Trapped Light

[Graviphoton]

Is a well-stated and well-excepted theory of quantum mechanics and Relativity. It states that every type of solid matter with rest energy is nothing but trapped forms of Luxon energy: Particles which move with a velocity equal to that of lightspeed.

 

In 1997, scientists where able to make particles from pure light. This was the confirmation needed to give us a theoretical model stating that all matter was in fact just trapped light.

 

Here, Isaac Newton speculates the very nature of transumatations concerning light and matter with rest energy…

 

‘’Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another, and may not Bodies receive much of their Activity from the particles of Light which enter their Composition?

The changing of Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies, is very conformable to the Course of Nature, which seems delighted with Transmutations. [...] And among such various and strange transmutations, why may not Nature change Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies?“

 

Isaac Newton - Optics 1704, Book Three, Part 1 Qu.30

 

He was certainly ahead of his time concerning physics.

 

The Properties of Luxons

 

It is known, that in relativity, particles which move at the proposed ultimate velocity of c, having a value of something like 186,350 miles per second, have a subatomic clock which is stretched into infinity. This means that not a second passes for a Luxon…Because they do not move through the time dimension, or space for that matter, so there is no solution to the equation…

 

[math]t’=t_{0}/\sqrt{1}-v^{c}/c^{2}[/math]

 

The mass-energy relation equation [math]E=Mc^{2}[/math] it turns out according to many scientists, was in fact the first real indirect proof of antimatter existences, and as we know, when an electron comes into contact with a positron, they annihilate in a shower of energy: Luxon energy. This is matter with rest energy being reduced back to their purest form, and later in the 1926 with Paul A. M. Dirac’s formulation of the Dirac Equation, the existence of antimatter showed that Bradyons, (particles which move with a velocity below c) can be reduced back into Luxon energy.

 

A Luxons rest energy must always be zero. And from their point of view, they don’t move at all. Nor do they even have a lifetime. This makes Bradyonic matter a longer lived fluctuation of the zero-point energy field, which is itself a back ground reservoir of virtual electromagnetic energy.

 

The Properties of Bradyons

 

Bradyons, unlike Luxons, do experience a time frame. In fact, by definition, we are Bradyons. The velocity of a Bradyon is actually determined by its energy… This is why we find high-energy particles moving at arbitrarily fast speeds, some just a fraction short of ‘’c’’.

 

In fact, c is a universal constant, which is used everyday in physics as a reference. For instance, we determine the speeds of Bradyons using the universal constant of lightspeed:

 

[math]t’=t/\sqrt{1}-v^{2}/c^{2}[/math]

 

[math]m’=m_{0}/\sqrt{1}-v^{2}/c^{2}[/math]

 

It must have been Einstein’s realization that photons did not contain mass, which led him to his assumptions concerning the limitation of speed on a Bradyon. To reach the value of c, the speed of a photon, the Bradyon would require an infinite amount of energy.

 

Some people like to say that the photon has mass because the photon has energy [math]E=hf[/math], where [math](h)[/math] is 'Planck’s constant' and [math](f)[/math] is the frequency of the photon. Thus, they tend to assume that because it has energy [math](E)[/math] it must have mass [math](M)[/math] because of Einstien’s mass-energy equivalence equation [math]E=Mc^{2}[/math]...

 

They also say that the photon has momentum, and momentum is related to mass [math]p=Mv[/math] where [math](v)[/math] is velocity and [math](p)[/math] is for momentum. Yet, you cannot justify it having mass using this argument. This is actually 'relativistic mass' - which is nothing but the measure of energy which will change with velocity.

 

It isn't actually mass, even though mass and energy are related. In physics jargon, the mass of an object is called its 'invariant mass,' and the photon has no invariant mass. Now, a massless particle can have energy and it can have momentum, simply because mass is related to these through the equation [math]E^{2}=M^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}[/math], which is subsequently zero-mass for a photon because [math]E = pc[/math] for massless radiation.

