation by reducing the mass. From these, can we conclude that matter and wave are having the same ingredients? In another word, whatever ingredients possessed by wave shall be the same to matter.

A1) My understanding is, both matter and wave are having the same ingredients, but in different form and interchangeable depending on the conditions. From here, a new theory on particle and atom is developed. This new theory on atom is proven that tally with many old science findings, but in different explanations. I have posted a comprehensive explanations and derivations including graphical presentation in this link http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass.htm, or more specifically for the new atom model at http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
This website also explains why electrons never collapse into nucleus of an atom.

Q2) From the theory on law of refraction, when light travels from one lighter medium to another heavier medium in terms of refraction index, the speed of light is slowed down. From the current theory about photon, photon possesses energy and momentum. The energy of photon is E=hf, where h = plank's constant and f = frequency of photon. Momentum of photon, p = hf/v, where v = velocity of photon.
The discrepancy is when photon/light travels from one medium to another medium of different refraction index, where the velocity changes, the energy of photon is conserved because frequency remains unchanged, but momentum changes because of changing in velocity. The energy is conserved but momentum is not conserved. This is a big discrepancy in the understanding of photon.

A2) Suppose, the energy and momentum of photons shall conserved in any medium under the circumstance of without energy transfer. A new look on light/photon is introduced here base on the conservation of energy and momentum. More comprehensive explanations and and derivations and graphical presentations are posted in this link http://www.greatians.com/physics/wav...ton.htm#WD.4.0

Q3) What are the different between light and photon? So far, the understanding of light is still very limited and children are thought with something confusive. In many secondary physics books, the light is interpreted like the magnetic and electric fields are alternating in sinusoidal form. The intensity of the light is depending on the amplitude of the magnetic or electric field. This is confused with the concept of photon where the energy of photon is only depending on its frequency. Base on conventional explanation about light, if a light source travels from the sun, its amplitude at the sun surface shall be very huge and reduces when reaches the Earth and very tiny when reaching Pluto. If this is the case, we may not able to detect a light from the other side of the Universe which is millions of light year from us. However, this is not the case.

A3) Due to the above confusion, a new theory about the light and photon is introduced. This explanation shall be adopted to educate the next generations so that physics are not difficult to understanding. I have posted the new explanations in this link http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave.htm

Q4) Does photon possesses size? If the size of photon is depending on the amplitude of its magnetic and electric field of the photon, when photon of different intensity enters into our eyes, can we able to distinguish and differentiate different kinds of colors and the boundary between few colors? If the amplitude of the photon is bigger than our eye ball due to high intensity, we may only see one kind of color. But these are not the case.

A4) The answer to above question is photon does possess a size. The size of photon is depending on its frequency. The size is so tiny that beyond the receptor size of our retina. Due to this reason, we are able to distinguish different kind of colors appear in this world. Due to this reason, we are able to notice a star which is located millions light year away from us by capturing the photons that give out by the stars. More explanations and derivations on the size of photon is posted in this link http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave/photon.htm

Q5) It is observed that our galaxy is almost flat in shape, the objects, solar systems that are circulating in planar around the center of rotation of the galaxy. These phenomena are also observed to other galaxies and black hole, the circulating objects tends to fall on the equator of the center of attraction. If the attraction force is governed by mass dependent Newtonian gravitational force which has no preference in direction, the circulating objects shall form a spherical shape, as spherical as possible, instead of planar shape. But why this is not the case? Also from Question 1, the ingredients of matter are similar to wave and matter is not a base ingredients, the mass dependent Newtonian gravitational force shall not be the base force too.

A5) Due to the observation of flatten galaxy and black hole, where mass dependent Newtonian gravitation force is unable to describe the phenomena, and base on a new understanding about matter, a new gravitational force is introduced. This is cordially presented in detail in this link http://www.greatians.com/physics/universe/gravity.htm, where the actual forces that governing the activities of the Universe is presented. Graphical description on the shape of galaxy is also presented.

Q6) Black hole is so massive and able to pull everything including light. However, light is mass-less, how can light be attracted due to its mass according to mass dependent Newtonian gravitational force? Again, this is another discrepancy on the current physics theories.

