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

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

In equation c=wave length*frequency , c is representing always const 3*10^8 meters/sec

But timespace should be bending, it's mass, gravitation dependant.

So our Earth 300,000,000 meters won't be 300,000,000 meters near f.e. black hole - it'll be (or at least should be, if special relativity is correct theory) squeezed.

If you are using special relativity calcs, you should also special relative way treat E=h*v and c=frequency*length...

 

 

The E=mc^2 of relativity is only true for a particle at rest (which a photon never is)

 

Actually none particle is really at rest. It just depends on to which we will be comparing. We're at rest to Earth, sitting in front of monitor, but moving relative to Sun, even faster moving relative to Milky Way, and even faster moving to other far far away Galaxy.. To some galaxies we can even have speed of light from their point of view.

Einstein invented special relativity in 1905. When he thought that Universe is stationary.

Idea that Universe is expanding appeared in 1929..

[kristalris]

I see no reason why a photon can't have very little mass. When I place a marble on my weight watchers scale it reads zero, zero kg. Even-though my WW scale generally gives dubious results that I prefer to ignore, I still think that this is a correct measurement. Yet I guess that I'll of lost my marbles when concluding the marble is thus mass less. Constituting thus at the moment a measurement problem. Likewise probably this goes for photons as well.

 

Further more with SR you can see that IMO as a Doppler effect in stead of anything literately contracting. So why forget about the observations linked to SR Przem?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

I see no reason why a photon can't have very little mass.

 

Equation was constructed the way it's giving infinity when mass is not 0.

 

You didn't see mine Special Relativity Calculator?

 

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/26/special-relativity-mass-calculator

Edited January 15, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

A massive particle is stationary in its own frame of reference.

 

I see no reason why a photon can't have very little mass.

 

Then perhaps you should look a little harder. There is quite a lot of evidence for SR and the massless nature of photons, but this isn't the place to discuss it.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

But what I've seen so far Przem has provided more than enough to warrant his idea to be further investigated in correct use of public funding IMO.

 

That would be helpful.

 

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/donate/

 

I could buy some professional laser (I am especially interested in such that can cool down particles, I have couple ideas for test).

And prof. electron microscope and other devices.

 

And concentrate on developing universe and particles simulator application. Instead of doing other things, like making mine own chess game. If you want to see screen-shot click here.

 

Scientists with dr title are earning 700 usd per month here, such more advanced. Beginners, assistants, 500 usd or so.

Just read on website, article quite fresh 2012 year, dr. is earning at university average 2935 pln gross, it's 2110 pln net = 688 usd.

 

ps. Short-cut for Przemyslaw is Przemek. But people around the world call me Sensei.

[SamBridge]

This is getting too out of hand, both of you are too uneducated in physics to understand why you're wrong, if Swansont can get another expert to say you're wrong you should take their word for it because there's experimental evidence proving the both of you wrong in your assumptions.

Edited January 16, 2013 by SamBridge

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

If you're so educated, tell us how anti-proton is created during proton-proton collision..

 

"The antineutron was discovered in proton–proton collisions at the Bevatron (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) by Bruce Cork in 1956, one year after the antiproton was discovered."

Edited January 16, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[SamBridge]

If you're so educated, tell us how anti-proton is created during proton-proton collision..

 

"The antineutron was discovered in proton–proton collisions at the Bevatron (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) by Bruce Cork in 1956, one year after the antiproton was discovered."

There's scientific evidence you're wrong. An anti-neutron forms because of the fact that you're wrong, because that they are not classical objects that follow classical motion. There's anti quarks, and something about the quantized change in field oscillations gives rise to mass, which then becomes a new variable in the overall oscillation of the anti-quarks. That's about all scientists know, and you're not really contributing to that, you're just restating spin conservation laws. What I'm talking about is called quantum purtubation theory, it's used with quantum chromodynamics to explain theoretical possibilities. Gluons are massless, photons are massless, When the collision happens, gluons can be created, which then bind the anti-quarks created to form a nucleon. Why this happens exactly is unknown. We know there are different types of particle fields (quantum field theory), and we know they can oscillate in different manners (perturbation theory), and we know they can combine with different ways and transmute forces with each other through various particles and possibly dimensions (chromodynamics and some field theory and some perturbation theory). In a sense, all particles are just the same single thing, which is a probability oscillation, but in reality its still more complex than that or just two particles.