 

The relativistic mass of a Bradyon will increase, as it moves faster and faster… this is why we believe momentum and speed is in fact invariant due to the energy it contains. The higher the energy will result in the system moving faster and faster.

 

The relativistic mass of an object is expressed as:

 

[math]M=\gamma m[/math]

 

[math]M=E/c^{2}[/math] by Tolman notation…

 

It was justified that even Luxons contained relativistic mass.

 

 

On [math]E=Mc^{2}[/math]

 

It may be of some interest for you to know, that Einstein wasn’t the first to understand the energy-mass equivalence. Poincare just a few years before Einstein’s formulization of relativity stated an equivalence in the form [math]M=E/c^{2}[/math] and before that it was also recognized by Wien (1900) was [math]m=(4/3)E/c^{2}[/math].

 

For many scientists, the equation of mass-energy relation was in fact the first indirect proof of antimatter relationships, where matter is reduced back into energy. It wasn’t until the formulization of the Dirac Equation, did this fact become known, and we now know that every Bradyon has an antipartner.

 

But what is interesting is that the annihilation of all these different types of particles gave of deadly gamma energy… photons of light energy. Now, with the evidence of photons being created into matter, all the matter you see in everyday life, even the electrons, protons and neutrons making our bodies, are but fluctuations of trapped light.

 

The very fact all these different types of matter come from one source and type of energy, stands to reason the different types of particles known must be the result of a frequency trap in the energy of the Luxens as they transmutate into these types of particles (1). The different types of trapped frequency of distortions must also be limited, due to the limitation of particles in the standard model. Today, we know something like 410 particles, both Luxon and Bradyonic.

 

The Arguement

 

Luxon Theory is actually a theory considered to be a theory of everything, concerning matter. It is known by calculation and vigorous mathematical analysis, that the universe actually grew quite old before the first energy appeared. It wasn’t until 32 years had passed (I’ve heard Ben claim it was much longer… I am not sure which amount of time passed is correct… But I trust my source), did light emerge from spacetime.

 

A major argument and ultimate implication of Luxon theory, is the existence of glueballs. Glueballs are exotic particles, which are entire entities consisting of gluon particles which interact due to the Chromoelectric field. In Yorktown Heights, N.Y., Dec. 18, 1995, using one of the world's fastest computers, nonstop for two years, scientists have been able to calculate the properties of glueballs. It was considered that this be the first time a computer has verified the existence of an elusive particle, and it was also argued that several experiments have shown the properties given by the results.

 

Gluons are also Luxons, and the very fact that these Luxons can come together, bind and create entirely new particles, is the ultimate proof that Luxons do indeed come together, and create the matter we see everyday. It is also said, that the verification of Glueballs are an ‘’overwhelming success for Luxon Theory,’’ and no scientist has been able to thwart the claims.

 

Also part of the discovery, was that the Glueballs rest mass, was made from Luxon Inertia. Scientists are now considering the same answer for matter that consists of Luxon energy in the form of photons.

 

(1) – but this is speculation from my own behalf.

 

References:

 

Scientists make matter from light, paper, University of Rochester, Tom Rickey, (716) 275-7954.

 

Alfredo A. Barrera:IT IS THE ACCELERATION OF ENERGY WITHIN A PARTICLE THAT PRODUCES MASS AND CONSEQUENTLY GRAVITY

 

John T. Nordberg: Grand Unification Theory: The Ball-of-Light Particle Model.

 

Ray Tomes: Towards a Theory Of Everything: Matter as a Solution to Maxwell's Equations

 

Fernando Cleto Nunes Pereira:The Unit of Phisics

 

Other Reading:

 

Spiritual Universe: Fred Alan Wolf 2004

 

Bob Toben, Fred Wolf and Jack Sarfatti :Space-time and beyond, 1975

[swansont]

Is a well-stated and well-excepted theory of quantum mechanics and Relativity.

 

True, but I think you mean "accepted" and then I'd have to disagree. I think it breaks physics.

 

 

References:

 

Scientists make matter from light, paper, University of Rochester, Tom Rickey, (716) 275-7954.

