TrappedLight

It doesn't make sense to think of a point taking up all the density of the universe, yet we often believe the standard model of the big bang, that being that all the energy in the universe was condensed into a single point. Not sure if this can be the case physically. Mind you, massless radiation doesn't follow the same rules as the Dirac statistics which govern fermion particles, which means that photons may occupy the same space. However the only constraint is that the radiation all have the same energy states. Hawking once called the singular state, as a state in which matter is all ''stacked up to infinity'' He made this statement really as a simplification of very complicated physics.

Yet your post has now ended up in speculations?

''Different sort?'' The time dimension is also of a different sort when viewed as an imaginary dimension of space. It is still a dimension of space, that was what I was taught, if you speculate otherwise, that isn't how I was taught physics! The four dimensional continuum is a single object, time is not outside of the definition of space, only that it has a space dimension I believe if memory serves, 90 degrees off of the spacial dimensions. A four dimensional object has the appearance of a tesseract hypercube. Using this, you can visualize the physical properties of the deviation away from the normal dimensions of space. It's just an angle, but it's also a mathematical facet of the theory. It's very important actually, in statistical mechanics (I think) and also certain branches of cosmology in which the presence of the imaginary time dimension can smooth out singularities because of its orientation to the legs of space. It doesn't remove the Big Bang per se, but it can represent the universe without a beginning of time mathematically-speaking. Also, it is important to know, imaginary time is real space, and imaginary space is real time.

Yes, I know of these things, but I honestly don't see a problem. The first intelligible paper that described electrons as bound photons was well after 1970. Almost thirty years later, so the neutrino is no exception. It is taken, by some physicists that all of matter are in fact states of either single or bound photons and the neutron cannot be outside that rule. The only real problem was that two bound photons would have a zero rest mass and we know the neutrino actually has a mass. A way to resolve that issue, as I noted before, is by stating there is a non-zero electromagnetic residue... and it might be very small resulting in a very small but still detectable mass! My theory is definitely falsifiable, making good science. edit An interesting idea... The bound photon pair will be in phase. Perhaps the oscillations are due to out of phase internal photon dynamics? The single photon model can also answer why one photon shoots off in one direction and a photon in the other direction in annihilation decay. You answer this by saying the rotation of the photon is antiparallel to the photon in the antiparticle. Annihilation would mean they speed off in opposite directions. We may also get more exotic cases for particles. There are of course, three cases of neutrino particle, which may have properties associated to the internal rotational dynamics of the photons. Also I speculate the electromagnetic residue by predicting a non-zero magnetic moment (the unit given as Bohr magneton.) [math]GM^2 = \frac{e }{2M c}( \frac{1}{2} \int \frac{h \nu}{c}\ d \bar{r}) \cdot \mathbf{B} \times \bar{r} = \mu_B \cdot \mathbf{A}[/math] [math]\mu_B \ne 0[/math]

In what senses? I am not entirely up to date with the neutrino experiments. I do know that Motz' idea does not work since we have detected a non-zero mass for the neutrino but it's excessively small. However, on the other hand, it is interesting how the neutrino would be the only exception in nature. Just like how a bound photon is the only exception in nature that is possible for a moving yet massless charge.

The neutrino needs to be a pair of bound photons, so that one topological charge exactly cancels the other out. It's a special case of this theory for the neutrino. It is allowed a mass, but it's charges are internally cancelled out. In fact, Motz got to this theory before me! I was surprised how similar our theories actually meshed. http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1966/motz.pdf The neutrino presents itself in this theory, as a gravitationally-bound pair of photons. However, his theory has the neutrino with a zero-rest mass. I believe that can be overcome by realizing that there is still a small contribution of mass contributed by a non-zero magnetic moment. The energy associated to the moment, is analogous to the idea that the electric or magnetic features (just like a charge) can contribute mass to a system, the so-called electromagnetic mass. If there isn't a small correction to the mass through this, then I am not entirely sure how to remedy that problem. And yes, galactic bodies are electrically neutral. Galactic bodies however, are not fundamental and they are comprised of many individual systems which do have charges and mass.

Right, you can do that. Of course, the equations are generic and are meant to have broad ranging applications. Yes, it relates the source of gravity [math]\sqrt{G}M[/math] to the charge, the physics might be simple as you cannot have mass without a charge on the system, here, the mass term is not singular, mass arises as a charge by definition. And [math]G[/math] plays the exact same role as the strong gravitational constant, especially when inside the interior of the particle which has a non-zero radius. It's different because, we don't consider gravity inside the particle, however, if it truly is a shell, then we can assume gravity takes on a large value of [math]\frac{\hbar c}{M^2}[/math]. The gravitational constant has a number of different values for it's strong case and that is noted by a number of different authors. The constant however, depends on the distance. The idea is that gravity becomes strong at shorter and shorter distances. Believe it or not, but the strength of gravity on very small distances (involving interactions which would involve specifically [math]\alpha_G[/math]) are extremely unknown, with many uncertainties.