Edited January 16, 2013 by SamBridge

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

If you're so educated, tell us what is and where is dark matter, and dark energy..

I will tell you- if photon and neutrino have mass- sphere with radius of any star is containing all it's current mass. Sphere with radius+c = mass that star had 1 second ago. radius + 10*c = how massive it was 10 seconds ago. and so on. So if star is living 5 billion years, sphere with radius+5byc will have mass of whole emitted matter since its born. (simplified it, I know, photons and neutrinos are also attracted by other stars)

So the same with whole Universe.

If photon has any mass >0, then the all mass since the Bing Bang (if it really happened) is still here and influencing current Universe.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[SamBridge]

 

If you're so educated, tell us what is and where is dark matter, and dark energy..

That's something that not even the smartest scientists in the world can answer right now, All we can say is we expect that dark matter doesn't interact with the electro-magnetic force, and that dark energy makes up something around 70% of the mass in the universe.

 

I will tell you- if photon and neutrino have mass- sphere with radius of any star is containing all it's current mass. Sphere with radius+c = mass that star had 1 second ago. radius + 10*c = how massive it was 10 seconds ago. and so on. So if star is living 5 billion years, sphere with radius+5byc will have mass of whole emitted matter since its born. (simplified it, I know, photons and neutrinos are also attracted by other stars)

 

 

Not really sure what relevance you think that math has, but even though photons can distort space and follow its curvature, they do not have direct mass.

If photon has any mass >0, then the all mass since the Bing Bang (if it really happened) is still here and influencing current Universe.

It literally didn't annihilate to nothing.

Photons have "relative" mass, through special processes that aren't fully understood, probably involving the variety of sciences I described, they can give rise to something that for some reason interacts with a higg's field or distorts space in a different manner, but photons themselves don't have mass, you cannot put a photon on a scale and weight it, and it's not measured in kilo-grams, especially because it would either be absorbed or pass through the scale anyway.

At this point, I'd say you're not even trying, you're just trolling.

Edited January 16, 2013 by SamBridge

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Trolling?!

 

I am just giving the basic consequence of giving any ANY mass to these probably the most common in the Universe particles = no need to search for Dark Matter and Dark Energy anymore..

[SamBridge]

Trolling?!

 

I am just giving the basic consequence of giving any ANY mass to these probably the most common in the Universe particles = no need to search for Dark Matter and Dark Energy anymore..

Yeah, that would be great if it would work, except it doesn't.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Equation from post #99:

 

Observer must have exactly the same speed as photon to calculate rest mass of something so small. Ek must be 0.

 

If smallest frequency=1, then m=h*1/c^2.

6.626*10^-34/(3*10^8)^2

Edited January 16, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[kristalris]

A massive particle is stationary in its own frame of reference.

 

 

Then perhaps you should look a little harder. There is quite a lot of evidence for SR and the massless nature of photons, but this isn't the place to discuss it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting the measurements of SR as part of the discussion. I only put this forward because Przem said to leave SR out of the discussion for the moment. I agree you can't. He must explain how the measurements which are linked to SR come about. I.e. take them as a fact. Maybe Przem has to tweak his idea in order to comply.Then he should get help in order to do that.

 

Then again there might be another way around the problem:

 

The heart of that problem can be simply the idea that having mass means thus exerting gravity. That is not an observation, that is a conclusion. That thus doesn't necessarily have to be. Here my idea provides a possible solution that doesn't infringe on anything current science has on measurements. And it would possibly link what Przem is saying to what science incontestably measures.

 

If photons have as yet un-measurably little mass yet are kept below c by the Higgs field and get a (measurable / un-measurably?) little red-shifted in weak gravitational fields where SR works (so SR has its limits) and photons don't get more mass added by the Higgs field because they are to small and thus fast, they don't exert gravity because that is in this idea the under-pressure in the Higgs field caused by that adding of mass. Red-shifting being the price the (probably even more than) super conductive photon pays to hold c. I.e. the price for accelerating in a gravitational field. I guess that would link SR measurements to what Przem is saying in a consistent way.