A6) When light travels near to a black hole, it is observed that light is bent inward angle to the black hole. This is not due to the attraction force, but a phenomenon of diffraction. This is similar to when light is shone on a ball, the shadow of the ball become relatively smaller size on a target behind the ball. Also when you shine a light to a tiny ball, you will not see the shadow of the tiny ball if the distance between light source, tiny ball and target is far enough. The description of black hole is presented in this link http://www.greatians.com/physics/uni...ack%20hole.htm

Q7) Is there a boundary of the Universe? If yes, where is the boundary of the Universe?

A7) Yes, there is a boundary of the Universe. Unless the expansion of the expansion rate of the Universe is at the speed of light or faster. However, it is observed that the expansion rate of the Universe is slower than the speed of light, otherwise, we will not able to see lights from a star. The light will be stagnant at that particular position if the Universe is expanding at the speed of light. Since the expansion rate of the Universe is slower than the speed of light, and light travel faster than the expansion of Universe, the light will be reflected at the boundary and keep within the Universe, otherwise, we will not be able to detect the microwave background radiation. More detail explanation is posted on http://www.greatians.com/physics/uni...20universe.htm

Q8 ) It is predicted that the existence of dark matter and dark energy in this Universe, but why still unable to detect it.

A8 ) The dark matter and dark energy do exist in this universe. The dark matter fills up the whole universe. Dark matter and object matter are having the same ingredients. Dark matter forms the background matter throughout the whole universe while object matters are concentrated matter located at particular position in the space. The dark energy is related to the activities caused by the dark matter. More detail explanation is presented at http://www.greatians.com/physics/uni...g%20matter.htm

Firstly, kongkoshaw, if you want to propose a new theory, you should post it in the New Hypotheses and Ideas forum - not in the physics forum.

Now,

Q1) From pair production and annihilation process, matter can be converted into wave and wave can be transformed into matter. Also in radioactive, matter can transform into radiation by reducing the mass. From these, can we conclude that matter and wave are having the same ingredients? In another word, whatever ingredients possessed by wave shall be the same to matter.

Firstly, matter can display the properties of both a wave and a particle. It does not transform from one to another.

Further, matter cannot transform into radiation by reducing mass; the mass is conserved throughout, just redistributed. By the mass-energy equivalence, a particle can turn into another particle with lower mass than it by decaying into it and emitting the remaining mass in the form of another particle.

What you are talking about here is the wave-particle duality. It is wrong, however, to assume that waves and matter have 'ingredients'; neither waves nor matter (for example, an electron and an electron wave) have any constituents. Waves, as such, are caused by disturbances within a medium, with the notable exception of the photon. Matter, by which I mean elementary particles such as the electron, has absolutely no constituents; if it did, they wouldn't be fundamental particles.

A1) My understanding is, both matter and wave are having the same ingredients, but in different form and interchangeable depending on the conditions. From here, a new theory on particle and atom is developed. This new theory on atom is proven that tally with many old science findings, but in different explanations. I have posted a comprehensive explanations and derivations including graphical presentation in this link http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass.htm, or more specifically for the new atom model at http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
This website also explains why electrons never collapse into nucleus of an atom.

Having read your website, it seems to me that you believe that mass is nothing but an electromagnetic field. Forgive me, but how then do you explain the existence of the neutrino, an uncharged, fundamental particle with mass? If it had an electromagnetic field, it would follow that it had a charge; that it doesn't is a very strong counterexample.

You also seem to believe that moving particles do not travel as waves. This is significantly incorrect; if you are familiar with quantum mechanics, you would know that all matter displays two forms of behaviour, namely, as waves and as particles. One instance would be the photon, which exhibits properties of a particle as well as a wave. The same is true for the electron, and all other particles.

So, you see, even when a particle is in motion, it can also be said to be a wave. You can calculate the wavelength by the de - Broglie formula.

Q2) From the theory on law of refraction, when light travels from one lighter medium to another heavier medium in terms of refraction index, the speed of light is slowed down. From the current theory about photon, photon possesses energy and momentum. The energy of photon is E=hf, where h = plank's constant and f = frequency of photon. Momentum of photon, p = hf/v, where v = velocity of photon.
The discrepancy is when photon/light travels from one medium to another medium of different refraction index, where the velocity changes, the energy of photon is conserved because frequency remains unchanged, but momentum changes because of changing in velocity. The energy is conserved but momentum is not conserved. This is a big discrepancy in the understanding of photon.