I'm saying that mass is a charge. Usually when people speak about mass, they simply use the term [math]M[/math]. There is a new parameter in this work, that mass isn't an independent quantity, that the mass of a system is better calculated as a charge [math]\sqrt{G}M[/math] with the gravitational feature of [math]G[/math]. Interestingly, there are no known cases outside of the neutrino where there is a particle with neutral charge and has a mass. My early investigation into this theory, suggested to me that perhaps mass and charge where in fact the same thing. This was made apparent when I noticed (in Gaussian units) [math]e = \sqrt{\hbar c}[/math] can be rewritten as [math]e = \sqrt{GM^2}[/math] which implied that the mass was like a charge on the system. Therefore I took it to mean that charge cannot be without a mass present and that the two quantities [math]e[/math] and [math]\sqrt{G}M[/math] where somehow interdependent. The mass in the equation of course, now going back to SI units [math]e = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon GM^2}[/math] the mass of course, can be taken as an electron mass. In fact, we frequently do so when we want to obtain the fine structure contsant [math]\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math] since [math]e[/math] is describing the charge of an electron. The equations where meant to be generic. You can apply them to different conditions assuming you are willing to bring into consideration all the factors. ......................... Ajb You know how you wondered why I called it the Heaviside relationship [math]e = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math] ? I have now found a reference to it being called that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units except it is written as [math]e = \sqrt{\alpha \hbar c}[/math] * This relationship is the Lorentz-Heaviside units, which are different from the units I use clearly, so the equation I use is not called the Heaviside relationship. Albeit, it is very similar. ............................................... Another part I wished to make known '' It's been part of the task to describe mass with purely electromagnetic features of the theory and we have looked at that by discussing about how the gravitational charge can be related to magnetic and electric properties. The gravitational charge [math]GM^2[/math] can also arise from the magnetic and electric flux! In MKS units, the electric and magnetic flux are [math]\Phi_e = \frac{e^2}{\epsilon_0}[/math] and [math]\Phi_m = \frac{\phi_{0}^{2}}{2 \mu_0}[/math] one can obtain [math]GM^2 = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2 \pi} \sqrt{\Phi_e \Phi_m}[/math] again, [math]GM^2[/math] can be obtained with a RHS describing electromagnetic properties. http://arxiv.org/vc/hep-ph/papers/0306/0306230v2.pdf The author of the main equation states that it says that the magnetic and electric flux have the same dimensions. It is actually very similar to the Gaussian-cgs units in which the electric and magnetic fields have the same dimension - in fact if my history is correct, MKS units are the alternative Gaussian-cgs units.

You might find yourself in trouble with moderators here if you don't bother with mainstream.