 

Photons can exert energy as we observe. Saying the thus have mass isn't a priori strange. We measure super conductivity. We measure red-shifting in gravitational fields. We measure photons hold c in a curve of a gravitational field and curve in at twice the Newtonian value. My idea complies i.e. is consistent with all this, and with what Przem is saying if he complies to the measurements linked to SR (and the rest of current science). And might I add I also thus can elegantly provide a concept to explain dark energy and dark matter in one go.

 

It is now scientifically probable that the Higgs field is a very much nearly omnipresent field that provides mass and slows particles down. It not having an effect on a photon isn't probable. Mother nature is an illusionist and not God or a magician IMO.

 

And having a measurement problem somewhere in the issue is an incontestable a priori given. I.e. if we could measure everything in this respect without any difficulty all discussion would quickly reside.

[kristalris]

To start off sorry Przemyslav, I'll call you Sensei then if that is okay? I scanned the posts and mist that bit before posting, I thought I would't have the time to react, but I do, for a bit anyway.

 

Swansont puts forward that there is a lot of evidence of photons (etc.) being mass less. I don't contest that. I guess he in part is referring to observations that light doesn't interfere with other light and can't as yet be made to do so. The thing is I provide a way to elegantly explain that on a concept level (being thus a speculation) albeit testable why that is, and still conclude that photons have mass.

 

I can prove this on a concept level via explaining how my idea works out on the double slit experiment.

 

You can compare it with two rowing boats: eights that have their oars interlocked. If both are traveling in the same direction and same speed (ditto tempo and rhythm) then at great speed not even the waves of the oars will interfere between boats. If one of the rowers starts trying to avoid the other oars then in stead of the chance of that happening lessening it rises. The footprint of his oar in space time (being in this idea simply 3D space and absolute time) will become larger and so the chance of hitting the other oar as well.

 

Normally light (i.e. photons) are going about their business in a very orderly way. The mass of which they are made is also so extremely small it is not a wonder that they don't interfere it is a wonder that anything hits anything else in an orderly way at all. The photon looking at it in that way being more the norm than the exception. But we observe this order in Nature: things are hitting each other in high frequency. I need the dynamic crystal for that. This you can test.

 

What happens in the double slit experiment IMO is that the energy packet of the photon is slowed down in the glass of the first slit (or better it is detoured), this allows the wave front traveling through the Higgs field of unspun mass in the crystal to catch up through the other slit. Because this is in sync with the photon energy packet that has been slowed down / become more chaotic i.e. has got a larger footprint, it is effected by its own wave. You get an interference pattern.

 

If you now start to observe the photon prior too the slit, and in order to do so you must be in sync, and I guess you use an electronic device causing an electro-magnetic field. Because it IMO is all built up of the same stuff (magnetism as well) and you are in sync it will subsequently effect the outcome by either slowing down the wave and/or preventing the detour of the energy packet. Then the energy packet is no longer effected by tits own wave hence no interference.

 

This shows why it is extremely difficult to get two photons to interfere. Yet it should maybe be possible at great difficulty. You would need both photons to be slowed down, i.e. become larger.

 

Now who has the burden of proof to show the needed mathematics (that is to say if Sensei hasn't in part done that already)? Not I. The full reason for that I'm still working on to post in my own thread.

 

In short this isn't a production but a research problem. For mathematics you first decide what for garbage or non garbage you put into the mathematics prior to that. Mathematics dictate you do that in word salad at a concept level looking at all evidence and addressing all problems.

 

It is not true that mathematics show that time is relative and that c = max. These are conclusions based on an interpretation of part of the evidence. It is evident that your mathematics then will change. But that doesn't mean that you will get anything different out of the predictions in the area's where we know that GR QM, SR and FT work. Of course not.

