The Deterministic Ring Theory of Particles

[swansont]

45 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

I'm saying the geodesic is a spiral path.

Why would it be? What causes this?

[Spring Theory]

On 12/24/2023 at 3:30 PM, swansont said:

Why would it be? What causes this?

Photon energy E = hν , because the dimensional unit of the Planck constant h is “J∙S”, and is also the unit of angular momentum, therefore, the energy E of the photon contains the product of the angular momentum of the photon space motion and its motion frequency. Angular momentum is the product of the displacement of an object to its original point and its momentum, is a measure of the circular motion of a particle around its origin. Because in the space motion photon energy contains throughout has the angular momentum, therefore in the photon space motion way contains the circular motion inevitably throughout.

If the photon has contained the circular motion and a linear motion, the photon space motion path should be a result which the circular motion and the uniform linear motion mode together.

This would be a uniform spiral motion.

Ref: Cheng, J. (2019) Hypothesis about the Motion of Photon in the Space. Open Access Library Journal, 6, 1-9. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1105907.

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

Photon energy E = hν , because the dimensional unit of the Planck constant h is “J∙S”, and is also the unit of angular momentum, therefore, the energy E of the photon contains the product of the angular momentum of the photon space motion and its motion frequency. Angular momentum is the product of the displacement of an object to its original point and its momentum, is a measure of the circular motion of a particle around its origin. Because in the space motion photon energy contains throughout has the angular momentum, therefore in the photon space motion way contains the circular motion inevitably throughout.

If the photon has contained the circular motion and a linear motion, the photon space motion path should be a result which the circular motion and the uniform linear motion mode together.

This would be a uniform spiral motion.

Ref: Cheng, J. (2019) Hypothesis about the Motion of Photon in the Space. Open Access Library Journal, 6, 1-9. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1105907.

What does this have to do with the geodesic not being a straight line?

Quote

Angular momentum is the product of the displacement of an object to its original point and its momentum

No, that’s not accurate (it’s a cross product, and not from its “original point”), but it also doesn’t apply. 

[Spring Theory]

On 12/23/2023 at 2:14 PM, swansont said:

Then you shouldn’t propose that the electric field contains charge.

What I'm proposing is that there must be some charge source for an electric field within the photon. The definition of an electric field is the physical field that surrounds electrically charged particles. You can't have one without the other. My model will deterministically describe charge as momentum.

Maxwell's equation of divergence of charge are accurate until you get to a single photon or particle, then they are an approximation. What I will show is that the divergence is not to a point, but to a ring structure.

[studiot]

40 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

What I'm proposing is that there must be some charge source for an electric field within the photon. The definition of an electric field is the physical field that surrounds electrically charged particles. You can't have one without the other. My model will deterministically describe charge as momentum.

I don't agree.

 

So an electric field is generayed by a charged particle, say an electron.

But once the field has left the electron what destroys it, or why can't it exist without the electron ?

 

What in Maxwell's or other equations prevents this ?

Edited December 27, 2023 by studiot

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Spring Theory said:

What I'm proposing is that there must be some charge source for an electric field within the photon. The definition of an electric field is the physical field that surrounds electrically charged particles. You can't have one without the other. My model will deterministically describe charge as momentum.

The charge does not need to exist within the field. Maxwell's equations tell you how the field behaves if there is a charge present in a particular volume, and also when a charge is absent. The field behavior of EM radiation is the latter.

A parallel-plate capacitor has a field in a region where there is no charge. Similarly, you have magnetic fields in regions where there is no current flow. This is completely consistent with Maxwell's equations. 

 

1 hour ago, Spring Theory said:

Maxwell's equation of divergence of charge are accurate until you get to a single photon or particle, then they are an approximation. What I will show is that the divergence is not to a point, but to a ring structure.

Logically, if there were a charge within a photon, then there would be N charges for N photons. The classical behavior of the field should reflect this, and it decidedly does not. 

[Spring Theory]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

The charge does not need to exist within the field. Maxwell's equations tell you how the field behaves if there is a charge present in a particular volume, and also when a charge is absent. The field behavior of EM radiation is the latter.

A parallel-plate capacitor has a field in a region where there is no charge. Similarly, you have magnetic fields in regions where there is no current flow. This is completely consistent with Maxwell's equations. 

