For some people, there would be no science if it wasn’t for God.
Sure thing Sidhe. But don’t single him out too much. People have this habit of going all mystic on you when they don’t know the answers. Some start talking about heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus, and some start talking about parallel worlds and unseen dimensions. When you look for the evidence and find there isn’t any, you realise it’s all the same old stuff really, just dressed up in clothes to suit the audience.
No, that’s too limiting, because protons can be included too. Search google on Proton/Antiproton pair production. Or look at annihilation, google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= … 2&aq=f&oq=. You can combine a proton and an antiproton and get various products, but you can always get back to photons eventually.
Not quite, the different frequencies are employed to make different configurations which we then call different particles. The basic waveform is the photon, which is a transverse pulse of action propagating through space at c. Think of the action as a Weyl gauge change, think “spacewarp”. Note en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck’s_constant where it says In SI units, the Planck constant is expressed in joule seconds (J s). The dimensions may also be written as momentum multiplied by distance (N m s), which are also the dimensions of angular momentum. When you employ pair production to create an electron and a positron you’re effectively splitting the photon and wrapping each half into a double loop. At 511keV this traps itself to form a spin 1/2 electron, and an electron comes in one size only. The wavelength of a 511keV photon is 2.426 x 10ˉ¹² m, and you can only make an electron using a photon where the wavelength is 2π the common photon amplitude. It can be depicted as something like the image below, where the dark line shows the double loop, but note that’s just the path of the action. The lines and surfaces aren’t really there, they’re pressure contours at best:
PS: See cybsoc.org/electron.pdf if this image doesn’t appear
Not quite. But with a higher frequency and thus a fiercer action you’ve got more stretch and can make more complex knots. See the image below and look at the top left-hand knot. It isn’t what you’d normally recognise as a knot, because it’s what’s called the “trivial” knot. That’s the electron. The next simplest knot on the right is the trefoil knot. That’s the proton. The fourth from the left would be a “pentaquark”, but no stable pentaquark particles have yet been found. I’ll tell you more about protons along with quarks and gluons and the bag model later.
Yes and no. They’re different particles because the action is in different configurations. In the photon it propagates laterally through space. In the electron it’s travelling through itself, which twists and bends its path so it propagates at c but round and round, hence the electron spin.
No. A 511keV photon has the same frequency irrespective of whether it’s a free-running photon or is configured as an electron.
The crucial different is a 180 degree rotation of the polarity per revolution. The 511keV photon is essentially twisting as it turns as it travels through itself. And there’s nothing solid to brace against, you can only make a twist if you make an opposite twist at the same time, hence conservation of charge. NB: you need to see a cubic lattice to appreciate what the photon’s electromagnetic field variation actually is.
The frequency doesn’t change, nor does the phase because it’s an electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic field is how you view an electric field when you travel through it. The momentum doesn’t change because it’s just one aspect of energy/momentum, which remains at 511keV. However the wrapping results in in zero aggregate motion with respect to you hence the momentum now appears as inertia, aka mass.
It’s all very simple, much simpler than you ever thought possible. It’s just dynamical geometry.
No problem with people believing in God, its when the two get mixed together. Its always rather pointless to confuse something that requires hard evidence with something that requires faith alone, and never, in my experience, works out well.
Our modern intellect.
I believe because it is absurd.
/ Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) /
=======..
‘I believe in Physics because it’s absurd’
Would you ever say such a thing to a modern man ?
I doubt it. Most of us would be asking God’s
forgiveness for even thinking it.
But.
=============…
The basis of the physics consists of:
1.
Abstract separated absolute space and time of Newton.
2.
Abstract ‘ideal gas’ and ‘ideal particles.’
3.
Abstract ‘black body.’
4.
Abstract SRT negative 4 - dimensional space,
abstract 5D, …….and 11 - dimensional spaces.
5.
Abstract ‘virtual particles’, ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’.
6.
Abstract ‘ inertial movement’.
7.
Abstract ‘big bang’.
8.
Abstract " method of renormalization".
9.
Etc.
=========..
And therefore we can read.
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
/ Richard Feynman /.
… the more you see how strangely Nature behaves,
the harder it is to make a model that explains how even
the simplest phenomena actually work.
So theoretical physics has given up on that.
( Feynman)
Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.
/ Richard Feynman./
When asked which interpretation of QM he favored,
Feynman replied: “Shut up and calculate.”