 

On a concept level my idea is logically proven and by far more probable than current science is at that - concept - level. At that level current science is forced to follow Krauss et all stating that something can come from nothing (or things that are extremely improbable and inconsistent). Now that is a blatant contradiction and thus busted as something that you are allowed to assume as a fact that can be put into (or come out of) the mathematics on a research question. That it is proved to work in several production areas doesn't make that any different. Given stated current science assumptions it is mathematically possible to travel back in time. On a concept i.e. logical word salad level that is impossible. Given all the other related dark problems current science is forced back to the basics of first addressing the assumptions. So where is the conflicting word salad concept of current science to the idea's of Sensei and me? That first then the mathematics in science. Yet current science has none and mathematics can't provide that.

 

Thinking you have no assumptions is a production mindset on a research question. You may only take observations and you must also address all relevant questions prior to the mathematics. At this level you have the burden of proof to show where Sensei or I infringe on any observation if we state that we don't infringe on any of it. Then you determine on that word salad level which is the most probable assumptions to be taken as fact and then you do the mathematics and / or tests. Not the other way round. Otherwise you are in a whopping confirmation bias.

 

Apart from that on what observational fact do you conclude that all mass exerts gravity as the most fundamental way of explaining what mass is? You like Krauss et all will end up in saying that nothing has come from something as an assumption in your mathematics. On that level that is busted, because inconsistent with logic and all observations which you thus can't marry. I can. I on the other hand explain how mass can be made to cause gravity in which the massive photon exerts none. And I do that via the correct way to use mathematics. Getting the mathematics and tests done is the next step. And given a proven concept that step is for the professionals in science for which I pay taxes. And for others to support. If you pose or oppose position you must prove position in a falsifiable testable way. I've done that so has Sensei.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

I guess he in part is referring to observations that light doesn't interfere with other light and can't as yet be made to do so.

 

Two gamma photons are producing pair of electron and positron.

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

 

In mine opinion it's one of fluctuations of energy in vacuum.

 

Gamma photons have a lot of P 2/1. It's much easier to collide them with something else, than just a few P 2/1 in visible light wave frequency.

 

f.e. to create two P 5/4 and P 5/1 we would need 5 photons P 2/1

 

P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 = P 10/5

then it can decay to P 5/4 + P 5/4

 

If there is 6 P 2/1, then it would create P 12/6

that would be P 5/4 + P 7/2, or P 5/1 + P 7/5, one electron or one positron has additional P 2/1, which is its kinetic energy.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

If there is 6 P 2/1, then it would create P 12/6

that would be P 5/4 + P 7/2, or P 5/1 + P 7/5, one electron or one positron has additional P 2/1, which is its kinetic energy.

 

Kinetic energy is a particle?

 

What distinguishes a P 2/1 photon from a P 12/6, or P 8/4, or whatever?

 

(and where is the photon from the formation of a deuteron?)

[SamBridge]

To start off sorry Przemyslav, I'll call you Sensei then if that is okay? I scanned the posts and mist that bit before posting, I thought I would't have the time to react, but I do, for a bit anyway.

 

Swansont puts forward that there is a lot of evidence of photons (etc.) being mass less. I don't contest that. I guess he in part is referring to observations that light doesn't interfere with other light and can't as yet be made to do so. The thing is I provide a way to elegantly explain that on a concept level (being thus a speculation) albeit testable why that is, and still conclude that photons have mass.

 

I can prove this on a concept level via explaining how my idea works out on the double slit experiment.

 

You can compare it with two rowing boats: eights that have their oars interlocked. If both are traveling in the same direction and same speed (ditto tempo and rhythm) then at great speed not even the waves of the oars will interfere between boats. If one of the rowers starts trying to avoid the other oars then in stead of the chance of that happening lessening it rises. The footprint of his oar in space time (being in this idea simply 3D space and absolute time) will become larger and so the chance of hitting the other oar as well.

 

Normally light (i.e. photons) are going about their business in a very orderly way. The mass of which they are made is also so extremely small it is not a wonder that they don't interfere it is a wonder that anything hits anything else in an orderly way at all. The photon looking at it in that way being more the norm than the exception. But we observe this order in Nature: things are hitting each other in high frequency. I need the dynamic crystal for that. This you can test.

