Photonic molecule discovery vindicating the Mother of all theories

[MagInertia]

I've been working on a theory for 'everything' for several years now. It has been very difficult because although I'm bursting with creativity, I am a novice to the quantum world despite my intense fascination with its products. The recent discovery of photonic molecules (they made photons, energy, behave like mass, by slowing it down and passing it through a cooled vacuum full of rubidium) gave me the final vindication for my Force Stream Theory. The theory has been able to explain (in layman terms) quantum entanglement, duality paradox, the uncertainty principle, black holes, and several others, as well as unite the fundamental forces. One question though, based on the photonic molecule experiment. If energy (or force particles) can be made to emulate the characteristics of mass particles through deceleration and interaction, couldn't we then say that another way of viewing f=ma, would be m=f/a?

[Strange]

couldn't we then say that another way of viewing f=ma, would be m=f/a?

 

We could. That is true, regardless of everything else in your post.

[Sensei]

I've been working on a theory for 'everything' for several years now.

 

Please calculate for us how much energy will be carried by particles (and tell us what they're) of decaying Tin-121 isotope.

 

If you cannot give such easy answer, you have not even started making your own ToE.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Sensei

[MagInertia]

@Protist thanks. One more question if that's ok. If light speed can be deduced to being the result of a force that propelled it to that speed, couldn't the existence of black holes and lights inability to escape it, justify the existence of forces greater than the one capable of propelling to light speed?

@sensei, not sure if you read your question, but its not completely clear. My purpose behind the post was to get an answer to the latter part regarding the formula f=ma. I did say that I am a novice to the quantum world, but in response to the latter part of your post...just because a chef doesn't know how a particular seasoning is made doesn't mean he can't put together a recipe including it.

[Strange]

@Protist thanks. One more question if that's ok. If light speed can be deduced to being the result of a force that propelled it to that speed, couldn't the existence of black holes and lights inability to escape it, justify the existence of forces greater than the one capable of propelling to light speed?

 

The speed of light isn't due to any force. Photons, like all massless particles travel at the speed of light, with no force required.

 

The reason that nothing can escape a black hole is also not due to any forces. It is because of the curvature of space-time.

 

 

My purpose behind the post was to get an answer to the latter part regarding the formula f=ma. I did say that I am a novice to the quantum world

 

Not wishing to be impolite, but if you have to ask that question, it suggests you are a novice at basic algebra.

 

 

just because a chef doesn't know how a particular seasoning is made doesn't mean he can't put together a recipe including it.

 

Nice analogy. But irrelevant to science (and most branches of engineering).

Edited June 25, 2014 by Strange

[Sensei]

@sensei, not sure if you read your question, but its not completely clear. My purpose behind the post was to get an answer to the latter part regarding the formula f=ma. I did say that I am a novice to the quantum world, but in response to the latter part of your post...just because a chef doesn't know how a particular seasoning is made doesn't mean he can't put together a recipe including it.

 

Somebody coming with ToE must be able to calculate everything and know everything.

Especially basics.

[MagInertia]

@strange thanks for the response. I learned, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most variations of the electromagnetic force (whether it be in the form of sunlight or radiation) are emitted due to the actions of the Weak force, so wouldn't that still indicate a force that propelled the photon (even if that photon has been traveling since the beginning of the universe, it would have been propelled by the big bang, a force).

 

Also on the question of black holes, it is said that the gravitational pull is the cause for the curving of space-time, and gravity is still a force.

@sensei, that's not entirely true. A theory is just that, a theory, and most theories are not proven (by experiment or calculation, for several years). Perhaps the reason why a ToE hasn't been developed is because scientists are working from the bottom up, rather than from the bigger picture downward. Atoms were theorized to exist long before we came up with calculations for them. The higgs-boson was theorized to exist years before we developed equipment sensitive or powerful enough to detect it. Just because we cant put our finger on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because we don't have calculations for black holes doesn't mean they don't make sense. As long as a ToE can explain the existence of everything from a singular perspective or theme, isn't it worth investigating?

[Sensei]

Any theory without math, just lingual philosophical talking, on this forum (and the most of other moderated science forums) ends up in trash, sooner or later.

 

Sounds like you wasted a lot of time.

Instead you should have learned everything what we know.

Then you could be at least qualified opponent to discussion.

 

[MagInertia]

@strange, thanks for not being impolite. For the sake of analogy lets say F(6)=m(3)a(2), that would be the same as m(3)=f(6)/a(2), that sounds right to me.