Yes as in infinite. This is one of the problems dealing with pointlike particles. The equation goes like this [math]U = \int_{|r| < R} \frac{\epsilon_0}{2} E^2 dr = \frac{e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 R}[/math] When the radius [math]R \rightarrow 0[/math] the energy [math]U[/math] is infinite, note that [math]E[/math] is the electric field! This means that classical physics predicts an infinite energy for the electron (which would result in an infinite bare mass). It's ludicrous to think that is even a physical property of the world, so something appears to be either: A) something wrong with the mathematical approach or B) particles are not actually pointlike. And yes [math]M[/math] is the mass and in the theory, it characterizes the possible mass of all particles. There was even more I wished to write about but I kept it from the OP. One of them being an approach by Hestenes involving zitter motion, and how the original paper http://www.cybsoc.org/electremdense2008v3.pdf is closely related also to zitter motion. I wrote before, and now I quote: '' The ''zitter clock'' was varified experimentally. This was an idea created by deBroglie and was confirmed in a channelling experiment. The period of the frequency of the electron clock is given as [math]\psi(\tau) = e^{i \omega \tau}[/math] It has been noted by ref 1. in my main paper, that the electron clock can be attributed to the toroidal motion of our charged massless system. In fact, the electron in it's most elegantly explained form, is that it is a lightlike particle which follows in which the spin is determined by the internal helical dynamics where it even has a curvature and a frequency... and as I showed in my own work, may even be attributed to a phase related to the intrinsic gravitational charge. If the electron clock is determined by the circular motion at the speed of light, we may attribute this to a invariant proper time operator [math]\frac{\bar{r}}{c}[/math] which would be related to the ''rest'' energy of the system as [math](\frac{\bar{r}}{c}) Mc^2 = \hbar[/math] Now this invariant time operator coefficient term on the energy giving us the quantization condition [math]\hbar[/math] Can actually be related to as Motz explains; the proper time must be treated as an operator which is canonically conjugate to the rest mass of particles, which was discussed in ref 1 below. It actually brings us back to the electron clock, where we are dealing with the proper time of the electrons history. The zitter motion and the invariant proper time operator therefore might be doing the same thing in respects of giving rise to angular momentum component [math]\hbar[/math]. ref 1. L Motz, phys. Rev., 93, 901 (1954) There is a problem which exists though, concerning the modelling of the zitter motion as a proper time invariant operator, that is that the electron is modelled by Hestenes as a lightlike curve [math]c^2 \Delta t^2 = \Delta r^2[/math] thus [math]s^2 = 0[/math] and proper time cannot be defined in such ways. Hestene does however mention this and that a physical definition of the time parameter [math]\tau[/math] must be determined by other features of the model FQXi - Foundational Questions Institute However, as I pointed out, ''The zitter motion and the invariant proper time operator therefore might be doing the same thing in respects of giving rise to angular momentum component'' and this is meant to be taken seriously that the time parameter derives from the assumption that the electron has an intrinsic angular momentum (which is as we have covered), the toroidal topology of our massless charge The spin [math]S[/math] in this sense, becomes a function of the time parameter [math]S(\tau)[/math] which as the mathematical jargon of Hestene points out adequately, ''is a null bivector.'' This is how he reaches the potential zitter term [math]\Phi[/math], by introducing the relevant equations of motion for the velocity [math]\dot{u}[/math], momentum [math]\dot{p}[/math] and the spin [math]\dot{S}[/math]. Very ingenuous, so that the potential zitter interaction term becomes a function [math]\Phi(\tau, z)[/math]. In this respect from this model, we can talk about the proper time experienced between two events - the incremental events which defines the electron clock. And as we have seen, the electron clock may be written as a function or it could actually be represented as a dynamical time invariant operator on the energy term which in return tells us it has an angular momentum. Or we can write it as an integral [math]Mc^2 \int_{P_t} d\tau = \hbar[/math] Where the integral defines a proper time interval. '' Another part I wish to make known '' There is then a relationship to the uncertainty in the energy and the uncertainty in the length of the system. [math]\Delta E \leq \frac{GM^2}{ \lambda}[/math] The physical meaning of this is that the internal energy flux is bound by the maximal uncertainty in the mean transport of radius which may take the role of the wavelength but we have a correction order. [math]\lambda = \alpha \lambda_C[/math] As the paper http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf recites, the limitation of the speed of light means that only paths within the radius can provide a contribution of inertial energy (mass) to the system. The uncertainty relationship then to satisfy the toroidal system is [math]\Delta E \leq \frac{GM^2}{ \alpha \lambda_C}[/math] Shows us that the energy depends on the varying uncertainty of the Compton wavelength up to a maximal radius of transport. '' This relationship might be more important than one realizes as even Motz deduced that there was an uncertainty relationship between the mass of a particle and it's radius. The more you attempted to measure the radius of the particle, the more uncertain it's mass became and vice versa. He spoke about this relationship in (ref. 2) but I will quickly cover it. He showed that you can equate the Compton wavelength to the Gaussian curvature [math]8 \pi \rho_0(\frac{G}{c})[/math] where [math]\rho_0[/math] was the proper density and [math]\frac{G}{c}[/math] is the Schwarzschild constant. It can obtain the equation [math]\frac{K}{6} = (\frac{\hbar}{Mc})^{-2}[/math] Introducing the radius of curvature, which would equate to our use of the curvature of transport this would be, keeping in mind that the radius of a three dimensional hypersphere is [math]\frac{1}{6}K = (\frac{\hbar}{Mc})^{-2}[/math] you obtain [math]R^2 = (\frac{\hbar}{Mc})^{-2}[/math] and from this he states that one gets [math]RMc = \hbar[/math] He says that one can look upon this as an uncertainty relationship where the mass term and the radius anticommute. In a similar fashion, I have shown above there is an uncertainty relationship with the internal radius of transport and it's gravitational charge. '' And for the case where [math]t_0 \rightarrow t_p[/math] where the Planck time becomes the proper time for an interval of distance traversed by a light particle, the phase of both the orbital rotation and the internal photon merge to form a gravitational fine structure [math]\phi = \omega_C t_p[/math] where [math]t_p[/math] is the proper time where [math]t_p = \gamma(t - \frac{vx}{c^2})[/math] The phase of the internal photon can be written as [math]\omega_C t_p = \omega_C \gamma(t - \frac{vx}{c^2}) = \sqrt{\alpha_G}[/math] Where simply [math](\omega_C t_p)^2 = \alpha_G[/math] Of course, [math]\frac{GM^2}{\hbar c} = \alpha_G[/math] Where [math]M[/math] is not considered the Planck mass per se, but an electron mass with a twist. In fact, the definition of [math]\alpha_G[/math] is surprisingly simple: it is the square of the electron mass measured in units of Planck mass. This fine structure relation to the internal phase of the photon is very important to the gravitational physics behind the theory.