 

What happens in the double slit experiment IMO is that the energy packet of the photon is slowed down in the glass of the first slit (or better it is detoured), this allows the wave front traveling through the Higgs field of unspun mass in the crystal to catch up through the other slit. Because this is in sync with the photon energy packet that has been slowed down / become more chaotic i.e. has got a larger footprint, it is effected by its own wave. You get an interference pattern.

 

If you now start to observe the photon prior too the slit, and in order to do so you must be in sync, and I guess you use an electronic device causing an electro-magnetic field. Because it IMO is all built up of the same stuff (magnetism as well) and you are in sync it will subsequently effect the outcome by either slowing down the wave and/or preventing the detour of the energy packet. Then the energy packet is no longer effected by tits own wave hence no interference.

 

This shows why it is extremely difficult to get two photons to interfere. Yet it should maybe be possible at great difficulty. You would need both photons to be slowed down, i.e. become larger.

 

Now who has the burden of proof to show the needed mathematics (that is to say if Sensei hasn't in part done that already)? Not I. The full reason for that I'm still working on to post in my own thread.

 

In short this isn't a production but a research problem. For mathematics you first decide what for garbage or non garbage you put into the mathematics prior to that. Mathematics dictate you do that in word salad at a concept level looking at all evidence and addressing all problems.

 

It is not true that mathematics show that time is relative and that c = max. These are conclusions based on an interpretation of part of the evidence. It is evident that your mathematics then will change. But that doesn't mean that you will get anything different out of the predictions in the area's where we know that GR QM, SR and FT work. Of course not.

 

On a concept level my idea is logically proven and by far more probable than current science is at that - concept - level. At that level current science is forced to follow Krauss et all stating that something can come from nothing (or things that are extremely improbable and inconsistent). Now that is a blatant contradiction and thus busted as something that you are allowed to assume as a fact that can be put into (or come out of) the mathematics on a research question. That it is proved to work in several production areas doesn't make that any different. Given stated current science assumptions it is mathematically possible to travel back in time. On a concept i.e. logical word salad level that is impossible. Given all the other related dark problems current science is forced back to the basics of first addressing the assumptions. So where is the conflicting word salad concept of current science to the idea's of Sensei and me? That first then the mathematics in science. Yet current science has none and mathematics can't provide that.

 

Thinking you have no assumptions is a production mindset on a research question. You may only take observations and you must also address all relevant questions prior to the mathematics. At this level you have the burden of proof to show where Sensei or I infringe on any observation if we state that we don't infringe on any of it. Then you determine on that word salad level which is the most probable assumptions to be taken as fact and then you do the mathematics and / or tests. Not the other way round. Otherwise you are in a whopping confirmation bias.

 

Apart from that on what observational fact do you conclude that all mass exerts gravity as the most fundamental way of explaining what mass is? You like Krauss et all will end up in saying that nothing has come from something as an assumption in your mathematics. On that level that is busted, because inconsistent with logic and all observations which you thus can't marry. I can. I on the other hand explain how mass can be made to cause gravity in which the massive photon exerts none. And I do that via the correct way to use mathematics. Getting the mathematics and tests done is the next step. And given a proven concept that step is for the professionals in science for which I pay taxes. And for others to support. If you pose or oppose position you must prove position in a falsifiable testable way. I've done that so has Sensei.

There's another fundamental problem with your assumptions. A staticfield, such as a higg's field which theoretically causes mass, does not "catch up", it merely exists where the uncertainty of it's current state says it exists, which unless there is a change in the higg's field is constantly the same everywhere. Particles such as photons and higg's bosons and others aren't completely waves, they are fields, and a property of a field is that it's position instantaneously correlates to any position it occupies before a state change. If what your saying was true then matter would fall apart as it approached the speed of light because the bosons that exchange forces and properties for mass wouldn't be able to catch up as much to different particles, which is wrong. Photons don't interfere depending on the context, they can also become entangled, but it's rather rare to randomly observe them making particles themselves.

Edited January 16, 2013 by SamBridge

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

What distinguishes a P 2/1 photon from a P 12/6, or P 8/4, or whatever?

 

The same you can ask yourself: what distinguishes SM photon with E=0.510998 MeV from Electron also with E=0.510998 MeV..