The reason you think there is a big discrepancy is because you have not really understood what happens. If you remember, there is a vacuum between the atoms of a substance. Light, however, will always retain the same speed in a vacuum, as is proclaimed by relativity.

What actually changes is simply the time taken for light to exit the materials. This is because the denser the medium, the more frequently light will be absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms of the substance, which will lead to a delay in exiting the material. Others can better explain this one to you.

However, if you have followed what I have said, it becomes readily apparent that the speed of light does not actually change. What changes is the time taken to exit the material, which is why we often refer to the speed of light changing in a medium. This is not so.

So, since the speed of light does not change, it should be clear that momentum is conserved.

A2) Suppose, the energy and momentum of photons shall conserved in any medium under the circumstance of without energy transfer. A new look on light/photon is introduced here base on the conservation of energy and momentum. More comprehensive explanations and and derivations and graphical presentations are posted in this link http://www.greatians.com/physics/wav...ton.htm#WD.4.0

I've just explained why momentum is conserved. This then invalidates the need for your hypothesis. However, I should just point out that waves cannot become mass. If that was so, this would mean that the photon essentially consists of mass.

Q3) What are the different between light and photon? So far, the understanding of light is still very limited and children are thought with something confusive. In many secondary physics books, the light is interpreted like the magnetic and electric fields are alternating in sinusoidal form. The intensity of the light is depending on the amplitude of the magnetic or electric field. This is confused with the concept of photon where the energy of photon is only depending on its frequency. Base on conventional explanation about light, if a light source travels from the sun, its amplitude at the sun surface shall be very huge and reduces when reaches the Earth and very tiny when reaching Pluto. If this is the case, we may not able to detect a light from the other side of the Universe which is millions of light year from us. However, this is not the case.

Again, this is the wave-particle duality at work. There is no difference between light and a photon; both interpretations are correct. What happens is that a photon can exhibit dual properties at once: that of a light wave, or that of a particle.

Q4) Does photon possesses size? If the size of photon is depending on the amplitude of its magnetic and electric field of the photon, when photon of different intensity enters into our eyes, can we able to distinguish and differentiate different kinds of colors and the boundary between few colors? If the amplitude of the photon is bigger than our eye ball due to high intensity, we may only see one kind of color. But these are not the case.

A photon, by definition, is a point particle. It follows therefore that it has no size, as such. The photon does not possess amplitude; however, its corresponding wave does.

A4) The answer to above question is photon does possess a size. The size of photon is depending on its frequency. The size is so tiny that beyond the receptor size of our retina. Due to this reason, we are able to distinguish different kind of colors appear in this world. Due to this reason, we are able to notice a star which is located millions light year away from us by capturing the photons that give out by the stars. More explanations and derivations on the size of photon is posted in this link http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave/photon.htm

No. Read the above explanation, please.

Q5) It is observed that our galaxy is almost flat in shape, the objects, solar systems that are circulating in planar around the center of rotation of the galaxy. These phenomena are also observed to other galaxies and black hole, the circulating objects tends to fall on the equator of the center of attraction. If the attraction force is governed by mass dependent Newtonian gravitational force which has no preference in direction, the circulating objects shall form a spherical shape, as spherical as possible, instead of planar shape. But why this is not the case? Also from Question 1, the ingredients of matter are similar to wave and matter is not a base ingredients, the mass dependent Newtonian gravitational force shall not be the base force too.

Why should it be spherical? The force weakens over distance, so it makes sense to have an elliptic orbit. Alsom, Newtonian gravity was superseded by general relativity a long time ago.
I'll leave this one, however, for others.

Q6) Black hole is so massive and able to pull everything including light. However, light is mass-less, how can light be attracted due to its mass according to mass dependent Newtonian gravitational force? Again, this is another discrepancy on the current physics theories.

This is easy enough to answer. Newtonian dynamics, while once supreme, has been supplanted by general relativity, where gravity occurs due to the curvature of space and time. Light, attempting to go in a straight line, is forced to curve, because a straight line is always curved in a curved environment. The graviationalf field of a black hole is such that space-time becomes so curved that light can never actually leave the field.