 

Alfredo A. Barrera:IT IS THE ACCELERATION OF ENERGY WITHIN A PARTICLE THAT PRODUCES MASS AND CONSEQUENTLY GRAVITY

 

John T. Nordberg: Grand Unification Theory: The Ball-of-Light Particle Model.

 

Ray Tomes: Towards a Theory Of Everything: Matter as a Solution to Maxwell's Equations

 

Fernando Cleto Nunes Pereira:The Unit of Phisics

 

Other Reading:

 

Spiritual Universe: Fred Alan Wolf 2004

 

Bob Toben, Fred Wolf and Jack Sarfatti :Space-time and beyond, 1975

 

Not what I'd call strong references. The first title doesn't come up on Google scholar, and a couple look like pop-sci books.

[Graviphoton]

You'd be wrong then. You telling me that all tardyons do not reduce back to photon energy?

 

I will ask a higher power to have this put back where it belongs, because it seems you know nothing of the subject.

[Klaynos]

Protons do not decay into photons.

 

On a related note I don't like the terms Luxon and tardyons, they just annoy me what's wrong with massless and massive?

[swansont]

You'd be wrong then. You telling me that all tardyons do not reduce back to photon energy?

 

I will ask a higher power to have this put back where it belongs, because it seems you know nothing of the subject.

 

If you had posted some proper references, I'd have the opportunity to learn.

[Graviphoton]

Niether of you understand the implications.

 

First, Swanson, even without the references, this does not deserve to put as a speculation, or a psuedoscience.

 

Follow this again, and i will cross my fingers. It might be a hit and miss, but we'll see.

 

In 1997, scientists where able to make particles from pure light. We also know that from matter-antimatter collisions, the matter is reduced back into photon energy. This is the theory. It states that all matter that are tardyons, are but forms of trapped photon energy.

 

Are you denying this, because this is modern physics.

 

Klaynos

 

Who cares about the name. It was intentionally called Luxon in this case, to make it more interesting. Its about additional knowledge you see... Not everyone will know that Bosons have an alternative name. Its fun and interesting. Stop being so dull.

[Klaynos]

Excuse me for trying to in parse knowledge without causing confusion.

 

And surely it's not logical to state just because a can change into b, b is just a 'trapped' form of a? And in collisions massive particles arn't converted into 'photon energy' they're converted into photons that have energy.

 

What do you mean why you say "trapped photons" this makes little to no sense to me, can you explain it mathematically? Or reference something that does?

 

Oh and as I understand it Bosons and Luxons are not interchangeable terms. As you get massive bosons.

[Graviphoton]

Excuse me for trying to in parse knowledge without causing confusion.

 

And surely it's not logical to state just because a can change into b, b is just a 'trapped' form of a? And in collisions massive particles arn't converted into 'photon energy' they're converted into photons that have energy.

 

What do you mean why you say "trapped photons" this makes little to no sense to me, can you explain it mathematically? Or reference something that does?

 

Oh and as I understand it Bosons and Luxons are not interchangeable terms. As you get massive bosons.

 

Well excuse me for trying to make it fun...

 

anyway.... an electron and an antielectron when the come together, release two photons [math](E=Mc^{2})+(E=-Mc^{2})=1022KeV[/math], which means that the mass has been reduced to two deadly gamma rays.

 

Photons, atleast in my textbook, are considered a unit of energy... since we use the terminology that a photon can add to the energy of a system. So therefore, this is why i say ''photon energy''. Not photons that contain energy, because they are energy. If you mean, its an energy that has an energy, yes i suppose.

 

And i say ''trapped photons'', because that's what they essentially are, electrons and positrons. We know this, because sceintists have been able to make such matter from photons.

 

It answers for all tardyons, or bradyons, or whatever suites you, apart from those that have their own antipartner, but from what i know, i don't know of any. This theory only posits the existence of a ''family'' that consists of trapped photons. This is universally known.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How does one create an electron, with spin 1/2, from photons, of spin 1? Use half a photon?

