Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Jason Wolfe: on 3/26/11 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote Alan, In the sense that gravity is an extended object.

Alan Lowey: on 3/26/11 at 10:18am UTC, wrote Jason, Okay, I'm happy with the notion that light and gravity can't travel...

Jason Wolfe: on 3/25/11 at 6:18am UTC, wrote Alan, After re-reading the "speed of gravity" link, it seems to be saying...

Jason Wolfe: on 3/25/11 at 2:30am UTC, wrote Alan, Every experimentally verifiable phenomena is decomposed into either...

Jason Wolfe: on 3/24/11 at 23:42pm UTC, wrote Hi Alan, Photon Theory states that ALL experimental phenomena can be...

Alan Lowey: on 3/24/11 at 13:37pm UTC, wrote Jason, Apologies, I've just read this from Wikipedia: In the context of...

Alan Lowey: on 3/24/11 at 13:34pm UTC, wrote Hi Jason, I just had a thought. From Wikipedia it says "Laplace had shown...

Alan Lowey: on 3/22/11 at 12:49pm UTC, wrote Jason, Thanks but I'll probably end up leaving that to someone better...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Observation products formed from received EMr aren't evidence of material..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "Cf. Lion Location Probability Field and lion entity trapped- with QFT type..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Lorraine, in the case of the crashing twin-towers, the term “top-down..." in The Present State of...

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Steve, take also care Steve, and may the force of the three spheres be..." in The Present State of...

Jim Snowdon: "Since evolving on our rapidly rotating planet, we have used it`s rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "a general universal clock of evolution irreversible correlated for me with..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM
September 18, 2021

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Photon Theory by Jason Mark Wolfe [refresh]

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 15:55 GMT
Essay Abstract

While discrete forms of mathematical interpretation of reality are helpful, reality is in fact analog. To argue this point, Photon Theory (PT) is introduced. PT is a conceptual framework that identifies the subtle connection between gravity and light. PT enhances the derivation of time dilation by integrating redshift. PT predicts that the time rate of change of photon frequency will induce a gravity field. PT derives a possible alternative to the graviton called the shift photon. PT concludes with an experimental design for a shift photon generator more commonly known as a gravity beam.

Author Bio

Graduated with a BS in physics from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1991. Served 4 years in the US Army as a 91B medic from 1997 to 2001. Dropped out of graduate school in Electrical Engineering at UT@Austin after 1 year of Semiconductor Physics coursework. Graduated with BS in Electronics Engineering Technology from DeVry University in 1995. Presently employed at Tektronix as an Electronics Test Technician III.

Robert Spoljaric wrote on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear James,

I enjoyed reading your essay and am writing to you, for the subject of photons is the basis of my essay.

The question that interests most, if not all, physicists these day is the question of whether or not the Higgs field exists. Thus it is possible to contrast both our essays, by tying it in to a question of fundamental importance to physics!

As you mention “The Higgs field is intended to explain the origin of mass.” In your theory “the Higgs field is just the cluster of wave-functions with trapped photons.” On the other hand, in my ‘theory’ the Higgs field is superfluous. (I say ‘theory’ because my essay deals only with the foundations for a theory.)

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate
Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 22:34 GMT
Dear Jason,

Sorry I did not mean to call you James.

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
Hi Robert,

The thing about mass and the Higgs field is that we have to ask: what is mass? Photons don't have mass and they travel at the speed of light. Notice too that they store their energy content as freqeuncy. No other particle can claim that. How fast do other particles move? Answer: less than c...usually a lot less. Why? Because they have mass. So what does this mean? Mass must be the property that prevents light speed travel. Isn't that what the Higgs field really is?

I think particles are clusters of wave-functions with photons trapped inside. Why? Because when a photon meets its anti-photon partner, annihilation is complete. You don't get particle fragments. It's,

The Whole Enchilada PLUS anti-The Whole Enchilada ---> Flash of gamma rays and no particle fragments. The lack of particle fragments is the clue.

The other reason I think particles have photons trapped inside is because of gravitational time dilation. What makes it so difficult to get up out of bed in the morning? Gravity! It's this thing that weighs us down. The curvature of space-time creates a graviational time dilation. The trapped photons would prefer to be in free fall; however, the floor prevents this.

$W=\int Fdy$

If we want to get out of bed and run up stairs to the tenth floor, we have to perform work against the time dilation field that resists a blue shift unless energy is provided.

Thank you for reading my resume. Best wishes.

report post as inappropriate
Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 04:00 GMT
Hello Jason,

With no disrespect intended, but my essay (Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics?) answers your questions regarding 'mass,' and why the Higgs field is superfluous.

All the very best to you,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 05:08 GMT
Hi Robert,

I'll have to read your paper. I actually agree with you that the Higgs field is unnecessary. I was writing my paper this weekend. When I thought about the idea of a field that gives mass, I realized that: if a massive particle is described as a cluster of wave-functions with trapped photons inside (which are massless), then the only thing that can act like a Higgs field would be the empty shell of the wave-function cluster without the photons.

BTW, I wanted to make a correction. When photons, either free or trapped, climb out of a gravity well, they redshift as if their frequency energy was being converted into potential energy (or at least the optical analogue thereof).

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 12:01 GMT
Hello Jason,

In my essay is a generalisation of the energy of a photon that applies to 'matter.' Hence, you will find 'matter' has frequency rather than mass. You should therefore be able to relate the frequency of 'matter' to gravitational time dilation.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 10:24 GMT
Hi Jason,

Happy to see your essay on this contest.

For all readers, Jason is the creative of FQXi,

Good luck Jason the creative.

Steve

report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 16:19 GMT
Thank you Steve. Are you going to submit an essay on Spheres?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 11:41 GMT
You are welcome.

No in fact always the same problem, I can't resume and my english is too bad.

If I had a team , probably I will wrote them, but at this moment, no.

Your essay is very beautiful, always full of creativity.good luck Jason the creative.

All the best

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Roy Johnstone wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 01:04 GMT
Hi Jason,

When you say "photons are trapped inside particles" do you mean in the sense of a potential, analogous perhaps to the "probability" of photon emission as quantified by the fine structure constant? Or do you mean they are physically there?

Photons by the way, are their own anti-particle, there is no sense in which an independant "anti-photon" exists!

Cheers

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 03:13 GMT
Hi Roy,

I know that photons are said to be their own anti-particle. I have trouble with that idea because suggests that two photons would meet and "Poof!!!" they annihilate each other. I think it's better right now that anti-photons do not exist.

Clusters of wave-functions with trapped inside is a kind of a simplistic image with some humor and dread thrown in there. But the effect is the same. I was looking for a wave-function description of an electron, but I couldn't find one. When a quantum physicist derives a wave-function for a particle, there are energy levels, spin, and perhaps other quantum numbers. They will use Dirac notation and other ways of managing the wave-functions making them easier to work with. But the wave-functions exist. The energy spreads out throughout the wave-functions (the eigenstates). But I am arguing that even if we don't see a photon of light, the energy contained within the particle wave-function will still react to the presense of time dilation in the same or similar way that a lone photon would.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 02:50 GMT
Jason,

Steve's right, you are creative.

Just last week you pointed out that information is lost when photons are redshifted (and vice versa). That's an important observation.

I like your shift photon as frequency analog of Newton's force equation. But although gravity produces a force, force does not necessarily produce gravity, unless gravity and acceleration are defined to be identical. But then what does one call it when an electric field accelerates a charged particle--gravity?