 

It's different sub-atomic configuration of elementary particles in single point.

 

The first one is group of points with P 2/1 (5 * P 2/1 from above example), that they sum up to E=0.510998 MeV.

Second one is P 5/4 + P 2/1 * quantity giving mass to composite particle. +3 more negative elementary particles, than positive in single point, is causing its electric charge.

 

Collision of Electron P 5/4 and Positron P 5/1 just reconfigures elementary particles such way that there are only 5 P 2/1

 

If Electron-compatible particle is made of P 7/5 and Positron P 7/2 then there is made 7 P 2/1

If Electron-compatible particle is made of P 11/7 and Positron P 11/4 then there can be made 11 P 2/1

If Electron-compatible particle is made of P 10009/5006 and Positron P 10009/5003 there can be made 10009 P 2/1

etc. etc.

 

(and where is the photon from the formation of a deuteron?)

 

If you will make Deuterium using two protons, you will have your photon(s). But you know that to construct Neutron from Proton there is also needed Electron..

 

P 31/14 + P 2/1 + (...) + P 2/1 + P 2/1 (some energy; high temperature) + P 5/4 = P 40/20 + (...)

P 31/14 + P 40/20 + (...) = P 71/34 + (...)

Newly made Deuterium, if it's P 71/34, has 0 K, so it's immediately receiving photons from surrounding it hot particles. So whole emission of photons from formation of Deuterium is immediately taken by other particles and Deuterium is immediately heated again. And surrounding particles are slightly cooled.

[swansont]

 

The same you can ask yourself: what distinguishes SM photon with E=0.510998 MeV from Electron also with E=0.510998 MeV..

 

An electron is a spin 1/2 lepton particle, at rest with this energy — it's all mass — and with a charge. It participates in the electromagnetic and weak interactions. A photon is massless, zero charge, spin 1 particle which interacts electromagnetically. (I'm ignoring gravity in all this)

 

 

It's different sub-atomic configuration of elementary particles in single point.

 

The first one is group of points with P 2/1 (5 * P 2/1 from above example), that they sum up to E=0.510998 MeV.

Second one is P 5/4 + P 2/1 * quantity giving mass to composite particle. +3 more negative elementary particles, than positive in single point, is causing its electric charge.

 

Collision of Electron P 5/4 and Positron P 5/1 just reconfigures elementary particles such way that there are only 5 P 2/1

 

If Electron-compatible particle is made of P 7/5 and Positron P 7/2 then there is made 7 P 2/1

If Electron-compatible particle is made of P 11/7 and Positron P 11/4 then there can be made 11 P 2/1

If Electron-compatible particle is made of P 10009/5006 and Positron P 10009/5003 there can be made 10009 P 2/1

etc. etc.

 

 

That doesn't answer my question. I asked about photons, not electrons. What distinguishes a P 2/1 photon from a P 12/6, or P 8/4, or whatever?

 

 

If you will make Deuterium using two protons, you will have your photon(s). But you know that to construct Neutron from Proton there is also needed Electron..

 

P 31/14 + P 2/1 + (...) + P 2/1 + P 2/1 (some energy; high temperature) + P 5/4 = P 40/20 + (...)

P 31/14 + P 40/20 + (...) = P 71/34 + (...)

Newly made Deuterium, if it's P 71/34, has 0 K, so it's immediately receiving photons from surrounding it hot particles. So whole emission of photons from formation of Deuterium is immediately taken by other particles and Deuterium is immediately heated again. And surrounding particles are slightly cooled.

 

I want to make one from a neutron and a proton, in free space, with no other interactions. It does not require external photons for this to happen (a single particle can't be a 0K; that makes no sense), and must release energy to do so. Your model doesn't work.