When I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student
at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject.
“You’ll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted
by such frivolities,” they kept advising me, “so get back to serious
business and produce some results.”
“Shut up,” in other words, “and calculate.”
And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it.
/ N. David Mermin /
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
Paul Dirac .
“ Young man, in mathematics you don’t understand things,
you just get used to them.”
/ John von Neumann ./
" I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all
if we just apply working mathematical rules;
that’s not what the physicist should be satisfied with."
/Dirac /
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein./
In his 1997 book ” The End of Certainty” Nobel Laureate
Ilya Prigogine wrote:
“The more we know about our universe, the more difficult
it becomes to believe in determinism.”
And . . . “ The quantum paradox is real nightmare for classic mind ”
In his book ” Quantum theory “ ( published in 2002 )
John Polkinghorne wrote:
“Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising,…”
/ chapter 6, part “ Quantum hype”, page 92 /
IS MODERN ‘ PHYSICS ‘ A SCIENCE ?
amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics … 1560729910
/ Ronald Mirman /
. . . . etc.
======================..
The physical education.
The more I study the more I know.
The more I know the more ideas I have.
The more ideas I have the more they abstract.
The more they abstract the less I know the truth.
=====.
Some years ago I told with young physicist (!!!).
He said very confidently: ” You cannot be physicist (!)
if you cannot understand the beauty of Minkowski
mathematics.(!!!)
======.
It seems that he is right, because physicists must know
mathematics very well. The problem is that nobody
knows what is real physical meaning of “ 4-D negative
space continuum.” in the Nature. SRT is correct theory
but Minkowski space continuum is abstract. And together
they are paradoxical. More than 100 years we live with
this paradox. Nobody confuses.
==========.
During our conversation I understand that this young physicist
is strong and clever man and he want to reach success. And
I think he will do it. So, in the future he will create new
D/ M-spaces or new symmetries or discover new particles.
And one day he will be a professor and will teach new
generation ( your son or your daughter) in order that they also
have possibility to create new D/ M-spaces or new symmetries
or discover new particles. But if in the beginning the abstract
ideas were put into the fundament of physics then ……..
we can create new and new theories for 1000 years but
the result will be the same - paradoxical.
=========..
Physicists and Laws.
Physicists do not dictate to Nature their laws.
Laws of nature are reality, which exists independently
from the researcher. The Nature cannot be arranged so
strange, as the physicists think of it. Their thoughts
are so strange, that they offer paradoxical ideas.
Einstein wrote: “ In the Science the man has freedom
to solve well made crossword. ” In this crossword
physicists don’t know what Light quanta, Electron, Energy are.
( “ It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ” / Feynman. 1987/ ,. . . .
“The electron that can be told is not the true electron.”
/ David Harrison / , . . . . . . . . ..Etc.)
==== . .
And instead to understand what Light quanta, Electron,
Energy are, the physicists try to add to the crossword of the
Universe new cells and fill them with new abstract models.
For example;
on horizontal – dark matter
(The Dark Matter is another official dogma
of our astronomy. /V. H. Vergon/)
or ‘ dark energy”
( Dark energy may be vacuum
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 011607.php )
and on vertical – string theory
( We don’t know what we are talking about"
/ Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state
of string theory./ )
Or on horizontal – quark,
and on vertical - Higgs boson or Higgs mechanism.
. . . . .etc.
This is reason that I wrote:
The more I study the more I know.
The more I know the more ideas I have.
The more ideas I have the more they abstract.
The more they abstract the less I know the truth.
And as a result conclusion from some article:
" One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality."
========== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
worldnpa.org/php2/index.php? … ay&id=1372
===================== . .
=========================================
It’s just dynamical geometry.
!!!
If triangles made a god they would give him three sides.
/ Charles de Montesquieu . [Persian Letters, 1721 /
Socratus: I’m giving the secrets of the universe on a plate, and you’re rambling.
SLAP!
Now wake up.
SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP!
Wake up, and get a grip.
Strange contradiction
1
In one hand :
The particles in the Universe are more than antiparticles
/ Baryon asymmetry /
2.
In the other hand:
Dark matter in the Universe is more than visual matter
Question :
Does one physic’s hand know that the other hand do ?
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
worldnpa.org/php2/index.php? … ay&id=1372
========== .
Comment:
It does seem like a paradox, doesn’t it?