Often in an equation, the equal sign has sort of a 'one-way' meaning. I suspect it's the same for photon shift.

On the other hand I have recently focused more effort on understanding the coupling of the electromagnetic and the gravitomagnetic fields and have run across a few surprises. I just posted a brief paper relating to some ideas from Peter Jackson's essay that I liked and that Willard Mittelman also thought were significant. The paper is here:

GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

In my opinion [which is free, and worth just what you paid for it] you should continue to focus on photons and gravity. Particles as photons trapped by wave functions don't do much for me.

The issues that you are dealing with are complex and tricky. Time dilation, speed invariance, wavelength and frequency shifts due to gravity [or anything] are not simple or easy to understand, and you may yet figure out something that no one has seen. I had not seen the info loss you mentioned.

Unless I'm completely confused, even if the photon shift worked to produce gravity, would not the sawtooth ramp shown in figure 4 produce oscillations rather than sustained propulsion? Each repeat involves a negative shift (the 'flyback') that cancels the previous positive shifts. Of course some sound engineers have figured out how to generate a tone that sounds like it's always ascending, going higher and higher. I'm not sure how they do it but I suspect it's based on chords and some trick of the auditory system. You might ask Eckard how that works. Usually it's hard to get real work out of such tricks.

Your writing is delightful--- "Goood Mooorrrnning Houusstonnn" and your insights are original. You may not have solved the gravity beam (as I understand it) but I would be the last person to try to stop you from thinking truly original thoughts. They all look crazzy at first!

Good luck my friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate
Robert Spoljaric replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 03:33 GMT
Hello Dr. Klingman,

That's why I think you are a great guy. Always encouraging!

Jason,

Now you know why I praise the man, that I consider to be an 'expert,' or at least sufficiently knowledgable to pass for one. When he comments it pays to listen.

All the best to you both,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT
Indeed indeed dear Edwin, you saw dear Robert, he is very creative,....his real name is spock !

A SPACE SHIP A SPACE SHIP A SPACE SHIP.....

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 10:51 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thank you for those encouraging comments. It's nice to occasionally get feedback different from "you're an idiot" and "you shift photon is bulls***". However, my theory is strong enough to withstand the barrage of attacks. All I have to do is say, "gravity causes frequency shift. Let's check to see if it works the other way."

When a photon falls from A to B due to a gravity field, what happens? The photon frequency shifts from f_A to f_B. So we get,

$hf_B = hf_A + U_{GR}$

This means that the photon gains frequency energy by losing gravitational potential energy,

$\Delta E = h\Delta f = U_{GR}$

So the gravitational potential energy carried by just one photon is,

$U_{GR} = h\Delta f$

By using lasers, we can get a Delta f = 300THz as rapidly as 10 picoseconds. They flyback might only amount to a 100GHz vibration that goes unnoticed.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 12:38 GMT
Hi Jason

Loved the essay. The language was poetic compared to the self congratulatory technotroglogobbldygook of those here to chain physics to the 19th century.

But, for logical consistency, two questions;

1. As light is transmitted by atomic scattering (at n= 1.003 ish in gas/air), so, if we see the passing of a 'pulse' in a train car from the side as it goes past, how come we have to see it changed to red, by the trains v when, it's actually still blue in the train, and we're only seeing a series of scattering transmissions by the scattering particles?

2. If we're 'at rest' near and wrt a black hole (a tricky assumption!) and see a string of photons being sucked in and accelerated, which one is accelerated first? Can I suggest the first/nearest one? So we will see the gaps between them open up as they get sucked in. Is this not equivalent to red shift!? And if another string, each say a mile apart, is blasted out by a quasar jet, which would slow down first? Would you agree the first? - equivalent to blue shift. This is the reverse of your assumption.

I believe the problem relates to observer frames. Just to cite time dilation seems to give a chicken and egg problem. (One of Edwin's bootstraps). And I can neutralise the effect but I can't derive the opposite. Unless we have an aether (or 'C' field?) with a density gradient to drive a time gradient? Allowing the ether without paradox must be the key, which the DFM does.

However, whatever the solutions, or any views on the content, the style and honesty of your paper certainly deserves a high mark.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 03:28 GMT
Dear Peter,

I am grateful that you took the time to read my paper. It's probably not at all easy to make sense of. I sincerely want to figure out where you and I are making a different assumption. I just want to get to the bottom of the matter. Only thenn can we construct a correct theory.

Number 2 is easier, I'll start there. In a vacuum, photons don't accelerate. If we assume that black hole has nothing to eat, then this assumption is reasonable. Gravitational time dilation really refers to fixed points. I can't build a tower on an event horizon, but if we build a framework around the blackhole, then we can build a tower. The top of the tower is point A, the bottom is point B. Our laser is fixed to the top at point A, and the photons will fall to point B.

At your request, a train of photons is emitted from A and absorbed at point B. The invariance of the speed of light is true from point A to point B. As such, each photon will blueshift in accordance with the time dilation equation given in Appendix A.

You asked, "If we're 'at rest' near and wrt a black hole (a tricky assumption!) and see a string of photons being sucked in and accelerated, which one is accelerated first? Can I suggest the first/nearest one? So we will see the gaps between them open up as they get sucked in."

Now, we really can't want photons get sucked into a black hole. The best we can do is observe the very rapid redshift of photons trying to escape the black hole. When there are no more redshifted photons, then we can conclude that our laser has been devoured by the black hole.

Also, photons always travel at c, locally, even across signficant time dilation. Whether or not a black hole can violate the Invariance of c by making the photon's path "non-local from A to B", is a matter I would take up with experts. As for gaps between the photons, that would mean that time dilation has broken down and I would again defer to an expert on black holes. I can say that a breakdown in time dilation would also be a breakdown in conservation of energy. I'm not aware of any accepted black hole theory that permits a violation of conservation of energy.

Question 1:

The oncoming train emits photons that are blueshifted at the inertial frame of the observer. As the train passes, time dilation t'/t=gamma. As the train moves away, then redshift occurs. Scattering is not a form of transmission, it's really an obstruction to transmission. I think you mean that the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by scattering events. Even if there was a gas (fog) between the train and the observer, I'm just not seeing how time dilation can be violated.

I gotta get back to work. I'll think about it.

Once again, thank you for reading my paper.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 05:34 GMT
Hi Peter,

Have you considered the possibility that the M87 jet consists of gravitationally significant quantities of matter/energy? In other words, yes, the speed of light is invariance, locally. However, the size of the gravitatioanal body determines the relative velocity of light. In other words, the M87 jet is really an extremely gravitationally massive, high velocity fluid. The speed of light is relative to the gravity field that the local invariance occurs within. The velocity of light is relative to the most gravitaionally significant object around.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 22:11 GMT
Mass ultimately relates to force/energy in conjunction with balanced attraction and repulsion and fundamental distance in/of space.

The bedrock of [what is] reality in physics cannot escape this fact. This balances/unifies gravity and inertia.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 20:41 GMT
Dear Jason,

On page one, you said:

"Virtual photons are the mediators of the electromagnetic force, and permit color charge to operate so that gluons can mediate the strong force. Photons are the first and primary form of energy...", and

"The strong force, which holds protons and neutrons (hadrons) together, is mediated by gluons. Quantum Chromo-dynamics ays that quarks and gluons are composed of fractional charges called color-charge. But fractional color charge is still electric charge; partial electric charges induce partial electric fields which are mediated by virtual photons. While gluons mediate the strong force, virtual photons are the unsung heroes that make color charge available and allow gluons to do their job."

