Tests for TOE on a speculation via correct scientific procedure

[kristalris]

A photon in this model and the double slit experiment.

 

If I understand correctly we don’t know exactly what a photon is, other than know a lot about what it can do and distinguishing it from other particles.

 

In this model the energy packet of the photon could be as small as two counter rotating interlocked strings of six large fundamental particles in spin rotation. (Spinning like a toy top only then 3 D spiralling through the double crystal.)

 

It thus travels in a straight line. Yet it has a waving pattern because the strings are short tracked like a string of skaters. It thus can’t go faster than c. When due to the under pressure in the double crystal (= gravity, all matter working like little black holes drawing in the double crystal of the Higgs field) the photon can hold c by accelerating yet becoming unwound, like a toy wound up car. Steering in at twice the Newtonian value. Outside gravitational fields it can travel in a (seeming?) straight line until it either pops out of the double crystal that is like the earth’s crust, or when it has become so unwounded that it disintegrates or hits other particles of the SM.

 

Because EM is larger parts of the double crystal being brought into a bit of spin they in part fly off to then be measured as such. The photon is too fast for the Higgs mechanism to work properly. Photons don’t get mass added to them and the mass of the Higgs field or the photon thus doesn’t exert gravity.

 

The meter long bow wave and tail of a photon at c provides the time the double crystal needs to restore itself. From the chaos caused by its passing.

 

You thus need an infinite universe with particles to exert the pressure to keep the photon together.

 

Double slit experiment;

 

Well see the energy packet of the photon as a ship and its bow wave and wave at the stern as the effect on the Higgs field. It goes through a lock with two narrow openings. The bow wave causes the ship to hit the sides of the lock in effect slowing the ship down. The stern wave catches up via the other slit and causes the ship (= energy packet) to experience interference when in finally leaves the lock. Showing even when one photon is sent at a time a normal distribution when done often enough. (Electrons the same BTW).

If you start observing this you are either pulling water away under the ship or squirting it on the ship, because that is the only possible way to observe anything anyway. Either way it can explain that the ship then is not slowed down and stays in front of the rear wave. Hence no more interference.

 

Neat simple explanation I’d say. (I used to have another one but this one by someone else was better so I swapped)

 

Any way it is not the core of the idea. Both given tests are. It only shows how simple everything can potentially be explained in an elegant way.

[swansont]

Yes you have you've used GR against my idea stating that GR says that photons exert gravity and my idea states it doesn't. So you conclude my idea is wrong. Whereas while you were pointing out what was in favour of GR being correct on that point you unwittingly have shown that it is it weak spot. Because GR works brilliantly - nearly - everywhere else. And the communis opinio in science is that there is something wrong with GR and / or QM because they don't match.

You can't simply remove the part about light exerting gravity from GR and use what's left. This isn't an a la carte menu. Physics isn't like that. There are well-tested concepts that run through the theories and models, and that means two things:

 

(1) you can't remove one of the concepts without everything breaking. The thing is, when something agrees well with experiment, it is exceedingly unlikely that this is coincidental and that the basis of it is a mistake. But this is also why specific predictions are needed, in order to check and see if the model is correct.

 

(2) you can't ignore the consequences. If a feature of a model is from one of the fundamental concepts underlying the theory and it turns out not to be correct, that can mean a complete rewrite of the theory. You can't simply ignore the feature — the connection goes both ways.

 

An example of this is conservation of momentum. If you have a particle that decays into two pieces with a set amount of energy, as in alpha decay, you get a distinct, discrete spectrum, because momentum is conserved. There is no way around this. If you observe a continuous spectrum of the emitted particle, you can't have just one emitted particle. The discrete spectrum is tied together with conservation of momentum. One can't be wrong without the other being wrong.

 

 

Well then if it has no earth gravity or gravity between the atoms of the gas and the pressure of the box was right and the walls and balls absolutely rigid it all was simulated to the standard of enough good billiard balls hitting then my idea is indeed falsified.

 

Please show me the exact simulation.

I don't care to waste my time doing your work for you, especially given how your previous proclamations of "my idea will be busted if…" have turned out. You know how to use Google.

 

Ideal gases do not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Your idea does. Anything beyond that is a waste of effort.

 

 

 

Well I have owed up to my mistakes on this site, show me where I didn't. and learned from them. For instance where the weak point of GR is at.

Good lord, really?

[Phi for All]

 

Well I have owed up to my mistakes on this site, show me where I didn't. and learned from them.

 

!

Moderator Note

You have owned up to nothing. It's clear that swansont and ajb have gone out of their way to explain where your concept fails, but you're ignoring them completely. This has gone on for more than ten pages and it's abundantly clear you can't provide the support for your idea that this section requires.

 

It really is a shame that you waste the opportunity to learn from our experts. These discussions would be so much more meaningful if you'd take at least some of the more obvious points on board.

 

Thread closed, please don't open another on the same subject.