Actually, these are two unrelated concepts.
Baryons represent detectable matter.
Dark matter represents undetectable matter.
Different stuff.
That still leaves the question about physic’s hands, though…
/ NoPlate /
=== .
I think that actually, the ‘Baryon asymmetry ‘and ‘Dark matter ‘
both belong to one conception.
Why?
Because antiparticles exist in ‘ Dirac sea ‘, in Vacuum and
‘ dark matter ‘, by idea, must exist there too.
They both belong to one and the same reference frame.
Now the questions are:
‘ does dark matter consist of antiparticles or of
some kind of different particles ? ’,
‘ do antiparticles make dark matter ?’
To answer to this question we must know that Vacuum is.
But it is a pity, we still don’t have answer to this question.
And Dirac said:
‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? ‘
==== .
So ,
all discussions are tautology without understanding that Vacuum is.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
Comment.
socra…@bezeqint.net wrote:
Now the questions are:
‘ does dark matter consist of antiparticles or of
some kind of different particles ? ’,
‘ do antiparticles make dark matter ?’
== .
Some theories of DM assume that DM are their own anti-particles. These
theories also say we should occasionally see a DM particle collide with
another DM particle and annihilate each other, releasing a gamma ray
from an area of space where there should be nothing producing it.
Of course that’s just one theory of DM, nobody knows if it’s the right
model of DM.
/ Yousuf Khan /
What is the nature of Light Quanta ?
In my opinion this question is similar to other one:
How can the SRT be understood ?
More than 100 years have passed when SRT was created
but the discussions about it are still going on .
I suggest my own opinion about SRT (Light Quanta & Vacuum)
=== .
One of the SRT laws says:
The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
equal to : c=1. No other particles can reach such speed.
If all the other particles cannot reach this seed it means
they are absolutely different particles. Their abilities
are absolutely another. And if they absolutely different,
so we cannot compare them. From our school days
we know that to compare two incommensurable quantities
is not possible.
It is the same as to compare the elephant and the whale.
We can see the elephant in the safari and the whale in the
ocean. But we cannot meet them together in the same
reference frame.
Therefore I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.
Once again:
The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
equal to : c=1. In the Vacuum !!!
The conditions of safari created the geometrical form of elephant.
The conditions of ocean created the geometrical form of the whale.
Then we must suppose that the conditions of Vacuum have the
influence on the geometrical form of Light Quanta.
Question: What are the conditions of Vacuum ?
1.
The matter ( and its density) in the Universe is very small.
This small mass cannot roll the Universe into sphere therefore
the Universe must be infinite.
2.
This infinite space is Kingdom of Cold.
Now it is considered that the temperature of this Kingdom
is: T= 2,7K. But this quantity is not constant, it is relative
and decreases, and in the future will reach T= 0K.
and the laws of thermodynamics say: the particles in the
Kingdom of Cold (T= 0K) cannot have volume. It means
they are flat particles. And from all flat geometrical forms
the most symmetrical is circle: c/d= pi = 3,14 ……
3.
According to Quantum Theory the Vacuum is some kind
of energetic space, it means the particles, the Light Quanta
are also some kind of energetic power.
All discussions are tautology without understanding what Vacuum is.
So, in my opinion, the Quantum of Light is some kind of
energetic particle with flat geometrical form of circle.
But if the Quantum of Light always moves only with constant
speed c=1, then, it seems, it is a mad particle. Thinking in such
way it is hard to understand its importance in our life.
But SRT helps us to understand that this view on the Quantum
of Light is wrong. The SRT says: its laws depend on the movement
of the Quantum of Light.
Once again.
The SRT laws (Lorentz transformation ) explain us how the behaviour
( movement ) of the Quantum of Light changes.
The theory says : in the movement
a) the mass and energy of Quantum of Light changes.
b) the geometrical form (circle) of Quantum of Light changes
c) the time of its life changes.
(according to Lorentz transformation )
==== .
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
worldnpa.org/php2/index.php? … ay&id=1372
===================== . .
Commenr by Jim.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, socratus israsad@yahoo.com wrote:
What is the nature of Light Quanta ?
In my opinion this question is similar to other one:
How can the SRT be understood ?
Thank you for zeroing in of the heart of the issues. Light quanta is
what exhibits relative energy and everything including space time is
exhibited by perception of relative energy.
