Ultimate Theory of the Universe - How To Build Universe With Just Two Particles

[kristalris]

If photon would not have mass, how it would move things in vacuum (experiment confirming photons are particles).. ?

 

Mass less thing, fired at billion times more massive moving windmill in vacuum?

 

Anybody have link to YouTube of this experiment, btw?

 

 

Imagine star with radius r. It's current mass of star.

 

 

 

Sphere with radius r + 300,000 km - how massive it was one second ago.

Sphere with radius r + 3,000,000 km - how massive it was 10 seconds ago.

and so on.

 

(that's of course simplified because doesn't count photons, neutrinos and particles from surrounding stars that were attracted, nor meteorids and asteroids)

You mean a Crookes radiometer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer

 

Well I thought so too yet there is an other possible explanation because the thing doesn't work in a complete vacuum. Although that might be contributed to the resistance then changing due to differences in expanding and contraction coefficients. I.e it could indeed be heat exchange that accounts for the extreme rpm that can be reached. Albeit that I'm not completely convinced that it doesn't in fact prove photons being particles containing mass.

 

Your problem that photons are observed not to attract each other however does bust your idea that the exert gravity. Because then they would have to attract each other.

 

I like an idea were we only have two particles that fly absolutely straight and only push. So does Newton BTW and I like Newton. Especially when I can on a concept level marry it with GR and QM etc..

 

Physics assumes as do you, that mass implies exerts gravity. Well that assumption might not only be wrong it's probably wrong to boot. It is much more probable that we are looking at a measurement problem.

Edited December 29, 2012 by kristalris

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

This is mine prediction (just prediction) how photon moves.

 

In white color the all waves all frequencies are joined together (but I offset them in 3d application to not have mess). They have same origin and same direction and are all overlapping.

 

Paths are red, green and blue to have nicer image and clearly visible path.

 

[kristalris]

This is mine prediction (just prediction) how photon moves.

 

In white color the all waves all frequencies are joined together (but I offset them in 3d application to not have mess). They have same origin and same direction and are all overlapping.

 

Paths are red, green and blue to have nicer image and clearly visible path.

 

Interesting. I'll think on it, yet I still don't get them not exerting gravity towards each other without attracting each other.

 

 

 

To elaborate on the reason I thought the radiometer proves photons as being particles having mass is that the dark side of the Mica disk is in sync and lets the photon in joining in the atoms of the Mica acting as little balck holes and thus exerting a force on that side. On the mirror side the photon is not in sync and the crystal of the Higgs field prevents the photon to join. Akin a surface tension of water repels the more than super conductive photon, seemingly instantaneous in the opposite direction, without exerting a force on the mill.

 

 

Like I said I'm not convinced either way at the moment because it might indeed be heat exchange because it doesn't work in a to great a vacuum. That would have to be tested if this can be contributed to the resistance then changing. (That wouldn't bust my idea in general only the explanation of the working of a radiometer BTW.)

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

http://www.sprytnezabawki.pl/Produkt/939/solarny_radiometr

 

Just 14 usd. I will buy it.

 

Mine explanation of this device is:

photon is hitting mirror side, so reverses its direction, then is hitting black side of other blade, which is maintaining reversed fly direction (or even accelerating it) - if it would be both mirrors, second hit to mirror would cause again change of direction.

 

There is no need to introduce Higgs or heat to explain this experiment.

Now imagine that photon is made of two particles. Positive red colored, and negative blue colored paths. They're attracting each other, traveling in space with speed of light. If they hit something, they can immediately find opposite particle even from the same light source.

 

Draw it on paper orthographic top view, making waves like in attached picture with two "walls" with 1 slit and 2 slit. And you have Young's Experiment solved.

 

[kristalris]

http://www.sprytnezabawki.pl/Produkt/939/solarny_radiometr

 

Just 14 usd. I will buy it.

 

Mine explanation of this device is:

photon is hitting mirror side, so reverses its direction, then is hitting black side of other blade, which is maintaining reversed fly direction (or even accelerating it) - if it would be both mirrors, second hit to mirror would cause again change of direction.

 

There is no need to introduce Higgs or heat to explain this experiment.