 

But, on the subject of electrons,

 

 

P 5/4 + P 5/1 = P 10/5

 

P 10/5 is:

5 Photons P 2/1

or

2 Neutrinos P 4/2 and 1 Photon P 2/1

or

1 Neutrino P 6/3 and 1 Neutrino P 4/2

or

1 Neutrino P 4/2 and 3 Photons P 2/1

 

What we actually see in electron-positron annihilation is usually 2 photons of equal energy, which you don't list here. What we don't see is 3 photons and a neutrino, or 2 different kinds of neutrinos, both of which you say can happen. Failed predictions, all.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

If photons have as yet un-measurably little mass yet are kept below c by the Higgs field and get a (measurable / un-measurably?) little red-shifted in weak gravitational fields where SR works (so SR has its limits) and photons don't get more mass added by the Higgs field because they are to small and thus fast, they don't exert gravity because that is in this idea the under-pressure in the Higgs field caused by that adding of mass. Red-shifting being the price the (probably even more than) super conductive photon pays to hold c. I.e. the price for accelerating in a gravitational field. I guess that would link SR measurements to what Przem is saying in a consistent way.

 

Please. I don't want to hear about Higgs fields, parallel universes, multi dimensions and stuff like that.

Why do you want to force plugging it in mine idea?

Mass in mine theory is caused by elementary particles, their quantity defines how it's influencing space..

 

Gravitational influence on space made by example Proton 1836.15 times heavier than electron will look like this:

 

 

Electrostatic force view mode:

 

 

If we will make it 1000 times more powerful force:

 

 

Electron is pointing down of course. Proton up. 2D view mode.

 

If we would have electron and positron, both views would look the same. Now imagine that they're intersecting, the result would be -e + e = 0. And electrostatic force influence would be gone.

 

This the smallest peak in 1st view is photon P 2/1. In this example 10,000 smaller mass than Electron, and 18.3 million times smaller than Proton.

 

[swansont]

 

This the smallest peak in 1st view is photon P 2/1. In this example 10,000 smaller mass than Electron, and 18.3 million times smaller than Proton.

 

The measured value of photon mass is bounded by a value much smaller than this, and is consistent with zero

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

 

The largest upper bound is 10^-14 eV/c^2, from tests of Coulomb's law. Compare that to the electron at 0.5 MeV/c^2, and that's 19 orders of magnitude smaller. Not 4. Other tests result in even smaller values.

 

Another failed prediction.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

The measured value of photon mass is bounded by a value much smaller than this, and is consistent with zero

 

No surprise, you can't find Dark Matter and Dark Energy..

 

If something is any bigger than 0, even the smallest m=h/c^2, and you will imagine sphere with radius+14 billion year*c*2 from "center" you will have entire mass of Universe since the beginning..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

 

The largest upper bound is 10^-14 eV/c^2, from tests of Coulomb's law. Compare that to the electron at 0.5 MeV/c^2, and that's 19 orders of magnitude smaller. Not 4. Other tests result in even smaller values.

 

 

 

 

10^-14 eV/c^2 is bigger than what I calculated in post #99 using 1 Hz.

 

v=3 Hz

 

m=h*v/c^2

 

m=4.135*10^-15*3/c^2=1.2407*10^-14/c^2 eV

 

 

Another failed prediction.

 

You should learn programming..

 

It was no prediction. Prediction was in post #99.

It was computer software realism- you can't use too low values in application with standard floating point single/double precision numbers supported directly by CPU built-in FPU (thus fast). Because they'll introduce too much error.

There is needed to make software emulated floating point any precision number, that can handle f.e. 1000 digits after floating point.

But such software emulation is dramatically slowing down calculations.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[kristalris]

There's another fundamental problem with your assumptions. A staticfield, such as a higg's field which theoretically causes mass, does not "catch up", it merely exists where the uncertainty of it's current state says it exists, which unless there is a change in the higg's field is constantly the same everywhere. Particles such as photons and higg's bosons and others aren't completely waves, they are fields, and a property of a field is that it's position instantaneously correlates to any position it occupies before a state change. If what your saying was true then matter would fall apart as it approached the speed of light because the bosons that exchange forces and properties for mass wouldn't be able to catch up as much to different particles, which is wrong. Photons don't interfere depending on the context, they can also become entangled, but it's rather rare to randomly observe them making particles themselves.

Well put, and indeed my idea does cover that even though as I stated in my thread I refrained from giving the entire idea because it probably would cloud the issue.