More than 100 years have passed when SRT was created
but the discussions about it are still going on .I suggest my own opinion about SRT (Light Quanta & Vacuum)
=== .One of the SRT laws says:
The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
equal to : c=1. No other particles can reach such speed.
If all the other particles cannot reach this seed it means
they are absolutely different particles. Their abilities
are absolutely another. And if they absolutely different,
so we cannot compare them. From our school days
we know that to compare two incommensurable quantities
is not possible.
As Feynman proclaimed, nothing in quantum logical electro dynamical
kinetic action is like a particle or a wave.
It is the same as to compare the elephant and the whale.
We can see the elephant in the safari and the whale in the
ocean. But we cannot meet them together in the same
reference frame.
We can say momentum was exchanged between electrons by the change in
momentum state they exhibit. But our notion that “something”
transferred the momentum, the photon and the anti photon, cannot be
modeled as a particles or a waves.
Therefore I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.
Equal and opposite quantum logical action, exhiobits kinetic momentum
transfer, experienced as “the electrodynamics of moving bodies”, is
the title of Einstein’s 1905 paper introducing special relativity..
Once again:
The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
equal to : c=1. In the Vacuum !!!
I must stipulate that this is by local measurement according to your
own ruler and clock. Light appears slower in a relatively denser
vacuum although measurement in the denser quantum logical electro
dynamical kinetic structure are non the wiser and experience no effect
of compaction of their rulers or slowing of their clocks They
measure light speed as constant with respect to their rules no matter
how long others figure their rulers to be relatively. The length of
the ruler never changes locally independent of motion or local
mass/energy density as it is perceived relatively.
The conditions of safari created the geometrical form of elephant.
The conditions of ocean created the geometrical form of the whale.
Then we must suppose that the conditions of Vacuum have the
influence on the geometrical form of Light Quanta.
The geometrical form of the light quanta is two dimensional, equal and
opposite change in quantum logical electro dynamical kinnetic space
time. A 10 meter antenna receives photons ten meters in size and can
receive half the photons twice that size and so on by increases size
exhibited by delay elements in the curcuit. An electron state changes
by the effective distance of the size of the photon, x=c*h/e, locally
in logical state space and fraction of collective space time.
Question: What are the conditions of Vacuum ?
1.
The matter ( and its density) in the Universe is very small.
This is a contrested point. The vacuum energy has the effect of 185
Giga Electron Volts per cubic centimeter. As John Wheeler proclaimed,
the vacuum is only marginally less dense than matter. At the same
time, the vacuum is the zero point we measure relative to. We only
measure values directly that are higher than the vacuum energy. We
see energy flow from high energy to low. We can never see them
directly going below the vacuum energy as that is the lowest energy
around. It is not that the vacuum energy is small, it is that it
necessariily appears to be zero independent of how much energy it
contains.
This small mass cannot roll the Universe into sphere therefore
the Universe must be infinite.
This does not follow exactly. We cake an error of catagory
considering a photon a rest mass. As the photon has no rest mass it
cannot be considered a small mass. It’s mass is determined by its
energy by e=m*c^2. That it does not exhibit a rest mass locally does
not mean the universe is not contained in finite time. At the same
time, photons looping logically do exhibit a rest frame and thus a
rest mass. Photons slowed by mass density or relative motion in their
local space appear slower than light and thus exhibit a rest frame.
Certainly the observable universe is contained in finite time and the
existence of unobservables is dubious. Belief that anything infinite
has been constructed in finite time is contradicted by the necessity
of renormalization of quantum logical system to remove all infinities
to get the answers that agree with experience.
This infinite space is Kingdom of Cold.
Now it is considered that the temperature of this Kingdom
is: T= 2,7K. But this quantity is not constant, it is relative
and decreases, and in the future will reach T= 0K.
and the laws of thermodynamics say: the particles in the
Kingdom of Cold (T= 0K) cannot have volume. It means
they are flat particles. And from all flat geometrical forms
the most symmetrical is circle: c/d= pi = 3,14 ……
If we believe the second law of thermodynamics we are falsly led to
the conclusion that T goes to zero in finite time. However, this is
impossible by the third law of thermodynamics. When a system achives
motion to the mazimal entropy, T=0, the motion that brings it to that
state cannot be stopped and any motion moves it away from equalibrim.
Absolute zero can never be obtained by a thermodynamic system.