 

Now imagine that photon is made of two particles. Positive red colored, and negative blue colored paths. They're attracting each other, traveling in space with speed of light. If they hit something, they can immediately find opposite particle even from the same light source.

 

Draw it on paper orthographic top view, making waves like in attached picture with two "walls" with 1 slit and 2 slit. And you have Young's Experiment solved.

 

 

A radiometer is a nice gadget to have. I indeed have one. If a photon has mass and hits both sides to the same extent you've got a problem in explaining the spinning in the way you do. I guess someone has made thermo-graphic images to see if that is a correct explanation by now. And if the trick also works in a cube like instead of a sphere like partly vacuum environment. But I don't expect it to be it very decisive on the issue at hand whatever the outcome.

 

Youngs double slit experiment being solved in the way you state I don't see either. Point is it is not only having one or two slits but also having or not having a detection device in front of the slits.

 

My explanation is that the energy packet of the photon with a wave following it in the dynamic crystal, ( being sometimes a meter long and thus providing BTW a measure at which the crystal must restore itself for this speculation to work) the packet is slowed down in the glass of one of the slits (keeping c yet being sidetracked) this causes the wave front to catch up via the other slit. That causes interference akin a ship in water would encounter. The side tracking is caused by the waving of the photon energy packet being two counter rotating super symmetric strings (spirals) hitting the sides of the glass and the crystal trying to keep the photon intact.

 

Turning on a detection device must be in sync in order to observe anything and will cause an electromagnetic field (of the same particles of which the strings are built) causing an end to the amount of side tracking of the energy-packet end thus ending the interference.

 

The interference pattern is a game of statistics. Even when shooting one photon at a time.

 

The reason photons seem not to interfere with each other is that they are IMO built up of extremely small spinning particles. The chance of them hitting each other is extremely small with two photons in order.

 

See it like two rowing boats eights that row a the same speed and tempo yet having there oars interlocked one just ahead of the other. If both teams row exactly the same way no interference will occur. If one or both teams try to avoid each other the enhanced chaos will provide a larger footprint of the blades in "space time" and thus cause a greater chance of hitting each other. I.e interfere. The same goes for the waves of the blades in the water.

 

So the slit causes a greater chaotic movement of the photon energy packet. The chance of interference is enhanced and it is slowed down so the wave can catch up.

Edited December 29, 2012 by kristalris

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Now imagine

 

 

 

.Przem

 

. Please could you explain from your theory :-

 

A. Your 'Particle Spin ' geometry idea

 

B. Decay to stability idea

 

Thanks

 

Mike

Edited December 30, 2012 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

You mean a Crookes radiometer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer

 

Well I thought so too yet there is an other possible explanation because the thing doesn't work in a complete vacuum.

Actually yes, such devices can, but you get rotation in the opposite direction, from the momentum of the photon rather than heating.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Actually yes, such devices can, but you get rotation in the opposite direction, from the momentum of the photon rather than heating.

 

Can you find and show such device on YouTube?

 

Mine explanation from post #29 would work in reverse rotation to half-vacuum Crooks radiometer actually.

 

Actually I found video with guy doing exactly the same as Crooks radiometer, using his hand to control piece of metal in regular air, and calling it Telekinesis..

I bet that he would get much better results after pomp out some air..

Edited December 31, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[kristalris]

Actually yes, such devices can, but you get rotation in the opposite direction, from the momentum of the photon rather than heating.

 

I just found out that the English version of the Crooks radiometer is far superior to the Dutch one I actually did only read a wile ago. So heat it is.

 

I only can find counter rotation when cooling a radiometer due to again heat differences (on the Wikipedia link I gave) and no reference of turning in opposite direction when in a complete vacuum. Pressure exerted by momentum would be difficult when the light source hits both vanes in equal measure.

 

The "telekinetic" trick shown by Przemyslaw the direction of turning must be due to differences in the form of the mill and / or side of most radiation of heat.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Pressure exerted by momentum would be difficult when the light source hits both vanes in equal measure.

 

Imagine - photon from light source is flying- then hitting material (which might means- photon is becoming part of material and when there is too much photons material is emitting them at different wave frequency).