 

I hope to post my idea on procedure today in my thread and maybe get round to updating my latest views in the latest version of my idea in the thread as well this weekend. It's work in progress. (For instance I changed the way I thought about the double slit experiment via objections of someone else. Anyway who said what, is all on record elsewhere)

 

The reason is that with what I did put in my thread I already show enough proof of concept IMO to warrant funding of a feasibility study in to the proposed tests. Being the tests the result of following proper scientific research procedure. This doing philosophy as most physicists would call it is a practical means to an end. It shows you where to start looking for an answer via a test. It has produced a test on which a feasibility study wont cost much.

 

You can take the Higgs field as static IMO when discussing this even though it is IMO moving like a glacier. I.e. as static as a glacier seems when walking over it. So it doesn't IMO have to catch up as a field. The mass it provides the say atom that passes through that field does need to be brought to catch up. Please bear in mind this atom is even if parts of it might be at c is still slow enough if the Higgs field is maybe / need be even far above c. Mind you, every bit of mass is contained in an extremely small virtual box. This you can test in the given experiment. (Sensei should be able to answer the question on the feasibility of doing such a computer simulation.)

 

Anyway science and also Sensei fail to provide an answer for how things can and have gone to order. And they fail to explain why things don't disintegrate much faster, then they should given current science. I do explain this.

 

Even though we on earth are spiraling all over the place in space; the speed in some parts of our galaxy is some 250 km/s

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_curve_(Milky_Way).JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

 

twirling around the center of the Milky-way. The mass of the Higgs field is > c. Maybe even far above c. It goes to order extremely fast. I.e. it must explain going to order in the time needed to let say the wave front of a photon that could be a meter long go to order en far less than a blink of an eye so to speak. So even when going through this field at this speed it should restore itself fast enough to fit the observation of an intact Higgs field crystal at a great bandwidth of speeds.

 

And indeed I also predict what I call the helicopter effect. I.e. a helicopter can't exceed say a third of the speed of sound because the tip of the rotor would go through the sound barrier. (depending on the size of the rotor.) The same problem I predict you will have in speeding up say an atom. The electron will hit c. It will become unstable around 1/3 c. This can also be tested but that would be far more elaborate and costly to do.

 

So for my idea to fit the observations the acceleration of Hubble must over billions of years keep it going without disintegrating. We do observe mounting entropy which is consistent with my idea.

 

A new way to test my idea is looking at a average galaxy as a large gyro that is spinning at the given speeds in the Wikipedia link but take it as an average speed of most of the mass in the outer ring. I.e. that the total energy remains the same. Then you downsize the entire thing to a toy gyro of 1 kg and see how much gravity that should give when spun by a kid in order to explain dark matter. If the mathematics show that I must tell my kid not to spin that gyro because all the stuff in the room will fling towards it, then my idea on this is busted. We simply don't observe this. If on the other hand you need a gyro the size of the moon spun at 10000 rpm we have a measurement problem. Then w'll have to dream up a different test. However it might be relatively easy to test if you have done the simple math's to see how small a measurement problem actually is. My idea provides you with a reason to start looking in that direction. Science clearly hasn't done that yet because I guess someone would have pointed that out to me. So start looking or explain why we don't have to.

 

If what I say - or what Sensei for that matter - says isn't perfect at the moment that could be a problem in a production question. In research that isn't the norm. Is it plausible enough to warrant further time and effort to bring it to the next level or not? That is the norm, or should be. I'll go into that in more depth in my own thread. It is work in progress i.e. that we will have to change the idea's is a given.

 

What I don't grasp on the critique Swansont is giving him is if Sensei shows he can build it all from one particle upwards, that it can be held against him - if I understand this correctly - that sometimes when breaking up a particle also fusion could occur as a result of the way you broke it up?

Edited January 17, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

It was no prediction. Prediction was in post #99.

 

It looked like a prediction, but if it isn't, then of what value is it, showing that example? Kind of pointless to say the mass of a photon is 10,000 times smaller than the electron, but then admit that the number is meaningless.

 

 

As far as post #99 goes, the mass of the photon does not depend on its frequency. If it did, there would be effects that we do not observe (despite having looked).