 

Because I presume when you say particles are made of "trapped light" you mean they're made of photons in the same way a proton is made of quarks. Unless you mean the photons' energy is converted into electrons?

[Bignose]

And surely it's not logical to state just because a can change into b, b is just a 'trapped' form of a?

 

I agree with this. It is possible (not easy, but possible) to take carbon dioxide and create polymers, but I don't think that it is right to say that polymers are "trapped" carbon dioxide molecules. The polymer has completely different properties because it is a completely different molecule. It is a completely different substance.

 

Graviphoton, you're going to have to provide a lot more evidence than just saying "it stands to reason"

[Graviphoton]

Yes, the photons make up the particle, just like the quarks makes up a particle.

 

And no, its logical. Since we already have converted a into b, and b into a. The proofs there.

 

See my post above.

[Klaynos]

Well excuse me for trying to make it fun...

 

anyway.... an electron and an antielectron when the come together, release two photons [math](E=Mc^{2})+(E=-Mc^{2})=1022KeV[/math], which means that the mass has been reduced to two deadly gamma rays.

 

I assume you made a mistake here, and meant:

 

[math](E=Mc^{2})+(E=Mc^{2})=1022KeV[/math]

 

And 2 or more photons are released. If it's 2 photons they have to be travelling 180deg from each other.

 

Photons, atleast in my textbook, are considered a unit of energy...

 

I'd say your text book is wrong/simplifying things, or you misunderstood what it was saying.

since we use the terminology that a photon can add to the energy of a system.

 

Most (all?) interaction add or remove energy from a system.

 

So therefore, this is why i say ''photon energy''. Not photons that contain energy, because they are energy. If you mean, its an energy that has an energy, yes i suppose.

 

Photons are wave-particles that have a property of energy, as well as other properties. Just the same as an electron has an energy associated with it.

 

And i say ''trapped photons'', because that's what they essentially are, electrons and positrons. We know this, because sceintists have been able to make such matter from photons.

 

I again don't really see how this follows, the photons are changed into particle-antiparticle pairs, they're not made of them.

 

 

It answers for all tardyons, or bradyons, or whatever suites you, apart from those that have their own antipartner, but from what i know, i don't know of any. This theory only posits the existence of a ''family'' that consists of trapped photons. This is universally known.

 

What do you mean "have their own antipartner"? Infact I don't get what you mean at all in this paragraph. If it is universally know, care to state the mathematical evidence i requested before? I'd expect this to be wave equations of some form.

 

Yes, the photons make up the particle, just like the quarks makes up a particle.

 

So you're going to need a guage set that allow the photons to strongly interact with one another. Which we don't have, and there is no evidence for, and infact if this was true then we could get photons to couple which we can't do.

 

 

And no, its logical. Since we already have converted a into b, and b into a. The proofs there.

 

See my post above.

 

There is no proof.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, the photons make up the particle, just like the quarks makes up a particle.

 

For that to work, the spins of the photons making up the electron would have to add up to that electron's spin. (That's how it works with quarks in protons.) How do you add up 1 (the spin of a photon) and a few more 1s to get 1/2 (the spin of an electron)?

[Graviphoton]

I give up. I gave proof, so that's me finished my session with you.

 

Caps

 

No idea. The question is why two electrons do give off two photons.

 

And no, the original equation is correct.

[Klaynos]

I give up. I gave proof, so that's me finished my session with you.

 

Caps

 

No idea. The question is why two electrons do give off two photons.

 

Two or more photons....

 

And you've not provided proof, proof is generally some mathematical prediction based on some physics, as fundamental as you can get it, first principles is best, and then an experiment that matches the prediction. Of course you could also have a mathematically self consistent theory that makes predictions that would also do for most people. It'd have to agree with current experiments though...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No idea. The question is why two electrons do give off two photons.

 

Because their mass is converted into energy in the form of photons. They aren't made of photons. They turn into photons.

 

(And I believe you meant "an electron and a positron".)

[Klaynos]

And no, the original equation is correct.