I don't mind you relating photons with the Weak force and with Higgs, because they are all components of Standard Electro-Weak (although a Higgs might travel faster than the speed of light, and Z's and W's travel slower). I might also be OK with similarities between the photon and gravity - since gravity is due to Spacetime curvature that we observe via photons.

However, I think you should drop the photon-gluon comparison. There are implications that weak hypercharge and color charge are related by a simple fraction 3/8's at unification, but color force is stronger than EM, and has a very short range due to color confinement. The colors: Red, Green and Blue are not fractional, but the electric charges of 2/3 e and -1/3 e are fractional. However, if we defined e'=3e, then we would never have fractional electric charges with our current particle spectrum.

On page 3, you mentioned the "Free Energy Universe". Wikipedia calls it the Zero-Energy or Free-Lunch Hypothesis. You and/or your reference are mixing up terminology.

Also on page 3, you asked:

"What is the evidence that the quantum vacuum, also known as empty space, is filled with wave-functions?"

This is very similar to the Dirac Sea that I used in my essay, and to the vacuum expectation value (vev) of the Higgs Mechanism.

I think you should simplify the presentation a little bit (how ironic - I never make my ideas simple enough...), and ask for a research grant.

I see we have more in common than I previously knew - we both dropped out of U Texas (Austin) - but I was there about twenty years before you. I had qualified for the Physics Doctoral program (by completing the core coursework and qualifying seminar), but was too "burnt out" to finish a degree at that time... Years later, I completed my Doctorate at Florda State U.

Good Luck in the Essay Contest!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 01:15 GMT
Hi Doctor Ray,

Thank you very much for reading my essay.

I wish I knew how to simplify these ideas. Too much similification, and the spark of insight is lost.

It should be zero energy universe. I wish I could make the change now.

There are two experiments that demonstrate that empty space is filled with wave-functions. First, the Casimir Effect. As two plates are moved together, there are fewer and fewer wave-functions between the plates that can push back the many wave-functions on the outside of the plates. I guess the question becomes: how do I know that wavefunctions can push?

Second, the Lamb Shift attributes a deviation from the expected 2p orbitital to the hydrogen's interaction with the quantum vacuum. Third, when the two slit experiment is performed, one particle (electron or photon) at a time, the particles still form a diffraction pattern. That tells me that the wave-function(s) permeate the whole experiment.

report post as inappropriate
Ray B Munroe replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 14:53 GMT
Hi Jason,

I was too vague. I think the parts that I most disagree with are about the color force - I don't think it is directly relevant to your argument about Photon Shift Theory, and I think your color arguments aren't quite correct.

Everything else is well-presented. I especially like how you reproduced equations from Special Relativity within your theory's assumptions.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 19:12 GMT
Hi Ray,

I admit that I am no expert in QCD physics. I was referring to the electric charge that sums to 0,+1 or -1 for a neutron, proton or anti-proton. You suggested that I let this point go. It's still related to wave-function "stuff". I'll leave it at that.

Thank you for noticing my inclusion of redshift within the derivation of special relativity. I still think that photons deserve significantly more emphasis from theoretical physicists. They hold the key to the unification between gravity and quantum mechanics simply because gravitational time dilation and photon frequency are directly connected. Physics has a funny relationship with causality. All too often, if it works in one direction, then it works in both directions. This happens in physics so frequently that we should run experiments just to check. That is the idea of shift photons.

But human beings are funny creatures. They will laugh and scoff at the very idea that flying saucers, spaceships and aliens might be flying around. Such things destroy what humans call "credibility". Yet, when they are shown the physics of how such things work, human beings will yawn, eyes will glaze over, they will nod and call it creative, but then they won't perform the test until someone works out the Hamiltonian. So, I'm working on the Hamiltonian.

I'm hoping that someday internet archeologists will discover my essay and, "Wow! What a great idea! Let's try synthesizing shift photons and see if they carry momentum and gravity!" Maybe we'll have star-ships and hyper-drives by the next millenia. What do you think?

report post as inappropriate

Ray B Munroe replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 21:19 GMT
Hi Jason,

I agree that photons are important, but I think that every U(1) symmetry with a potentially "infinite" range is important - perhaps the Graviton, perhaps a Higgs - but our symmetries are broken such that we haven't been able to easily find those boson quanta.

Yes - Quarks have fractional electric charges, but not fractional color charges. When I performed the Millikan Oil Drop experiment in college, I got a strange result of q = e/3 (so I was off by a factor of three - I guess there are reasons why I ended up in Theory...), but my Instructor said "Ha, It looks like you found a free quark." I knew he was kidding...

I'm looking forward to anti-gravity hover cars.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
Hi Guys

Jason I answer 2 points and gave food for thought on the "massive gravity..." string.

Ref gravity, I agree, but only as part of something like Edwin's combined C field. Consider how the magnets in the LHC bend space-time, and how a massive cloud of photoelectrons is needed to do it, emitting synchrotron light (big secret money going into looking deeper into that at present! - or not 'looking', as it also involves stealth technology!) The particles have inertial mass - which I believe should give us equivalence with gravitational mass.

Ray,

Do also look and let me know how the trip felt! I use a basic version of scales but don't have a clue if there's any relevance to yours. i'm sure your concept if far less agricultural. I keep trying to read your essay and promise I will soon.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 06:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

P:"Consider how the magnets in the LHC bend space-time, and how a massive cloud of photoelectrons is needed to do it, emitting synchrotron light (big secret money going into looking deeper into that at present! - or not 'looking', as it also involves stealth technology!) "

Those magnets produce a heck of a lot of magnetic field, but they don't bend or curve space-time. How do I know? You can take two atomic clocks. Leave one of them safelty away from the magnets (it must be at the same elevation as the other atomic clock). Put the other one behind one of those magnets while it is energized. After about an hour, take the second atomic clock and place it next to the first atomic clock. Both clocks should read the same. The magnetic field does not induce a time dilation. There is graviational time dilation, relativistic time dilation and rotational (Sagnac) time dilation.

Nobody has ever observed a magnetic field time dilation.

BTW, you've mentioned several times that a cloud of photoelectrons is an observation that proves that this particular inertial frame is traveling very close to the speed of light relative to a slower moving inertial frame. Can you please elaborate on that. What causes the cloud of photon electrons?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 20:49 GMT
Jason

I agree. the em field does't 'curve space-time' but it does of course curve and accelerate the beam!! (or let me know how else you think it's done!) which is the precise effect being described.

'Nobody has ever observed a magnetic field time dilation'. You might find nobody has observed anything else! (except it's done via particles) Have a look at the ref's I've just posted in Georgina's string.

The photoelectrons (or now more trendy 'virtual' electrons) condense from the field at the exact density and frequency needed to scatter and diffract the light (with the slight PMD delay) in both the frame o the magnet and the beam so they have to interact (I told you of the very high density yesterday) to do a pretty convincing impression of curved space time.

Mmmmm, I can smell roast duck a l'orange - look at the ref's on Georgina's and tell me if you can too..

Here's an old free one on CERN.;Kireeff, M. et al. Absolute Measurement of Electron-Cloud Density in a Positively Charged Particle Beam. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 054801 July 2006 http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.054801

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 21:29 GMT
Peter,

I thought virtual electron clouds were observed when inertial frames reached relativistic velocities. There's a lot of kinetic energy in a mass moving at 0.99c, even though it's not traveling that much faster than a mass moving at 0.9c.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 13:18 GMT
Jason

That's what many assume, but look at the graphs, the 'fine structure' starts increasing in flux and oscillation virtually as soon as motion starts!