But the issue is much deeper than this. We can achieve extremely low
temperatures and see light slowed down by slow quantum action down to
stopped light. We cannot really stop light due to the no cloning
theorum which can be related to the third law. But the slowed light
is only a relative perpective. Locally the light is always at the
same speed and they do not consider it slow. They would measure
exactly c. While the universe might be cold and slow from our current
perspective, it will not be slow for the inhabitants of the future
world.
According to Quantum Theory the Vacuum is some kind
of energetic space, it means the particles, the Light Quanta
are also some kind of energetic power.
No. Equal and opposite kinetic quantum logical action need not
involve any change in energy. Action of change of state to a higher
or lower energy is a matter of relative perspective. The notion of
energy emerges, it is not fundimental. It is true that higher energy
determines the clocking of quantum logical interaction from our
perspective by there is nothing preferred about our perspective.
All discussions are tautology without understanding what Vacuum is.
We have no call to presume anything exists besides equal and opposite
quantum logical interactions. What we call the vacuum is simply the
space and time exhibited by delays in quantum logical interaction.
What we consider physical distance, is the perceived logical distance
of logic propagating at light speed locally according to our physical
logical perspective and logical action at the speed of light.
So, in my opinion, the Quantum of Light is some kind of
energetic particle with flat geometrical form of circle.
Well, it exhibits two half dimensional vectors, one lateral and one
transverse, so if is certainly flat. In that it obeys half spin
networks at any relative frequency we can consider its cycle as a sort
of a circle. That the linear momentum exhibited is a two pi multiple
the angular momentum supports this circular view.
But, is is not actually a particle or a circle. As you have already
said, to define it as such represents a category error.
But if the Quantum of Light always moves only with constant
speed c=1, then, it seems, it is a mad particle. Thinking in such
way it is hard to understand its importance in our life.
It is so mad, the direction of travel is not even necessarily the same
for all observers. The perceived logical ordering depends on both
position and motion.
But SRT helps us to understand that this view on the Quantum
of Light is wrong. The SRT says: its laws depend on the movement
of the Quantum of Light.
Once again.
The SRT laws (Lorentz transformation ) explain us how the behaviour
( movement ) of the Quantum of Light changes.
The theory says : in the movement
a) the mass and energy of Quantum of Light changes.
b) the geometrical form (circle) of Quantum of Light changes
c) the time of its life changes.
(according to Lorentz transformation )
What is constant is our perception of light speed, or the rate of
quantum logical kinetic electro dynamical interaction locally. What
covaries is the perception of space time and energy relatively as far
as everyone else is concerned from other positions and varying
relative motion. Logical interactions are absolute, but their
orderings and size, and thus how much space and time they exhibit is
only relative. What we call space and time is that which is exhibited
locally. There is no global preferred notion of size or time.
Only the direction of time is absolute, as interaction events are
experienced only once by the direct participants and never again
exhibiting only positive time and space in relative degree but in
absolute immutable local orderings all relative participants agree to.
The notion of the moving flat circular twist, right handed to exchange
momentum between electrons, or left handed to exchange momentum
between positrons, may help us comprehend the action of a quanta, but
in characterizing quanta as particles and waves we are embellishing
simple equal and opposite half spin twists with a deeper reality than
they actually posses. Ultimately, doing so, will lead us to the wrong
answers and the false believe that the quantum is strange.
Jim
==== .
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik. Socratusworldnpa.org/php2/index.php? … ay&id=1372
===================== . .
Socratus
‘I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.’
======== .
Comments:
1.
Sorry, SRT doesn’t care about Light Quanta at all.
On the contrary:
SRT is just describing light as a flat wave without any particles at all.
/ Zephir /
2.
SR does not deal with photons.
They pertain to - and initialized - the quantum physics.
Photons are observed by emission and absorption.
What propagates is the other aspect of light - the wave.
Electron waves and field aspects of all particles propagate at C.
/ Georges Metanomski /
3.
Mr. Israel, there is no such thing as quanta of light as it contradicts SR.
The particle wave duality of light fails as this duality of QM works
only for subluminal waves. Photons are not quantum particles
as they violates Uncertainty principle.
/ Dr. Kanda /
Socratus:
Why I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.
In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper :
‘ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.’ ( SRT).
And the photon is an electrodynamics body – particle.
So, the particle - quantum of light is part of SRT.
======== .