 

 

[math]

(E=M_e c^{2})+(E=-M_p c^{2})=E_t

[/math]

 

Where e is electron mass, p is positron mass. E_t is total energy.

 

 

[math]

M_e c^{2}-M_p c^{2} = E_t

[/math]

 

We know that:

 

[math]

M_e = M_p

[/math]

 

From the standard model and experimentation... subsing in:

 

[math]

M_e c^{2}-M_e c^{2} = E_t = 0

[/math]

 

So there MUST be something wrong here, because I know the mass energy of a positron and electron is not 0.

[Graviphoton]

I'm not sure what you are doubting. Are you doubting that an electron and a positron when they come together give off photons?

 

Yes, i know that process. That when you are adding all the energy. If i was told to represent the mass-energy equivalance to describe a positron, i would say it as E=-Mc^2. Its just a representation.

 

Caps

 

Yeh, i meant that. And that's the rub. We don't know if the two particles are not made up off what they give off.

 

Dr Wold says in his book, ''Physicists are now sure that all forms of matter are just forms of trapped light.''

[Klaynos]

Your representation is wrong, positrons have postitive mass-energy.

 

No, I know that electron-positron annihilations give off 2 or more photons and that momentum is conserved, I've got copious amounts of experimental data that I took myself in a lab a couple of years ago proving it... I'm doubting that electrons are 'trapped photons', but really I'd like to know what mathematically a trapped photon is first before I really start doubting it properly, or be convinced it is true, or even possible...

 

Who's Dr Wold?

 

There is the continued problem that you have to have some mechanism for the photons to strongly couple, which we don't have... As well as why protons don't decay, at all, ever...

[Graviphoton]

Dr Wolf.... sorry.

 

There is the continued problem that you have to have some mechanism for the photons to strongly couple, which we don't have... As well as why protons don't decay, at all, ever...

 

Well actually, we must assume these questions so very close to the beginning of time, when things are a little different. Through collisions in particle accelerators, scientists have been able to make matter out light, which is itself energy.

 

We also know that at higher energies, the electromagnetic coupling gets stronger and stronger. This might answer for your queeries on the photons coupling. They could get into some kind of toroidal knot, oscillating with each other due to the wave function.

[Klaynos]

Dr Wolf.... sorry.

 

There is the continued problem that you have to have some mechanism for the photons to strongly couple, which we don't have... As well as why protons don't decay, at all, ever...

 

Well actually, we must assume these questions so very close to the beginning of time, when things are a little different. Through collisions in particle accelerators, scientists have been able to make matter out light, which is itself energy.

 

We also know that at higher energies, the electromagnetic coupling gets stronger and stronger. This might answer for your queeries on the photons coupling. They could get into some kind of toroidal knot, oscillating with each other due to the wave function.

 

No it doesn't answer my questions on photon coupling at all, you need to suggest a gauge group that could create a gauge boson that would allow for massive particles to be stable, you also need to describe how this would allow for the particles to have mass. How you could possibly confine (trap) the photons, and why the proton does not decay spontaneously into photons. And you need to do all of this mathematically.

 

 

According to Dr Wolf's website... and which one of his books he seems to have many...

Wolf's inquiring mind has delved into the relationship between human consciousness, psychology, physiology, the mystical, and the spiritual.

Wolf is well known for his simplification of the new physics

 

Which suggests they are popscience (also by the looks of them), and therefore what they say should not be taken as gospel at all!

[Graviphoton]

As for Dr. Wolf, i don't take everything he says as gospal. But i do believe him when he says that it is maintream that it is considered.

[swansont]

Then you should have no trouble coming up with some legitimate references.

[Graviphoton]

I did. I gave you reading material which has been peer-reviewed. Others, published as books. They all contain the theory, apart from the one ''is gravity an electrostatic force?''

[Klaynos]

The references you gave in your first post I either cannot find on google scholar or books, and most of the hits appear to be them being mentioned on forums. Or they're not technical references, if it's mainstream it should be trivial for you to do a quick goodl scholar search to find some peer reviewed papers.