 

Logically, if there were a charge within a photon, then there would be N charges for N photons. The classical behavior of the field should reflect this, and it decidedly does not. 

Then where is the charge source for a photon's positive field and the source for the photon's negative field?

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

Then where is the charge source for a photon's positive field and the source for the photon's negative field?

Wherever the electromagnetic interaction took place that created the photon.

e.g. one way of making photons is accelerating a charged particle. The photons leave, but does not take the charge with it.

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Spring Theory said:

Then where is the charge source for a photon's positive field and the source for the photon's negative field?

 

21 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't agree.

 

So an electric field is generayed by a charged particle, say an electron.

But once the field has left the electron what destroys it, or why can't it exist without the electron ?

 

What in Maxwell's or other equations prevents this ?

 

A very disappointing response to my polite and pertinent question.

 

I have another pertinent observation/question.

 

The assignation/term positive or negative refer to different properties for charge and electric fields.

 

This is reflected in the fact, often missed, that in electric circuit theory (where we have current not charge) there are two (not one) sign conventions in play.

As a mechanical engineer you should have a good understanding of sign conventions and their implications.

Charge is a scalar. the electric field is constructed from vectors and the sign convention lies in the vector in the latter and the scalar in the former.

Edited December 28, 2023 by studiot

[Spring Theory]

10 hours ago, studiot said:

So an electric field is generated by a charged particle, say an electron.

But once the field has left the electron what destroys it, or why can't it exist without the electron ?

What in Maxwell's or other equations prevents this ?

An electric field does not leave the electron, it surrounds the electron. An electric field surrounds charged particles and does not exist by itself. by definition it requires a source. If the source is removed, it disapates.

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

If the source is removed, it disapates.

Not in the case of an EM field it doesn't.

An electron in an atom can emit a photon in the ionisation process and then be destroyed by a subsequent nulcear reaction.

Yet the photon will remain forever or until it is absorbed somewhere else, which ever comes sooner.

 

What about answers to my questions ?

 

[Spring Theory]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Wherever the electromagnetic interaction took place that created the photon.

e.g. one way of making photons is accelerating a charged particle. The photons leave, but does not take the charge with it.

Now you have the mechanism for charged particles releasing and absorbing photons. With the photon being fundamental, if you wrap it around the charged particle you have an absorption with the photon charge source aligning with the charged particles dipoles. An acceleration will unravel the photon so it can be released.

The charge does not change meaningfully because they are layered on top of each other. Attached is a visual of photon absorption in a hydrogen atom where it wraps around itself four times.

[joigus]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't agree.

Neither do I. There are the vacuum solutions that you point out and they correspond to we all know what.

There are also interesting possibilities in the so-called topological vacuum solutions which would not be related to source charges.

I'm still trying to absorb the impact of "the spirals would be geodesics", or something equally daft.  

[Spring Theory]

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

The assignation/term positive or negative refer to different properties for charge and electric fields.

This is reflected in the fact, often missed, that in electric circuit theory (where we have current not charge) there are two (not one) sign conventions in play.

A positive charge creates a positive electric field...a negative charge creates a negative electric field. Once you see the charge as momentum, the concept becomes clear. Current in electrical circuits is a useful thing to tabulate, but at the micro scale, it is still a charge in movement.

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

A positive charge creates a positive electric field...a negative charge creates a negative electric field. Once you see the charge as momentum, the concept becomes clear. Current in electrical circuits is a useful thing to tabulate, but at the micro scale, it is still a charge in movement.

How is this any sort of answer to my points?

In fact all you have done is reiterated my point about the difference between charge and current.

 

A further question, to emphasis the point raised by swansont.

Every day, throughout the universe, electrons are taking part in chemical reactions, many of which give of photons.

Those atoms concerned along with their electrons, will go on to take part in more chemical reactions up to an enormous number.

If each time this happens how come the charge on the electron does not diminish by the charges you claim now reside in the electric fied of the photons ?

In other words how come the charge on all electrons is not decaying over time in the whole universe ?

 

Or do you not accept the principle of conservation of charge ?

 

[Spring Theory]

    Current quantum theory generally supposes that space does not have substance such as an aether and interactions at a distance occur by means of “fields.” This is considered to be proven correct by the Michelson Morley experiment that determined the speed of light did not change based on the earth’s orbital position in the “aether”. The speed of light through the vacuum is considered to be a fundamental constant of nature.