The kinetic energy pretty well exactly matches the relative frame velocity and frequency, which matches the energy put in, which matches the Doppler shift, which, according to equivalence principle and experiment, also precisely matches the Gravitational mass. Ergo; I am proposing some connections exist.

ie. I only propose 3, and falsifiable, things;

1. If 5 basketballs hit you they will hurt more than 1, even more if they go faster, but not if they aren't moving, but they also weigh more than 1.

2. If your radio had FM it's oscillator will change light speed, i.e. em wave speed, to that transmitted so you can hear 'Fly me to the moon' perfectly even if you're flying to the moon. (all via Christian Doppler).

3. Plasma makes up over 99% of the universe and has a c/n (in it's own frame.)

Some seem to think those are nonsense as my theory varies slightly from SR, even though it follows Einstein's own view, but no-one has yet produced one iota of scientific refutation of my very powerfully predictive model. I really wish they would, or at least try! There's a brilliant link to probably the best cosmology available in Don Limuti's essay, which is spot on and consistent in all departments. I've even predicted and can derive the spiral anisotropy of the CMB, - with real photographic evidence that would hold up in court!

I think there is a way out for your theory too, but not quite the way you were heading. Look at Don's link. His essay is mainly spot on too.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 01:15 GMT
Hi Peter,

I really want to understand your perspective and ideas. But there are some ideas that you've said that I don't quite square with.

P:"2. If your radio had FM it's oscillator will change light speed, i.e. em wave speed, to that transmitted so you can hear 'Fly me to the moon' perfectly even if you're flying to the moon. (all via Christian Doppler)."

I have an FM radio at home (like most people). But if FM radios could change the speed of light, ... wait, do you mean slow it down as in c/n where n>=1?

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 14:59 GMT
Hi Jason, yes I liked your photon theory essay very much. All that is needed is a visual reprentation of the photon imo. Have you ever considered the Archimedes screw as an anlogy for something with both particle and wave properties?

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 01:09 GMT
Hi Alan,

I can't say I've heard about Archimedes screw. But now that I've read about it, yeah, I see a connection. Actually, I see a connection between Archimedes screw and the shift photon. But you asked if AS is a good analogy for particles versus waves. By wave, do you mean massless particles like photons? Well, I see particles as being inertial frames unto themselves. In contrast, a wave (a photon) is something that frequency shifts between two inertial frames.

Thank you for the Archimedes screw idea. That made my day. :-)

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 10:50 GMT
You just made my day too! You're the second author to appreciate the Archimedes screw idea. I'm still thinking in very abstract terms and so believe the visualisation can both represent 'massless' entities like photons and 'heavy' particles like quarks. The helix can be shaped into a ring-donut for example to give an added dimension. There could also be double-helices in a ring donut configuration. There could be opposite spinning helices in a ring donut i.e. a neutron type configuration. Both could be spinning in the same direction i.e. a proton-type configuarion or both opposite i.e. an anti-proton configuration. The possiblities are enough to fill all the niches of quantum mechanics or the six confgurations of quarks imo. It's such a simple idea yet full of potential.

Imagine that the Archimedes screw spins so as to cause a force of attraction when interacting with another particle. If this Archimedes screw then travelled around a hypersphere, or wraparound universe, then it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy! This helical ring-donut idea then can model the idea of an electric circuit. One terminal of a battery spins clockwise, whilst the other end, once travelled around the circuit would arrive at the other terminal spinning anti-clockwise. See what I mean?

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 10:51 GMT
P.S you haven't entered your author's code so that your replies highlight in yellow.

report post as inappropriate

Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Jason Wolfe,

Your essay is very interesting and original. However, in addition to published above notes, I also found some physical errors.

'Photons are fundamental to all particles in the standard model'. According to modern science the matter is though to be made of quarks and leptons, but not photons.

Photons are the carriers of causality - it is not correct, we can also send causal signals using neutrino, gravitation waves, beams of protons, neutrons, electrons, and so on.

Distance and time are defined with photons - we can define distance and time also using coherent beams of atoms or electrons.

All physical phenomena exists because wave-functions exist - the wave-FUNCTION is a mathematical term only. In the same way you can say that numbers, integrals, tensors and differential equations really exist. If wave-functions can really exist, then please explain their composition, mass, structure, and lifetime. If particles annihilate, it do not mean that particles are wavefunctions. Photons cannot be trapped inside of particles, it is forbidden by quantum mechanics, for example by uncertainty principle. Since the rest of your essay also is based on particles with photons trapped inside, I stop here.

You are welcome and thank you for essay. The main goal of our contest is to involve people in physics research. All people must love physics and publish essays.

Good Luck in the Essay Contest!

Constantin

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 07:52 GMT
Dear Constanin,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. It is my privilege to defend the points that you raised.

1. "Photons are the carriers of causality - it is not correct, we can also send causal signals using neutrino, gravitation waves, beams of protons, neutrons, electrons, and so on."

Protons, neutrons and electrons can all be annihilated by their...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
Hi Jason,

it was good that you entered the competition as you have been able to get far more interest and feedback on your ideas that you were getting posting on FQXi blog threads and other forums alone. You have been posting about this particular idea on the blogs for some time now.

I have read all of the comments here with interest. I really don't feel suitably qualified, or currently alert enough, to debate the topic with you here. But I have enjoyed our many conversations on FQXi blogs. I have difficulty keeping up with your innovations there. I continue to enjoy seeing the various arguments for and against from the sidelines. Good luck. I hope you continue to have lots of interest and positive feedback on your writing.

report post as inappropriate
Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 08:09 GMT
Hi Georgina,

It's great to hear from you. I do enjoy our discussions (when I can find them). I do understand that it's hard to keep up with the rapidly changing innovations. I have to throw out a lot of ideas because they don't agree with the experiments. I take a "survival of the fittest" approach to theoretical physics. Then, explaining ideas is a simple way is another challenge. If my girlfriend can understand my idea(s), and she is a former kindergarten teacher, then I know I can satisfy Occam's razor.

I think your investigation of what is reality is a really important topic. I liked the idea of an image reality for objects that are spatially separated. It reminds me of the photons that are going back and forth between the two objects. Photons make up the image reality.

I wish you lots of luck in the contest.

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 10:02 GMT
Jason,

thank you very much.

I do think deciding what is meant by reality is an important first step. I would not say that the photons are the image reality but they are certainly the data that allows the image reality to be formed. A very important part the whole process that allows image reality to emerge from the underlying object reality. Taking a photographic plate as an example of a reality interface, it would be the blackened grains of silver nitrate that form the image. In the case of human consciousness it might be electrical activity within the visual cortex.

You are right it is harder to explain to other people, clearly and concisely, than to know what we think ourselves.By explaining to others and getting feedback the ideas become clarified in our own minds. FQXi blogs has been very useful in that regard. Not everyone thinks alike and analogy or example that works for one person might not work for another.

I do wish more members would pop in to the conversations occasionally. Florin has been good. He is also participating on these competition threads I notice. Although he really knows his subject he can also explain things in a very straightforward and simple way, without being patronizing. There is still a month to go before the threads are closed. I will be back and hope I can be more constructive and helpful.I need to get some more sleep, so that my brain can work, first.