[Strange]

@strange thanks for the response. I learned, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most variations of the electromagnetic force (whether it be in the form of sunlight or radiation) are emitted due to the actions of the Weak force, so wouldn't that still indicate a force that propelled the photon (even if that photon has been traveling since the beginning of the universe, it would have been propelled by the big bang, a force).

 

I am not aware of any weak interactions that involve photons. (But even if there were, the photons would not be "propelled by a force".) And the big bang was not a force.

 

 

Also on the question of black holes, it is said that the gravitational pull is the cause for the curving of space-time, and gravity is still a force.

 

In Newtonian physics, gravity can be treated as a force. In GR (which describes the big bang and black holes) it is not a force. It is the curvature of space-time.

 

 

Atoms were theorized to exist long before we came up with calculations for them. The higgs-boson was theorized to exist years before we developed equipment sensitive or powerful enough to detect it.

 

Where science has predicted things before they are found, that is because we have a mathematical mode supported by evidence. Do you? Or are you just using your imagination to come up with fanciful ideas?

 

 

Just because we don't have calculations for black holes doesn't mean they don't make sense.

 

We obviously do have calculations for black holes. That is why they make sense.

[MagInertia]

@sensei, theories are philosophical, when they are proven by math, they then become law. I know you are very intelligent and proud of what you know, but if you research the experiment I mentioned at the beginning of my post, you will see that it has been proven that what scientist 'know' is not always written in stone, otherwise how would have the sciences evolved? With that kind of perspective that what you don't know can only be found in what you know, and that someone who doesn't know what you know can not possibly figure out what you couldn't, one might be seen as pompous, right?

@strange, not sure but isn't the weak nuclear force responsible for the reactions in the sun that release photons?

[Strange]

@sensei, theories are philosophical, when they are proven by math, they then become law.

 

Not really. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses. Then they are tested and reviewed and tested again. If it isn't shown to be correct then it is reluctantly accepted as a theory.

 

 

if you research the experiment I mentioned at the beginning of my post, you will see that it has been proven that what scientist 'know' is not always written in stone

 

The results of that experiment were exactly as predicted by theory.

[MagInertia]

@strange, and the predictions of the experiment was that the rules regarding photons were incomplete. May not mean that the mathematics relating to photons was wrong, but that there was an aspect of photons that scientists missed out on

[Strange]

@strange, and the predictions of the experiment was that the rules regarding photons were incomplete. May not mean that the mathematics relating to photons was wrong, but that there was an aspect of photons that scientists missed out on

 

As the theory predicted what would happen and the experiment confirmed it, I don't know what you think is incomplete or missed.

[MagInertia]

@strange, photons are not supposed to act that way according to current laws, is what I meant. If predictions can be made to go against current laws of science, then not all laws are written in stone and can be upgraded or adjusted. Not exactly sure if we are miscommunicating with definitions, but predictions, postulations, proposed explanations or hypothesis, all aim to provide a unique interpretation to test (whether it is with math or experimentation) so no I do not have the mathematics or tools to experiment yet, and I know its an uphill battle because scientists tend to ridicule anything that doesn't fit a certain mold, which is confusing concerning that there are still several things that scientists haven't been able to explain yet but are very real. I joined this site hoping to have creative discussions and considering that I haven't proposed anything that is so off the fall someone would refer to it as a waste of time, produces some concern so one last question if I may. If the Big Bang is not a force, could it be the reaction to or of a force?

[Strange]

@strange, photons are not supposed to act that way according to current laws, is what I meant.

 

Well, obviously they are, because that s what the theory predicts.

 

 

f predictions can be made to go against current laws of science, then not all laws are written in stone and can be upgraded or adjusted.

 

Absolutely. That is how we have the set of theories we do now: they produced different or better predictions than previous theories (where "better" means matching reality).

 

If you have mathematical mode that can produce testable predictions, then you are doing science. If those predictions are "better" (more accurate or predict something that current theories don't) then you have a new theory.

 

 

I know its an uphill battle because scientists tend to ridicule anything that doesn't fit a certain mold

 

Well, I guess they will ridicule things that pretend to be science but aren't.

 

 

there are still several things that scientists haven't been able to explain yet but are very real.

 

Of course science doesn't have all the answers. But science is the best method we have found of finding (practical/useful) answers.

 

 

If the Big Bang is not a force, could it be the reaction to or of a force?

 

The ultimate cause (if any) is not currently known.