    This theory proposes a variable speed of light mechanism that still remains consistent with the laws of physics. Ring Theory demonstrates an alternate perception of space as a scaler field representing the velocity of photons. The variations of the scaler field are what causes the photon to bend its path and is equivalent to the geodesics proposed by Einstein’s curved space. This illuminates a new definition of force, or what appears to be force between particles.

    The mass equation derived in Paper 1 is analyzed to explain special relativity effects of time dilation for moving objects and objects experiencing a gravitational acceleration. It reveals the mechanism behind time dilation and increased relativistic mass for moving objects. A mathematical derivation of space deformation is also explored and leads to the proper time component of Einsteins’s Special Relativity. Electric charge is also defined as a feature of space. Electromagnetic waves are modeled as compressive and decompressive wave fronts that represent electric fields. This leads to the asymmetry of charged particles and explains why antimatter is not prevalent. The supposition of the photon as fundamental leads to a testable prediction for Ring Theory; gravitational waves will have electromagnetic properties and are equivalent to electromagnetic waves.  

    The final takeaway is that the variable speed of light observed throughout nature in different materials is a result of the stretching of space itself due to matter. Matter stretches space to create velocity gradients which is the underlying mechanism for all that happens in nature. The variable speed of light results in an amplification of mass towards center of the galaxy. This reveals an alternative mechanism for Dark Matter.

Defining Charge

    Charge has taken the convention of a positive or negative designation (thanks to Benjamin Franklin) with the generally accepted idea that charges are symmetric in their properties and the convention chosen could be reversed.  This idea also leads to the idea that negative and positive particles have a geometrically symmetric version with the opposite charge. These antimatter particles should be just as abundant as normal matter particles in our universe based on this symmetry, but of course they are not.

    An electric field surrounds electrically charged particles. Photons exhibit a positive field and a negative field but are considered to have no charge. Maxwell’s equation require that charge have a divergence (point source). This theory considers a photon to exhibit an electric field and therefore the capability to contain charge although it is a net zero total charge.

    Looking at space as a stretchable/compressible substance, what is revealed is that charge could be the amount of compressing or decompressing of space. In particular, in the example of a spring, the compression and decompression needs to be on either side of the equilibrium to be considered a charge.  The equilibrium will be another relative concept based on the general compression state of space in a specific region of space.  Closer to the center of the galaxy, the gravity well is deeper so the equilibrium point will be more towards the negative or space will be less compressed.  Outer edges of the galaxy will have an equilibrium point more to the positive or more compressed. This is like a spring with different spring constants depending on where you are in the galaxy. Let’s define charge as this and see where it takes us. The second postulate defines charge as follows:

Postulate 2:
A concentrated decompression of space is a Negative Charge and a concentrated compression of space is positive charge.
 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Spring Theory

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Spring Theory said:

Now you have the mechanism for charged particles releasing and absorbing photons. With the photon being fundamental, if you wrap it around the charged particle you have an absorption with the photon charge source aligning with the charged particles dipoles. An acceleration will unravel the photon so it can be released.

What interaction makes a photon wrap around a charged particle?

 

Quote

This theory proposes a variable speed of light mechanism that still remains consistent with the laws of physics

This is an oxymoron. How is a variable speed of light consistent with the various laws of Maxwell’s equations?

Quote

This theory considers a photon to exhibit an electric field and therefore the capability to contain charge although it is a net zero total charge

If there’s no net charge, then you must have a dipole, or quadrupole, or even a higher-order multipole field. What is your evidence of such a field?

[Spring Theory]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

What interaction makes a photon wrap around a charged particle?

The fine structure constant is the coupling constant for this mechanism. Positive side attracts the negative side.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Spring Theory

[studiot]

I'm sorry, this is not a proper discussion.

 

I am reading what you say, and addressing your points, a few of which I agree with a few I disagree with and some are just plain wrong by observation.

You are simply writing longer and longer versions of the false assumptions without answering my questions about observations on reality.

Another plain wrong statement would be

 

2 hours ago, Spring Theory said:

Current in electrical circuits is a useful thing to tabulate, but at the micro scale, it is still a charge in movement.

If this is an answer to my comment about circuit theory  then it is just plain wrong.

 

The sign convention for charge (and current) is opposite to that of voltage (potential).

 

Please answer the questions I have asked instead of ploughing on as if they had not been asked.