Best wishes, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 07:00 GMT
Ultimately, gravity has to obey wavelike behavior, even if it's not observable. Here is why. In order for gravity to obey the Einstein equations, every particle and quantum of mass-energy must emit a 4D spherical wave pattern that announces the particle's mass-energy content. These wave-patterns travel to the ends of the universe carrying gravitational potential energy information. And of course, as these wave-patterns expand, there gravitational potential becomes weaker by,

$U=-\frac{GMm}{r}$

On the receiving end, every particle, wave and object receives a spherical gravitational potential wave-front that collapses down to the particle/object in question. This collapsing wave-front is carrying gravitational potential energy. Remember, these wave-fronts are traveling at the speed of light, and they are being emitted and absorbed continusouly. They are like a constant flow of gravitational information.

Call them wave-functions, gravity waves or whatever you like. This is how graviational information is transmitted and received. But this gravity flow is real. It's called the curvature of space-time and it explains how everything is connected to this universe.

James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 18:49 GMT
Particle-wave duality is useful, but unnecessary: all photons are waves. In fact, all particles are waves because they’re made out of wave-functions. Particles appear point-like from very far away or low magnification

Jason,

You avoid reference to popular theories. Does this view not owe a debt to string theory? Sorry for the simple question.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate
Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 04:14 GMT
Jim,

Does string theory propose any 10 dimensional technology? I can justify why shift photons should be a candidate for:

a. gravity propulsion drive/tractor beam technology;

b. part of a theory of quantum gravity.

I can even explain why conservation of energy is not the obstacle to gravity field generation. I can explain how an Alcubierre drive might be possible without the need to use huge quantities of energy. Shift photons are testable and falsifiable.

If string theory can offer the mechanisms necessary for an advanced new technology, then I must have missed it. Please provide a link.

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 22:08 GMT
Jason

I'm missed your post way above..

If you're listening on Concord on the runway, then take off and do mach2 the waves will arrive either red or blue shifted, so Frank Sinatra may have had lungs full of Helium! or Nancy sound like Lee Hazelwood.

In theory the crystal oscillates in an FM radio oscillate at the original transmitted frequency (Wave/Particle interaction) and modulate the frequency so you get it perfect as transmitted. (actually we'd really need to get into aerials as well but let's not complicate it).

Now think about what we've just said logically. Using 'c' as a constant, LOCALLY the f and lambda have been set back to original whatever the observer speed!! Actually the plasma fine structure of the aerial changes the wave speed to 'c' wrt the aerial, if the windscreen of concord hasn't already changed it by making it go through the glass at the c/n of glass and change to the air at c/n. If you lie in bed for an hour and think about that, using ALL your brain, you may get the Eureka moment.

It explains determinism, Locality reality, and relativity with the quantum mechanism of oscillating plasma. either physicists have refused to see it as they think it may put them out of a job (which it wouldn't) or they don't have the logical brainpower so don't really deserve to be IN the job!

Let me know if and when the penny drops.

best regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 02:36 GMT
Dear Peter,

You said, "LOCALLY the f and lambda have been set back to original whatever the observer speed!!"

That's the part I'm not comfortable with. It's like you're saying that any particle that absorbs a photon (becomes the observer), has now "reset" the speed of light to its own reference frame. But it seems as if that would present a real problem for the Lortentz transform.

If a photon emits from particle A and is absorbed at particle B, where A and B have radically diffeent veloicities and are two particles in a vacuum, the only thing we can say is that the freqeuncy might change between particle A and B. Both particles A and B interacted with the photon as an object that travels at the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 15:45 GMT
Jason

Yes, It seems to keep appearing to you then going again! It does indeed reduce the LT to the curve of acceleration power required approaching 'c'.

Imagine particle A as in space and particle B as in the glass of a spaceship windscreen. Both re-emitt the photon energy at 'c' with respect to their own reference frames. (I asked each of them, and neither gave a damn about who or what else was moving anywhere else or at what speed. They were each under strict instructions to emit photons at 'c' and that's what they do!)

Yes, if the spacecraft is going forward the arrival frequency of photons will be higher, if going backwards it is lower! How simple can it be!

When B's mate on the other face of the glass passes the photon on into the spaceship the air particle also sends it on at 'c'. (Nobody told him how fast the ship was going or in which direction - and he doesn't give a damn either!).

If my 8 year old nephew can hold it in his brain it must be possible for anyone (unless you've been indoctrinated with rubbish of course!).

Is it sticking yet? look at my post under Tome essay if you'd like the train version.

Once you have it, and start thinking consequences, it the paradoxes of physics start melting away! A few seem to be getting it in my string now.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT
Peter,

So we'll chalk this up to the infinite many reference frames moving through space idea. Within each frame, the speed of light is always c. For photons that transition between reference frames, there is a time dilation/frequency shift/Doppler shift for each photon. For M87 jets with clock speeds in excess of 7c, we won't worry about why we can see the jet. We'll wait until we can build FTL drives, and then we'll run experiments.

If I forget it again, just say the words ""infinite many frames of reference".

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 18:45 GMT
Hi Jason

The same explains M87 etc. Just envisage an ant sized train moving on a toy train on a moving pavement, within a bigger train, within a bigger train, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy going by you. From your frame you add them all up so may even measure the ants trains speed at 10c! - Infinitely many 'spaces' again. And nothing breaches 'c' locally.

(Ahe light from the ants train keeps changing to local 'c' all the way to you).

As I say, once you get your head round it it actually seems to solve ALL problems. Throw one at me, ..the shortage of Lithium 7 in the universe?, the re-ionisation problem?..Dark Flow?, Superluminal travel?, Where all the odd socks end up?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 21:33 GMT
Hi Peter,

From the

a) ant sized train to the

b) toy train to the

c) moving pavement to the

d) bigger train to the

e) second bigger train to the

f) planet to the

g) solar system to the

h) galaxy,

your saying that the beacon/tiny LED on a) can potentially be observed by an observer in the frame of h) faster than the speed of light?

To put this another way, your saying that I can propel mass-energy using a series of cylindrical energy jet flows labeled

a) inner

b) 2nd inner,

c) 3rd inner,

d) 3rd outer,

e) 2nd outer,

f) and first outer cylindrical mass-energy jet.

You're saying that I can do all this by relying upon the index of refraction of the energy alone. I don't see how. The M87 jet was propelling gravitationally significant amounts of mass energy. But let's take a closer look.

M87 spits out first outer f), f) spits out e), e) spits out d), ... b) spits out a). Is that the idea?

I don't agree that index of refraction will let you do this.

I do agree that gravitationally significant energy jets CAN overcome the speed of light barrier.

What say you?

report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 21:57 GMT
Dear Jason,

I wanted to say hello and let you know I enjoyed reading your essay. Your thoughts about all particles being made of photons give a lot to ponder. I have been very interested in analyzing possible internal motion of photons and the similarities with the motion of other particles, so that is partly why your essay struck a chord. I believe considering an internal motion as driven by a single sustaining potential allows several things to come together at a fairly deep level. Your essay gives me encouragement to continue looking at the similarities.

Your essay is very interesting and also satisfying in your use of math with accurate units. Overall, a very enjoyable and thought provoking essay! It gets a high mark from me and I hope it does well.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 05:46 GMT
Hi Russell,

Thank you very much for reading my essay. I am glad that you enjoyed it.