One material has white color, so new wave frequency is all frequencies equal in the all directions.

Photon from white blade (or directly from light source) is then hitting black material, but it instead of emitting them back at visible frequencies, it's emitting them at non-visible frequencies.

And surrounding gas is heated. And flies up.

 

Astronauts should make experiment how Crooks radiometer work without gravitation.

 

Another idea - instead of invisible gas fill it with two different color gases that don't join. And we should see their movement.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[kristalris]

If it is in a vacuum then there is no surrounding gas. Giving it some thought I guess that it then is radiation. On the black sided it radiates on both sides equally or nearly so, yet on the mirror side it radiates only to one side hence it turns the other way round.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

If it is in a vacuum then there is no surrounding gas.

 

Yes, I know. But in Crooks radiometer there is gas - and we can observe how it moves by using two or more gas colors. New experiment to test. This would allow definite answer what is causing move of blade in Crooks radiometer.

[kristalris]

 

Yes, I know. But in Crooks radiometer there is gas - and we can observe how it moves by using two or more gas colors. New experiment to test. This would allow definite answer what is causing move of blade in Crooks radiometer.

Well, if I understand the last post of Swansont correctly he states that the radiometer turns in the opposite direction in a "complete" vacuum. (In which case the English Wikipedia link is incorrect / not complete because it states / implies that the radiometer doesn't work in a vacuum if I read that correctly.

[swansont]

Can you find and show such device on YouTube?

 

The experiments were done in the early 1900's, so I'm not going to look for videos on youtube.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76296001/On-Radiometer-Action-and-the-Pressure-of-Radiation-by-Mary-Bell-S-E-Green-1933

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer

 

 

Another idea - instead of invisible gas fill it with two different color gases that don't join.

 

 

 

How would you do keep them from joining?

 

 

Well, if I understand the last post of Swansont correctly he states that the radiometer turns in the opposite direction in a "complete" vacuum. (In which case the English Wikipedia link is incorrect / not complete because it states / implies that the radiometer doesn't work in a vacuum if I read that correctly.

 

 

 

A Crooke's radiometer doesn't work in a vacuum, as it relies on having gases and isn't built to be sensitive enough to work on radiation pressure. However, you can see rotation due to radiation pressure if you do it right. As the article notes

 

Finally, if light pressure were the motive force, the radiometer would spin in the opposite direction, as the photons on the shiny side being reflected would deposit more momentum than on the black side where the photons are absorbed. The actual pressure exerted by light is far too small to move these vanes, but can be measured with devices such as the Nichols radiometer.

 

IOW, you have to choose the correct radiometer to demonstrate radiation pressure.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

How would you do keep them from joining?

 

f.e. prepare single (f.e. colorless) gas in bottle, with easy way to inject second gas.

Then inject second color gas just immediately before experiment.

Then use light with small intensity, to not have too fast movement, and see & record by camera how colorful gas is moving in colorless environment.

 

OTOH, if one gas would be ionized, it should be easy to attract it from outside and pack in one "area". Not ionized gas should remain on second half of bottle.Then remove our source of attraction, and run experiment again to see flow of gas in bottle again.

 

Second experiment: instead of using Sun light, try to use laser in complete darkness- and see what will happen when laser is hitting just black blade, and then white blade (when they're not moving).

[swansont]

 

f.e. prepare single (f.e. colorless) gas in bottle, with easy way to inject second gas.

Then inject second color gas just immediately before experiment.

Then use light with small intensity, to not have too fast movement, and see & record by camera how colorful gas is moving in colorless environment.

 

OTOH, if one gas would be ionized, it should be easy to attract it from outside and pack in one "area". Not ionized gas should remain on second half of bottle.Then remove our source of attraction, and run experiment again to see flow of gas in bottle again.

 

 

Gases at room temperature have molecules moving, on average, at speeds of several hundred meters/second. What is the impediment to them mixing, even if one has a charge? The other, of course, being neutral, is unaffected by direct effect, and is actually attracted by induced (second-order) interactions.

 

Second experiment: instead of using Sun light, try to use laser in complete darkness- and see what will happen when laser is hitting just black blade, and then white blade (when they're not moving).