[Delta1212]

A couple of points: in colloquial usage, the word "theory" is used more or less interchangeably with the word "idea." In science, a theory is something very specific; it is a mathematical model that describes some behavior. If your theory is not that, then you are most likely using the common definition of the word theory and not the scientific one, which means that it's not a scientific theory.

 

Scientists tend to get annoyed and bristly when they hear things like "it's just a theory." It's not because they are naturally angry people out to insult you. It's because in science, a theory is not a guess. A theory is a very rigorous, well tested, highly specific, experimentally verified explanation of how something works. When I talk about the Theory of Gravity, I'm not talking about our best guess at what gravity is. I'm instead talking about a set of formulas that will allow me to very precisely predict the behavior of object in a gravity field. "Gravity pulls things down" is not a scientific theory. "The Earth's gravity accelerates objects toward its center of mass at 9.8 m/s/s" is more in the ballpark, although really we'd be talking about a set of formulas that would allow you to predict the motion of any object in any gravity field given information on the masses, distances and initial velocities of any objects involved.

 

Similarly, a scientific Theory of Everything had a very specific meaning. It is not an idea that explains what everything is. It is a formula or set of formulas that will allow you (hypothetically) to accurately calculate the behavior of anything given enough information about it and, of course, the time/computational power.

 

Between General Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics, we actually come pretty close to that. There are still some problems that persist, however, especially when it comes to areas of overlap between the two theories where one or both tend to be inadequate on their own and their incompatibility becomes an issue.

 

Of course, it would be much too complicated to fully model certain complex systems (such as the workings of the human body) using solely quantum mechanics, but theoretically you could given enough time.

 

When one refers to the Theory of Everything, this is what is meant, the ability to accurately model the behavior of anything in the universe. If it does not allow you to make those kinds of calculations, it is not what scientists think of when they talk about a Theory of Everything and they will most likely become agitated when you describe something which is not that as a Theory of Everything.

[Ophiolite]

I feel physically ill witnessing yet another individual blessed with profound ignorance, coupled with delusions of adequacy. Will this stream of ineptness and unjustified confidence never end?

 

Insulting? Yes, MagInertia, I am insulted by your posts here, on behalf of the scientists who have studied these things, who have devoted their lives to advancing human knowledge, who have spent years acquiring an understanding of our current knowledge before venturing to move it forward a little. Other members have diplomatically pointed out some of your errors and misplaced arrogance. I see no evidence it has had any effect on you. I doubt my more direct approach will either, but I live in hope.

[swansont]

@strange, photons are not supposed to act that way according to current laws, is what I meant. If predictions can be made to go against current laws of science, then not all laws are written in stone and can be upgraded or adjusted.

 

If you're referring to the photonic molecules, then this is not a proper characterization. There is nothing in the experiment that violates existing laws. It was a clever experiment and one that probably could not have been performed until recently owing to the technology involved, but the "building blocks" of it are all well-established.

 

The description of the system as interacting photons is a bit of poetic license; one needs to study more than the pop-science articles to see past that and see what's going on. Photons develop a correlation because of their interactions with the material, which is in a specially-prepared state called a Rydberg state (large excitations and maximum angular momentum, so they are long-lived and interact in specific ways. One of the things that happens is you get a large dipole moment, which means they will have an interaction with surrounding atoms. So one photon goes through and interacts. The next photon sees what is called a "Rydberg blockade" — the interactions caused by photon #1 change the index of refraction for photon #2 if it gets too close, and then the propagation speed of #2 slows dramatically (v = c/n, and n is very large). What you end up with is the two photons acting like they are coupled, but they are not interaction with each other.

 

Think of it this way (I think I read this analogy in some article). You're walking through a sparse crowd in a room, from one side to the other. ahead of you is someone famous, and they attract a bunch of people who want to shake hands. That crowd slows you down (large index) because you're following them and going in the same direction. Your exit of the far side of the room will be correlated with the famous person. But you never actually interacted with that person.

 

 

It's all mainstream physics, just applied in a novel way.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Ophiolite - whilst many of us may share your frustration we must all abide by the rules of the forum. Please address your criticisms at the post rather than at the author. The fact that you feel insulted by the wanton disregard of scientific understanding in the Original Post and subsequent messages does not justify a direct personal insult; nor are insults any less wounding when wrapped in beautiful prose.

 

Please do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

MagInertia

This topic has been moved to Speculations. Please take a moment to read the specific rules of that sub-forum.