You mentioned the idea of internal motion of photons. What I find interesting about photons is that the mathematics for photons, and many other areas of physics, presumes an absense of internal parts. That is actually a good thing. If you had internal parts, it means you have to consider all of the interactions between internal parts. With photons, the absense of internal parts (or internal motion) frees us to come up with creative interactions between physics equations. In other words, the absense of internal parts or motion means that the universe isn't concerned about those details. If it's not concerned, then we could get away with such things as frequency shift photons.

Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 07:01 GMT
You do have a creative ability to define equations with accurate units that describe unusual possibilities. I suspect that if internal motion was discovered, you would still find creative applications in working with it. I tend to lean towards photons and other particles being made out of the same thing and they have similar rules of internal motion. I think that is why I find your essay quite interesting.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 18:13 GMT
Hi Russell,

R:"I tend to lean towards photons and other particles being made out of the same thing and they have similar rules of internal motion. "

I think you're right. I think that photons are more fundamental than any other particle. With all of the telecommunications and data modulations of lasers, I am truly surprised that nobody has bothered to ask if we could use light/lasers/RF frequencies to construct the profile of a graviton/gravity field. In the mean time, I'm looking at lasers, optics and electronics, trying to figure out if I can build it myself.

There is no way I could achieve a repetition rate of 1GHz or even 1MHz. However, I might be able to get 4 or 5 lasers to pulse for the same duration, in ascending/descending order, like a stairway of frequencies, with a repetition rate of 1000 times per second. I'll probably have to salvage some of the parts I need.

Won't this be fun!

Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 21:10 GMT
Hi Jason,

That sounds like great fun! It will probably be quite a sensitive experiment since any kind of gravity experiment is very delicate.

By the way, have you seen any of the optics work by Robert Boyd? He has some fascinating data on fast and slow light. One article in Photonics Spectra, Jan 2007 discusses group speed faster than c (although the pulse front is not faster c). I have kept his observations in mind while analyzing equations. It does seem like this kind of optics research gives us a tool to test against theories.

I would like to encourage you and I'll be interested to hear the results of your observations.

Kind regards, Russell

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 14:07 GMT
Jason

In response to above. You have it quite well but must consider this;

It's not that 'Index of refraction can DO it', the diffractive process can do very little, it's all about the fact that the index of refraction CAN'T STOP it!

A super massive toroid black hole spits the galactic matter back out as plasma at unbelievably high energies. Remember, the jet itself is quite big, many light years wide, and it ends up millions of light years long.

The first ejections are soon decelerated to 'c'.

The next ejections go quicker (to the outside observer) as the bit they're injected IN TO is already doing nearly 'c'!, but when the reach the jet 'head' they too are slowed down by the speed limit.

The next ejections find a nice 'moving pavement' and manage to avoid the 'n' until they too reach the jet head and the speed trap! and so on.. and on.. and on.

The outer edges of the 'tubes' are being slowed down progressively by 'n' all the time, but as you say, the power of n is limited and 'spread out' compared to a smbh. It always wins in the end, but obviously can't even 'get at' the sneaky central globules to slow them down till some time after ejection.

I've just returned to the UK from the Caribb, and we found a 150mph jet stream in our favour. It was very bumpy near the edges, but we got back around an HOUR earlier. That was because we did what those crafty central globules do!!

Look at my recent post on my essay string explaining the logic of the solution. And I've just realised I haven't rated you yet - top mark coming - I hope you have for me too!

Visualise some pictures and think it through a few times and it should stick. Then you can build the hyperexpressway. Actually there is one very central to us already, but we need to get there, and ride it safely!

How does it sound now?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 03:36 GMT
Hello Jason,

This contest postings have my head spinning. Sorry that I did not get to yours and comment. But since we have had long and sustained discussion before, I feel I know a bit of your Photon Theory. But Jason, I have some astonishing new results that have some relevance to your photons! I have mathematically proven that 'photons do not exist'! Seriously! Read my very short paper that I posted just last night!

“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”

I hope you can still support my efforts to get my essay (38) to the 'church' on time!

Best Wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 23:41 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

I am reading your paper. Your approach seems to offer a simplicity that would help make physics more accessible. But I didn't see an approach to gravity. Do you have any thoughts about that?

report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT
Hi Jason,

Just like old times! Good to talk with you again. Have you also checked my very simple and elegant proof that “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave” ? You may need to revise just a little your Photon Theory. I doubt if you really need photons to be particles in any of your theory.

About gravity and my essay. I do indeed have some ideas about gravity. But I am not prepared to intelligently discuss them yet. Still in the formative stage. I'll give you a sneak preview, however! I don't believe in gravity! In fact, I don't believe in any 'Universal Law'! In my humble opinion, all we can do a 'describe' Nature but not 'explain' it through Universal Law! Too often in Physics we mistake 'description' for 'explanation'. We inherently cannot explain anything. Only describe what we observe and measure. Anyway, my still very green idea about gravity revolves around such philosophic principles.

Jason, I need your support! As you have mine …

best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 03:00 GMT
For these reason, while digital might be helpful, reality is observably analog.

Jason,

While I agree with characterization of the nature of reality, I didn't follow how you posit it "observably" analog. What did I miss?

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate
Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 06:13 GMT
Hi Jim,

There are lots of measurements that have to be converted into digital voltage before the measurement can be processed digitally. There are voltage ranges for digital, CMOS, TTL, etc. The advantage of converting physical world measurements into digital is that digital is quicker and much easier to calculate. Analog to digital converters are used to convert measurements in the real world into digital. When digital to analog converters are used to synthesize a signal, there is still a "digital" appearance to the output signal; at least until the signal has spent some time in the enviroment where it begins to lose this digital appearance.

Light is said to obey particle-wave duality. We know from experiments with lenses that light has wave behavior. The fact that an atom might absorb or emit one photon is presented as the argument for particle behavior of light. Yet it is impossible to isolate a photon down to a point. If we try, we merely increase our odds of missing the photon.

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 19:58 GMT
Jason,

Because of your interest in 'all things photon' I want to make you aware of some good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to photons passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 00:14 GMT
Jason,

Busy day with my mail. Not only did I find the C-field info (in 'Science News') mentioned in my last comment, but I found info in the 4 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science' Vol 331 that will be of interest to you.

On page 1142 there is an overview titled, "Toward Synthesis of Arbitrary Optical Waveforms" which summarizes an article on page 1165 by Chan et al, titled "Synthesis and Measurement of Ultrafast Waveforms from Five Discrete Optical Harmonics"

As an example they show both synthesized square waves and triangle waves. This is pretty much what you proposed, so I thought you might find relevant data here.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate
Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 00:44 GMT
Edwin,

That's amazing. I would suggest they try synthesizing a sawtooth wave; since the derivative with respect to x is a force,

$F = -\frac{dU}{dx}$

I haven't yet found a free copy of the article. I might have to go down to the library.

I am glad that you also found something related to C-fields. I hope it turns out to be helpful to you.

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 02:45 GMT
Hi Edwin,

You said,"The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to photons passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. "

That is very interesting. I was toying with the idea of synthesizing a shift photon in such a way that the polarization of the next frequency starts where the polarization of the previous frequency ended. The hope is to produce corkscrew gravity forces. However, it sounds like spinning black holes already cause something like that to happen.

From reading the abstract of that article, it sounds like all five frequencies are being produced simultaneously. Do you think they will try to produce them sequencially at a high repetition rate? That is the idea of a shift photon.