 

Light has momentum, despite being massless. You can use lasers to slow down atoms, by scattering. I do it all the time in my lab.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Gases at room temperature have molecules moving, on average, at speeds of several hundred meters/second.

 

I nearly fall off chair..

 

Then wind is what?

 

Did not you see experiment with glass of co2 rotated that is slowly starting "flowing out" then filling aquarium there are balloons or "boats", and they're starting flying in nothing/drifting/floating on co2.. ?

[swansont]

 

I nearly fall off chair..

 

Then wind is what?

 

Did not you see experiment with glass of co2 rotated that is slowly starting "flowing out" then filling aquarium there are balloons or "boats", and they're starting flying in nothing/drifting/floating on co2.. ?

 

Anyone not familiar with physics should then use a seatbelt, I guess.

 

The calculation is quite straightforward - temperature is the average kinetic energy. 3/2 kT = 1/2 mv^2 (k is Boltzmann's constant, v is average speed; there will be a distribution of speeds, of course). The motion is random, so the average velocity is zero; over the ensemble of atoms or molecules, motion is one direction is canceled by motion in the opposite direction. (wind is a velocity imparted on the whole group) k is small, but m is even smaller, numerically, when using consistent units. A Rubidium atom at 300K has an average speed of almost 300 m/s. Go ahead and do the calculation. The concept is related to the reason that flowing water can freeze.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Molecule of gas is moving in one direction, hitting other molecule, changes direction, and so on with other molecules. The more gas molecules (the higher pressure) the smaller movement distance, because chance to hit other particle increases. It should not be compared to moving straight in one direction without any interaction with environment.

It's like "shaking". Slowly mixing one gas with another gas (fluid and solid body do the same, but much slower).

 

If it'll be going too fast, after injection of second color gas, we can try using fast recording let's say 10000 frames per second camera during experiment.

I highly doubt that it'll be needed - otherwise properly shaped wing would be rotating like crazy hit by gas molecules trying to go up even without light.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

.Przem

 

. Please could you explain from your theory :-

 

A. Your 'Particle Spin ' geometry idea

 

 

Thanks

 

Mike

 

Do you have one of your simulations that demonstrates your new theorem about the Geometry of Spin. If you look back a couple of years in Quantum physics I raised the subject of spin. I got buried alive in Maths and relativity, when all I wanted was a visual MODEL.

 

I set up an experiment feeding energy into a model of an atom , with an electron in a mechanical orbit represented by wire. The wire was exposed to a range of frequencies. The results were very interesting. Waves and dimensions.

 

Taking a single wire , working at minimal energy the wave similar to your simulations appeared at the resonant standing wave frequency. This was in specific Two Dimentions ( say X, and Y ). When the energy was increased the wire broke into a more complex Three dimensions ( say X, Y, and Z ) . Thus the minimal energy required 2 Dimensions, more energy 3 Dimensions. ( sounds a bit like your new theorem..

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

If you look back a couple of years in Quantum physics I raised the subject of spin. I got buried alive in Maths and relativity, when all I wanted was a visual MODEL.

 

People have too fixed brains by XX century Quantum Mechanics and Standard Model.

 

Instead of searching ultimate answer they prefer intermediate answers: split Proton, then split of particles which are used to construct Proton and so on. After each newly found particle Nobel goes. But in mine theory there is infinite number of particles, so infinite number of Nobels can be given to people..

And at the end they will find just two elementary particles.. If they would get rid of idea of fractional electric charge after finding Up/Down Quarks they would find it century ago, without introducing such silly ideas as QCD, that's completely not needed..

 

Does Boson Higgs really exist?

In mine theory it's just non-stable Neutron-compatible particle. With same number of positive particles as negative particles, thus electric charge is 0.

 

Instead of trying to convince somebody to mine theory, I will better patent devices using mine theory.

Yesterday I found a way to search for oil at any height with minimum required investment. I will try to convince Kulczyk to mine idea of scanning ground (I am personally stock share holder of Kulczyk Oil Ventures http://www.kulczykoil.com Soon it'll be listed on London Stock Exchange)

Today found a way to make airplanes much safer and less vulnerable to fire on board. After making patents in US and EU, I will be able to tell details.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

People have too fixed brains by XX century Quantum Mechanics and Standard Model.