Yes, one feature of my superintellect is that it is omniscient. In a way, the superintellect would be analogous to quantum fields, which harbour all the information about the vacuum. Perhaps even better described in a Bohmian interpretation, where somehow everything in our universe is determined. Determined by a quantum field of information [math]\Psi[/math] Hello Moon, nice to see you again! Yes, as you know, I am very much an avid investigator of UFO's. Being one of many to witness three UFO's above our house over a decade ago, I can sure make a better case for UFO's as well than God. I think the problem of God is that when the noun is mentioned, we immediately think of religion. I don't wish to upset anyone in saying this, but religion is the reason why rational-minded people do not usually entertain the idea of a God. If religion could be ignored, we might find answers which are more scientifically-closer to the identity of a God.

Omnipotence is a word to describe an unlimited power. The superintelligence I speak about cannot change the laws of physics at will.

I don't think so. I think the illusion is that humans think themselves superior because we are aware of our environment, yet we would be like gods if we had awareness of everything happening, just not of ourselves. Perhaps the superintelligence is just like a programming, only aware of parameters that have been written into it.

Yes I believe the same. I believe there is a superintelligence which is neither aware of itself nor sentient, nor does it care for our doings.

I don't understand your question.

Mathematically, it is a dimension. If it is a real facet of the world, is another question. Space-time may not be fundamental. In fact, when Dirac was asked whether he believed there was a unification of time on space, he replied that he did not think it was a real fundamental feature of the world. Howsoever, this is not the general view of most scientists today. If space and time are unified, you cannot escape that it would be a dimension, certainly in present theory, it is treated as a forth spatial dimension. Perhaps it would be a good idea to tackle both concepts to reach an answer to the question. But saying time is not a space dimension is just wrong, at least if we wish to stick to mainstream.

Who told you time is not a dimension of space? A sign change only makes it an imaginary dimension of space. Time is the forth leg of the pythagorean space triangle! There is no evidence for time either of any sort outside of the subjective experience of it. This doesn't change the fact that time is in fact an imaginary dimension of space, where it acts as a forth leg of the space triangle, as I said above. Mathematically, it is treated as a space dimension. In fact, a quick wiki search proves what I was saying, ''imaginary time: ''In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space''

I wasn't the one who mentioned the self-force, but there should be one in this theory for the interior of the particle. You also note that self-energy is a suspicious term? Not quite sure what you mean here, even pointlike particles have a self-energy, except that this energy is described as being infinite!

Space rather than time? Time is a space dimension.

All matter experiences time. Two observers sitting at opposite ends of a room are no different, the time they experience is asymptotic time. That is the time we all come to agree on. Two inertial observers can not move at the speed of light. And things that do move at the speed of light don't even have reference frames to speak about, so you can't even talk about time in that respect.

Information exists as states of systems in the universe. This is how he presented his information paradox. I also take the reference that Hawking refers to information, not just space-time-matter-energy also from (Wolf, Parallel Universes, 2001? I think).

When scientists talk about information in quantum physics, we usually speak about binary codes. Nature may not be made up of one's and zero's, but Hawking has made it clear, that when we speak about the vacuum, we are not only inferring on space-time-matter-energy, but information as well.

The virtual particle may not have the same mass as an ordinary particle, but the longer it exists the more likely it is to approach the same features. A virtual particle though, in every other kind of way is exactly the same as an ordinary particle, the only major difference is that they are extremely short-lived. We know they exist because they appear in calculations, a smudge factor of interaction which means virtual particles leave behind a measurable effect in the lab. The existence of this underlying excitation of the field has presented itself in the form of virtual energy which transforms into real measurable energy between two plates in a vacuum (the Casimir effect). What is interesting is that quantum theory predicted the existence of the plates interaction with energy in the vacuum. So to be best to stick to mainstream, virtual particles make up the vacuum, there is no such thing as Newtonian empty space in quantum mechanics.

There is actually no such thing as empty space. All space, is a bubbling sheet of virtual particles. Empty space is a Newtonian concept. In fact, it's an electromagnetic aether. Space isn't normally called an aether because it is generally considered taboo.

We already know this kind of radiation will exist, it's analogue has presented itself in nature in the form of sonic black holes. So it's very very likely Hawking Radiation is permitted in nature as well. Well that answers that question.