Edited December 28, 2023 by studiot

[Spring Theory]

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is an oxymoron. How is a variable speed of light consistent with the various laws of Maxwell’s equations?

A particularly popular argument for the speed of light is that Maxwell’s equations predict the velocity as constant.  What Maxwell derived was a formula describing electromagnetic waves.  This formula revealed the wave equation with the speed of electromagnetic waves in the original form (see "A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field" Page 498 equation 71):

[latex] V= \pm {\sqrt {\dfrac{k}{4 \pi \mu  }}} [/latex]

     Where V is the velocity of the wave, k is Coulomb’s constant and μ is the magnetic permeability of space (normally expressed as μ0 in a vacuum).  These are fundamental electromagnetic constants.  Maxwell then chased down the speed of light measurements thinking his wave equation velocity was equivalent.  More and more precise measurements of the speed of light resulted in a validation Maxwell’s intuition and unified the electric and magnetic forces. However, if these electromagnetic constants vary in space (depending on compression), then the speed of light will also vary. The same equation can also be expressed in the following form:

[latex] V = \pm {\sqrt {\frac{1}{ \epsilon_0 \mu_0  }}} [/latex]

    Where V is the velocity of the wave, ε0 is the vacuum permittivity of space and μ0 is the magnetic permeability of space. Since the permittivity and permeability can change depending upon type of medium light is propagated through, the speed can also vary.

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm sorry, this is not a proper discussion.

 

I am reading what you say, and addressing your points, a few of which I agree with a few I disagree with and some are just plain wrong by observation.

You are simply writing longer and longer versions of the false assumptions without answering my questions about observations on reality.

Another plain wrong statement would be

 

If this is an answer to my comment about circuit theory  then it is just plain wrong.

 

The sign convention for charge (and current) is opposite to that of voltage (potential).

 

Please answer the questions I have asked instead of ploughing on as if they had not been asked.

Trying to answer your questions but have to define what the theory states as fundamental first. If you have a question about something at the quantum scale, I can address, but at the macro scale, we're not even close to get there. Too much to build up.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Spring Theory

[swansont]

58 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

The fine structure constant is the coupling constant for this mechanism. Positive side attracts the negative side.

You have not established that there is a positive or negative side of a photon.

40 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

However, if these electromagnetic constants vary in space (depending on compression), then the speed of light will also vary

What is your evidence that this happens?

You keep making more and more claims but without supporting them.

[Spring Theory]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

You have not established that there is a positive or negative side of a photon.

The best way to visualize this is the straight line polarized wave with non spinning perpendicular electric and magnetic fields as shown in figure 1.3.

Whether space is an aether or a field, the idea that makes the most sense would be space modeled as more of a solid. Thinking of space as a tight difficult to stretch solid then leads to the potential wave propagating photon along space, through some space structure. The wave that would be most similar classically to this concept would be a Raleigh wave (seismic wave in the earths crust) where its wave fronts are decompressive and compressive in nature as in figure 2.3.

The wave fronts also create a perpendicular curl effect possibly explaining the magnetic fields perpendicular to the traverse electrical field and the direction of propagation. Following this reasoning, the negative charge can be modeled as a decompressive effect on space and the positive charge can be modeled as a compressive effect on space. Conversely the magnetic field can be modeled as rotations or curls of these electric fields.
 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

If each time this happens how come the charge on the electron does not diminish by the charges you claim now reside in the electric fied of the photons ?

In other words how come the charge on all electrons is not decaying over time in the whole universe ?

Or do you not accept the principle of conservation of charge ?

I need to describe what an electron is first. I will equate conservation of charge more precisely to conservation of momentum.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Spring Theory said:

The best way to visualize this is the straight line polarized wave with non spinning perpendicular electric and magnetic fields as shown in figure 1.3.

 

The Electric field extends in both directions; “positive” is merely a convention of direction, and does not indicate anything about charge. Since the photon is not localized to a point, both directions of field exist simultaneously.

[Spring Theory]

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

The Electric field extends in both directions; “positive” is merely a convention of direction, and does not indicate anything about charge. Since the photon is not localized to a point, both directions of field exist simultaneously.

What kind of electric field is not associated with a charge convention? Or magnetic field for that matter.

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

What kind of electric field is not associated with a charge convention? Or magnetic field for that matter.

Direction convention ≠ charge convention