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 03:10 GMT
Jason,

Today's been very busy and I just read enough to know that you would be very interested. I'll study the articles later.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 13:18 GMT
Jason

Well done for squeezing in. I hope you apologise nicely to Tom!

I have a present for you. Some spectroscopy speed and photon density images of the Black Hole jets in HH34 (the photo in my essay). This should remove any retained doubts you've had.

This shows the turbulent speed and density grades. I do also have better ones somewhere but have had computer issues and info overload!

Just open the PDF and scroll to the appendices; http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0611/0611865v1.pdf

Bes
t wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Peter,

I haven't forgotten about you; and I will read the article after I finish various mundane chores, involving mundane things like budgets, laundry and errands...oh my.

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 19:07 GMT
Jason,

Congratulations, on making a late charge and getting in under the wire. I have to admit being a little nervous toward the end, since my essay seemed like it was "on the bubble" the whole time. BTW that Jerusalem video was pretty cool. Did you notice the flash of light (off to the right side) before the quick ascension? It makes you wonder if that was us or them. I didn't hear any percussion, though. I saw another copy of the same video on CBS online, there was no light flash. Curious, huh?

As for your gravity beam, just remember when a physicist says "it can't be done", an engineer says "how do we do it".

"Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases: 1- It's completely impossible. 2- It's possible, but it's not worth doing. 3- I said it was a good idea all along." -- Arthur C. Clarke

Good luck in the next round, and better luck with your idea,

Dan

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 20:57 GMT
Hi Dan,

I think that video might be a "special effect". Which only means that it was a cool video, but not necessarily an example of physics.

I would rather work with engineers who ask: "how do we do it". I can answer that. I've been trying to reconcile this "curvature of space-time" stuff with gravitational potential energy. To tell you the truth, curvature of space-time seems to clunky. I hope you will argue of why it makes sense.

Thanks for being there, Dan.

Jason

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 22:27 GMT
Jason,

Unfortunately, the "curvature of spacetime" is "clunkly". I'm trying to teach myself tensor algebra, and it's not too fun. As for Gravitational P.E., even the experts don't like to think of it in those terms. For example, take a look at world re-known phyicist George Ellis' "nature of time" forum, where someone repeatedly asks for his opinion and he keeps dodging the question, saying it was "off the subject":

"Which brings us to the "dynamic dark energy" and -- inevitably -- to the "non-tangible" (Sir Hermann Bondi) gravitational energy, without which we cannot say anything on its "dark" counterpart, in both DDE and CDM.

To make your task easier, please put aside the driving force of the cosmological time (DDE), and focus on its mundane counterpart -- the "non-tangible" gravitational energy. The task is on the table since 1918.

Have you found a way to disentangle time from energy?"

So you see, there not an easy answer. If energy and time are complementary (Heisenberg) and GR involves time dilation, how do you obtain a exact definition of GPE? Without a complete theory of QG, you probably aren't going to get one.

Have a great day!

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 22:47 GMT
Jason,

BTW I wanted to point out Jim Hoover's essay bio that he is a retired Boeing systems engineer and that: "my personal interests and studies include particle physics, cosmology and UFO engineering"

Makes you wonder whether Boeing had a team working on any of that.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Emmanuel Moulay wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT
Dear Jason,

Sorry to have not commented on your essay before, but I am so busy with my research and the current research grant. Our point of view is very similar to mine and I think that we both think that photons are very important for solving current problems in Physics. Based on the comments of my essay, I have written a new version available online here http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098. I have corrected some mistakes I made concerning bosons. Rather than fundamental, I now think that photons are the primordial elements of the physical evolution of the universe. It leads to a natural definition of masses (without Higgs bosons) and an explanation for inflation (without inflatons). This new version is very subversive but it is more coherent.

Photons can be seen as particles and it leads to the Quantum electrodynamics (QED). In your essay, you are interested in the wave properties of photons. I agree that this point of view can lead to space and time. As you, I think that the subtle relation between light and matter (perhaps more general than light and gravity) is the key of the unity of Physics. A problem I encountered is that most of people think that you are mad when you say that photons (or light) are primordial. But we have to remember the special relativity and the fact that the speed is defined relative to the speed of light. I think that it is very difficult to accept that we cannot go faster than the speed of light. But there is no doubt that this is true. I understand that it can be difficult to accept that particles with their masses are defined relative to photons. Somehow, I think that space and time are defined relative to light (photons as waves) and masses and particles relative to photons. But this is the same relativity due to the wave/particle duality. In your essay, you want to explicitly develop this link between light and gravity and this is interesting. I stop here because it is already too long.

Feel free to contact me during or after the contest. My email is in my essay.

Best,

Emmanuel

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 02:30 GMT
Hi Emmanual,

E:"The photon has in its blood the laws of quantum theory and relativity."

Absolutely right.

E:"This is a branch of physics called “two-photon physics”

Is it true that particle-antiparticle creation from photons has been observed? Or just predicted? I had suspected this, but couldn't find an article to confirm it.

E:"Nevertheless there are practical problems with pair productions because two

photons cannot really collide and light is quantized when interacting with matter."

Very good point. Photons are bosons, therefore, they cannot be expected to behave like fermions. Maybe at the first femptosecond after the big bang, the super high density of light energy found a way to act fermionic and generate particles?

E:"If the photons energy is above a certain threshold called the weak threshold, then photons are

able to turn into massive W+, W− and Z◦ bosons following the pair productions"

Very clever thinking.

I really enjoyed reading your paper. You're right on the money. But what is the connection between light and space-time? I believe that space-time is emergent from the quantum vacuum, the quantum vacuum is an ocean of virtual particles. Physicists don't like the ether. I tried to describe the quantum vacuum as an ocean of wave-functions such that wavefunctions are real things that can become energized.

Call space-time what you want, but it has ephemeral properties that allow light (photons) to exist.

Emmanuel Moulay wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
Dear Jason,

I apologize for my broken English. Virtual photons are predicted and this prediction is correct, see for example the case of the Casimir effect. Yes at the Planck epoch, we have enough energy to generate all known fermions. I have had a remark concerning the fact that the group associated to photons are U(1), whereas the groups associated with W and Z bosons are SU(2) and the group associated with gluons are SU(3). To be able to turn into bosons in pair production, we need stability. I think that stability implies symmetry. In the absolute, photons are able to turn into all kind of particles with all kind of masses but only stable particles exist.

The connection between light and spacetime is very subtle. First of all, photons as wave fill the universe. Have you read my paper “The nature of time” available here http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837 ? Lots of things are in the nature of time. I think that time comes from the possibility of motion for the matter (all massive or charged particle) relative to the possibility of motion for photons which is the speed of light. Spacetime comes from the solution of the Einstein field equation which is a metric that mathematically describe the evolution of the time coordinate and the space coordinates. The connection between light and spacetime is given by the time coordinate ct. We search for gravitons while photons as waves have all the good properties. As you, I think that space and time come from the wave formalism. The particle formalism is not adapted because gravitation is nonrenormalizable. Moreover photons as particles lead to the QED. Photons as waves (or light) are not punctual but continuous and I think that their relation with matter lead to the spacetime.

Best,

Emmanuel

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 04:43 GMT
Hi Emmanuel,

Your English is fine. What you have to say is very interesting. I don't think stability is necessary to convert U(1) photons into SU(2) W,Z bosons or SU(3) gluons. All you really need is a very brief period of highly inneficient reactions to conver photons into W/Z particles and gluons. After that, the availabe particles will permit all of the remaining particles to be created.

Emmanuel Moulay replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 07:31 GMT
Dear Jason,

I agree that if we have enough energy when can obtain weak and strong bosons. But physicists want to know why we have Lie groups SU(2) for weak force and SU(3) for stron force. To have a stable interaction I think that it implies symmetries. A long time ago, physicists thought that these symmetries were fundamental and they tried to unified all interactions in SU(5) but they failed. Today, there is a new attempt with the Lie group E8 with the “Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything” of Antony Garrett Lisi. But I think that symmetries are a consequence of the need of stability and not the inverse. Today, the Grand Unified Theory seems to be difficult because the coupling constants of the tree interactions (electromagnetic weak and strong) do not converge to a single point. Concerning the masses of the elementary particles (defined as a stable product of an elementary pair production in two photon collisions) I think that they are defined relative to photons by
$m_0= h \frac{\nu}{\gamma c^2}$

The problem of the Higgs boson is that even if it explains the masses of the elementary particles, there is the problem of its own mass. Moreover it does not give a definition for the elementary particles.

Best,

Emmanuel

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 11:22 GMT
Dear Jason,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes and I hope you win something,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 17:01 GMT
Hi Alan,

It is exciting to participate in the marketplace/battleground of physics ideas; somewhere out there, there are 150 very proud mothers with a child who is contributing to the very best reasoning and methodology that physics has to offer.

Gravity has been an extraordinarily difficult puzzle to solve. Complete with "four-dimensional" "space-time" behavior and mediated by the spin-2 boson called "graviton", the mysterious force of gravity has baffled the greatest minds even today. We are the six blind men surrounding the elephant called "gravity".

If I had to guess at the properties of the graviton, I would imagine it to be similar to a photon, but with the following differences. A photon has energy

$E=hf$

But a graviton would have energy proportional to the change in frequency,

$E=h \Delta f$

Photons have spin-1. Gravitons have spin-2. I would surmise that a photon with a shifting frequency would have a shifting polarization as well. A shifting polarization has an Archimedes quality to it. Equal quantities of left and right rotating gravitons would cancel out any corkscrew kinds of gravity fields; but could potentially be induced by a very clever feat of engineering.

I think that an Archimedes graviton can coexist with a fabric of space-time. After all, a lens interacts with the electromagnetic field of light, but an atom only absorbs and emits light, one photon at a time.

But why is Newton's gravity law identical in appearance to Coulombs electrostatic law? If we think in terms of mass M and m, then our argument falls apart at the meaninglessness of a negative mass, -m. But if we use +E and -E as the charges, then something interesting happens. +E can signify the energy of a photon. -E is compatible with both the Zero-Energy-Universe idea where gravity is the negative energy; -E can also refer to the missing lower bound of the vacuum energy.

In my paper, Photon Theory, figure 1 is an attempt to bring together the positive energy of the photon with the negative energy of gravity. In assembling the pieces of the puzzle, gravity interlocks very tightly with energy in two ways.

1. Gravitational time dilation scales the duration of one SECOND between reference frames; simultaneously, the photon of energy E = hf experiences a change in frequency; frequency is in cycles per SECOND.

2. The photon that climbs or falls (between fixed points A and B) along the gravitational radii will lose energy to gravitational potential, or gain energy from gravitational potential.

+Q and -Q are opposite charges that exist upon point-like particles that are attracted to each other. +E is light (regardless of what form it takes) and -E is the fabric of space-time; they also attract each other (or yearn for each other).

Gravity and light interlock like pieces to a puzzle.

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 13:35 GMT
Hi Jason,

I like the way you're thinking about the puzzle combining photons with gravitons and matter. The charges of energy I imagine to be the rotational direction of the helix relative to it's alternative mirror or opposite rotational direction. Each end of a spinning helix are either both positive or negative, but a loop made form helical particles can now have different charges relative to an observer 'within' an electric circuit for example, positive and negative terminals can now come in close proximity to one another. Because we live on a large spinning planet, fluids are formed. Circuits occur due to the planets spin. I don't see where spacetime comes into it personally. We are close thinking on this one and I'll endeavour to get something more convincing in simulation form.

Kind regards,

Alan

P.S Take a look at this Saturn's UFO moons: Bizarrely-shaped Pan and Atlas baffle scientists

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 01:20 GMT
Alan,

I look forward to watching you're simulation.

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 12:49 GMT
Jason,

Thanks but I'll probably end up leaving that to someone better equipped than myself. Notice how the above moons of Saturn appear to adhere to the 'inclination hypothesis' i.e. that gravity is stronger towards the rotational plane of large solar system bodies.

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 11:42 GMT
Hello happy to see your score Jason the creative!

All the best

Steve

report post as inappropriate
Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 01:19 GMT
Thank you Steve! It is good to hear from you.

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 12:29 GMT
Hi Jason the creative,

You are welcome and thanks also, it's nice.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 13:34 GMT
Hi Jason,

I just had a thought. From Wikipedia it says "Laplace had shown that if gravity would propogate at a velocity in the order of the speed of light then the solar system would be unstable, and would not exist for a long time." I don't believe it personally, but how do you reconcile this with your photon theory?

Kind regards,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 13:37 GMT
Jason,

Apologies, I've just read this from Wikipedia:

In the context of classical theories of gravitation, the speed of gravity is the speed at which changes in a gravitational field propagate. This is the speed at which a change in the distribution of energy and momentum of matter results in subsequent alteration, at a distance, of the gravitational field which it produces. In a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 23:42 GMT
Hi Alan,

Photon Theory states that ALL experimental phenomena can be decomposed into two categories: photons and wave-functions. All particles (fermions) can be annihilated by their partners into photons. Whatever can't be broken down into photons must be a wave-function. Photon theory therefore pushes space-time and gravity into the wave-function category, where we want it.

Photons are obligated to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum because

$c = \lambda f$

The background that light travels through, whether it's a vacuum, glass or a gas, decides how fast light travels via the index of refraction, c/n. In the case of glass, the background wave-function is a bit more obvious. For a vacuum, the existence of a background is open to philosophical debate. However, Photon Theory still requires the background to consist of wave-functions.

I'll have to continue on my next break.

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 02:30 GMT
Alan,

Every experimentally verifiable phenomena is decomposed into either photons or wave-functions. Any particle or force that is mediated by photons must also be bound by the restrictions of photons. Photons are restricted by the speed of light. Photons also carry energy. In fact, energy itself cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

The Schrodinger equation is solved to find the corresponding wave-function. For the hydrogen atom, the potential energy around the proton is described as V(r,phi,theta). The wavefunction of the orbiting electron is calculated using V(r,phi,theta). The position and momentum of the electron is completely probabalistic; the existence of the wave-amplitude itself cannot be verified because wave-functions influence and are influenced by energy, but are not directly part of the energy currency.

What if the charges are not electrical, but instead are energies +E and -E? The -E energy of gravity will produce a graviational potential. Whatever gravity is, it must be a wave-function of some kind. That means that this wave-function called gravity can exert forces on mass-energy, but is not itself energy...

I didn't explain that very well. I'll try again on my next break.

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 06:18 GMT
Alan,

After re-reading the "speed of gravity" link, it seems to be saying that the whole extended static field moves with the charge or source of gravity.

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 10:18 GMT
Jason,

Okay, I'm happy with the notion that light and gravity can't travel faster than c. It fits with my working model ideally. Thanks for the explanations.

All the best,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
Alan,

In the sense that gravity is an extended object.