 

 

In mine theory it's just non-stable Neutron-compatible particle. With same number of positive particles as negative particles, thus electric charge is 0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please could you explain this part of your theory PRZEM

 

 

B. Decay to stability idea

 

 

 

Mike

 

Also do you have a comment on the experiment I conducted , which seems to support your quoted point below :-

 

 

Prezm says

 

"Unlike real world, I am ultra conservative in Physics - if there is no need to create additional dimension, I won't make it, just to fit idea."

 

Page 2 this thread

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Proposition of experiment for laboratories:

 

Currently when we collide alone Neutron with Positron there is created Proton and Neutrino.

 

It can be described using mine notation as:

 

P 40/20 (example neutron-compatible composite particle, 0 electric charge) + P 5/1 (the lightest possible positron, +3 electric charge) = P 45/21

P 45/21 is unstable proton-compatible particle, electric charge +3,

so it's decaying:

P 45/21 -> P 41/19 (proton-compatible stable particle) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

 

 

But when we have alone Neutron and collide it with Electron there should be created Anti Proton:

 

P 40/20 (example neutron-compatible composite particle, 0 electric charge) + P 5/4 (the lightest possible electron, -3 electric charge) = P 45/24

P 45/24 is unstable anti-proton-compatible particle, electric charge -3,

so it's decaying:

P 45/24 -> P 41/22 (anti-proton-compatible stable particle) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

 

Proton and Anti-Proton will annihilate together and produce cloud of Photons that you can detect.

 

That's basically description of Annihilation Power Station.

Two bateries one with electrons, second with positrons, and dynamic way to create Neutrons when needed (alone are living just ~15 minutes)

Electrons and Neutrons are creating Anti-Protons, Positrons and Neutrons are creating Protons. Then they collide and annihilate creating Photons, which are then used to heat water, which is converted to steam and moves turbines generating electricity (not very efficient, I have better ideas, but good for a start)

[swansont]

 

People have too fixed brains by XX century Quantum Mechanics and Standard Model.

 

QM and the standard model work. That's why they are used.

 

 

Instead of searching ultimate answer they prefer intermediate answers: split Proton, then split of particles which are used to construct Proton and so on. After each newly found particle Nobel goes. But in mine theory there is infinite number of particles

 

Here's the thing: we don't observe an infinite number of particles. A theory fails if it predicts things that are not observed.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

QM and the standard model work. That's why they are used.

 

Mine theory has nothing to do how particles are moving in spacetime (QM). It's describing how to construct particles using smaller elementary particles without introducing fractional electric charges in quarks.

What you're using can't explain why one Proton colliding with another Anti-Proton is producing cloud of gamma photons. It can't explain why Electron colliding with Positron also is producing cloud of gamma photons. Are they both made of gamma photons?

 

Mine theory can- either Proton, Anti-Proton, Electron, Positron and Photon are made of smaller 2 elementary particle types. During collision they're too far in spacetime each other to attract rest particles and have too high velocity in oposite directions, and they're joining to what is appropriate to them from particles in close range and construcing stable particles. Electric Charge and Total number of elementary particles is maintained on left and right side of equation.

 

Here's the thing: we don't observe an infinite number of particles. A theory fails if it predicts things that are not observed.

 

Do you really really not understand?

In mine theory Hydrogen, Hellium, Uranium etc. etc. they're all composite particles... "infinite" particles are chemistry atoms.

You don't see what you're observing every day..

 

Don't take "infinite" in quotes too literally - the more pairs positive and negative particles you will add to base composite particle, the less chance it'll be stable (see Stability Rule). And the more chance it'll be decaying such as Uranium and other radioactive atoms. Because the larger they are the less chance that Prime Number Rule will be obeyed. If it's not obeyed, there is decay sooner or later.

 

Better calculate/measure Neutrino rest mass - that's the only thing I need to know. Knowing exact neutrino rest mass we can calculate photon, positive and negative rest masses and the all rest..

Edited January 7, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala