Mike Harney: Physics Articles: Cosmology, Mass of Photon

[haselhurst]

Hi Mike,

I have now read each of your articles several times.
I enjoy your logical reasoning, and think that your work has great potential (and i mean this very sincerely). If the WSM is correct, then maths deduced from it will be correct (and more simple, explain more things) and you will be a very famous physics person one day! I hope that is a nice thought to help motivate you! And your work will also help lift physics out of the dark ages that it has now descended into.

However, I do not completely understand all of the arguments (Maths Physics is not my strong suit!, though I have a pretty good understanding of the theoretical / metaphysical foundations of Physics and its history). And as you would be aware, I do not agree with some of the foundations from which you start, particularly an expanding universe.
I am hoping that over time you will re-write your work from foundations more sympathetic to your emerging knowledge of the Wave Structure of Matter.
So i think that it is best that i do not comment too much for now, wait and see how your work evolves over next few months.

A few things;

From: Journal of Theoretics
Volume 5-6, Dec 2003/Jan 2004
Derivation of Hubble’s Constant and the Quantization of the Gravitational Field

Mike - a prediction is made for the mass of the photon as 5.81 x 10-69 kg.

Geoff - It seems to me that a 'photon' is really an electron moving from one discrete standing wave pattern to another in an atom / molecule, hence the discrete energy change. Thus it also seems to me that there is no such thing as a 'photon' as something that has any mass, but rather there is matter which is large, as a spherical standing structure of the universe, and when its wave center changes wave pattern (in atom) then the total energy of that electron's waves changes. So I am inclined to think that it is misleading to talk of the mass of a 'photon' but rather that the mass (total wave energy) of an electron changes.
This solves problem of relativity where a photon particle travelling at velocity of light c would have to have an infinite mass.


Mike - First from Mach’s Principle, let us assume an object in the Universe with rest mass m0 and the entire mass of the Universe is acting on this object gravitationally, so that the gravitational potential energy of all objects in the Universe acting on this single rest mass is found by integrating Newton's force law over the radius of the Universe to obtain,
[G*(Mass of Universe)*m0 / (r= radius of Universe)] = m0*c^2 (1)

Although (1) treats masses as if they are point sources and we are taking the entire mass of the Universe as a point source, it is assumed that this point source exists because of the distribution of matter through the Universe and the distance between any arbitrary object and the center of mass of the Universe is still on the order of magnitude of the radius of the Universe.
From this relation of the gravitational potential energy of the mass of the Universe acting on one object we see immediately that the rest mass cancels from both sides and the speed of light is in fact dependent upon the gravitational constant, the mass of the Universe and the radius of the Universe.
Of these three factors, the radius of the Universe is the one assumed most likely to change over time and this formula shows that the speed of light is changing very slowly relative to our own time frame. If we choose a density for the Universe of 5 x 10-27 kg/m3 [2], and assume a spherical shape then the mass of the Universe is calculated as the density*volume with radius of the Universe equal to 1.9 x 10^26 meters. The mass of the Universe is then found to be 1.44 x 10^53 kg. Substituting these values into equation (1), the speed of light c is calculated to be 2.25 x 10^8 m/sec, close to the actual value and within the same order of magnitude.
The conclusion from (1) is that the speed of light will decrease slowly as the Universe expands.

Geoff - This seems similar to Milo Wolff's equation of the Cosmos (deducing Mach's Principle). But that not only is the entire mass of universe acting on object, it is actually creating this object (their Out-Waves create its In-Waves).
And i would love to see you re-do these calculations based on no expansion of the Universe, but rather WSM Cosmology where Finite Spherical Universe exists within Infinite Space. It is the gravitational effects of matter outside our visible sphere that prevents our Finite Spherical Universe from collapsing (explaining true cause of Einstein's Cosmological / Antigravity Constant, and removing need for an expanding universe).

Mike - Next, let’s revisit matter waves as described by de Broglie in 1924. From the knowledge of light having particle-like properties, de Broglie drew the conclusion that matter should have wave-like properties and assigned the formula (again using the energy relation of E = h*f and incorporating momentum):
Matter-wavelength of particle = h / (mass-particle * velocity-particle) , (
where h = Planck's constant of 6.62 x 10-34 Joules*sec.

It has been shown in the Bohr model of the atom that the stability of electronic orbits is obtained by requiring an integral number of matter-wavelengths of the electron to equal the circumference of each orbit. This ensures stability of each electronic orbit in the Bohr model of the atom, and we will apply this same principle to the matter-wavelength of a photon and the diameter of the Universe.
We then set the matter-wavelength of a photon equal to the diameter of the Universe,

Diameter of Universe = h / (mass of photon * c) , (9)

From equation 9, we can then state,

2 x 1.9 x 10^26 meters = h / (mass-photon * speed of light) , (10)

For the speed of light we use c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec and we find the mass of the photon as;
Mass-photon = 5.81 x 10-69 kg or 3.23 x 10-33 eV.

The assumption that we made in (9), that the matter-wavelength of a photon is equal to the diameter of the Universe, can be verified by solving Schrodinger’s equation for the probability density function of a particle in a two-dimensional box (assuming the particle is a photon and the box is the Universe – the two dimensional derivation is approximate to our three-dimensional universe but the results are amazingly close to what we would expect).
For the two-dimensional box the solution to Schrodinger’s equation for the quantized energies of the particle is:

E = [(nx)^2 + (ny)^2 ]*h^2/(8mL^2) . (10b)

Where h = Planck's constant and nx and ny are the quantum numbers that give the multiple number of wavelengths that are possible inside the box from the Schrodinger solution (the quantum numbers also specify allowable energies of the particle, or in our case the allowable rest-mass energies of the photon). Because we have assumed the photon has a rest-mass we set the rest-energy of the photon equal to the ground state of (10b) which corresponds to nx and ny = 1,

h^2/(8*(mass of photon)*L2) = (mass of photon)*c^2 . (10c)

Now we take L which is the length of the box and set it equal to 2r, where r is the radius of the Universe (1.9 x 10^26 meters) and we find:

Mass of photon = [h^2/(8*(2r)2c^2)]1/2 = 2 x 10-69 kg . (10d)

When we compare the results of 10a with 10d, the photon rest-mass is basically the same and the assumption that the photon matter-wavelength is equal to the diameter of the Universe (which is the solution to Schrodinger’s equation for the photon trapped in the Universe, equation (10b), produces a result from quantized energy levels that matches (10a).
From this assumption we see that the rest-mass energy of the photon (which from equation 1 is also equal to it’s gravitational potential energy) is equivalent to it’s zero-point energy in the quantum well of the Universe.

Geoff - I am intrigued by this. According to WSM matter is a structure of the universe, so effectively the size of the universe (we have been deluded into thinking it is a small 'particle' because we have evolved to only see the high wave amplitude wave center, where most wave interactions occur). Thus when the electron changes wave patterns in atom / molecule (emits or absorbs photon of light), the energy change relates to the universal structure. So it seems to me that your argument above is largely valid. But your mass of the 'photon' must really be the change in the total wave energy of the spherical standing wave / electron (there is no separate 'photon).
It seems to me though that this 'mass of photon' calculation would depend on the change in wave function energy for electron which would vary in different types of atoms / molecules (i.e. the different frequencies of light - that it would not be one constant value).
----------------------------------

From: Journal of Theoretics
Volume 6-5, Oct/Nov 2004 (Last Comment)

Mike - For Ru = radius of universe and k as found above it is shown that v = c, showing that the speed of a wave in the space-time fabric produced by the universal tensile force in {2} is equal to the speed of light. Note that v is not the speed of the mass itself but rather the speed of its de Broglie wave which we assume travels in the plane normal to the particle’s velocity vector. We assume this because the rest-energy of the particle can be set equal to the quantized energy in a two-dimensional quantum well and then the relation in {1} is derived[3]. This then defines the rest-energy of the particle from its mass as mc2 which is based on the energy in its de Broglie wave, which is proportional to v2 when v = c. The particle may be moving at some speed and this produces separate, non-standing de Broglie waves based on the particle’s speed but in {4} we propose that standing de Broglie waves normal to the velocity vector is what defines the rest energy of the particle. ...

Mike - From the above discussions it is proposed that the spacetime fabric is a quantum foam composed of elastic, primordial blackholes that exhibit characteristics of elastic materials such as Hooke’s Law.

Geoff - It is the foundation of metaphysics and philosophy that matter must be necessarily connected by one common thing / substance (to explain not only the interconnected Motion of matter in universe, but as the very foundation for logic and truth which require necessary connection, see: Heraclitus, Aristotle, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Einstein, Bohm, ...).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Wave_Structure_of_Matter

And the most simple explanation is that this One substance is Space (which we all commonly experience), which must then be Infinite, Eternal and Continuous, i.e. No boundaries, creation, or particles, which require a second thing to exist. Thus I cannot agree that space is made of elastic, primordial blackholes. I do agree that Space is a nearly rigid slightly elastic wave medium though.

This is enough for me for one post. Look forward to your further thoughts. But i am excited by what I have read! I have high hopes that you can do some brilliant work on the Wave Structure of Matter.
Cheers,
Geoff

[mike]

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for your comments - you are very kind to offer these. I believe your work to bring WSM to light will also be fruitful. Here are some answers to the questions you mentioned:

Geoff - Thanks. I have added some further comments / questions below. My replies are based on how the WSM sees things.

1) On a photon as an electron. I believe the photon is still the smallest mass unit - being of fundamental matter wavelength (with this wavelength being equal to the radius of our Hubble sphere). Although the Lorentz transformations show all mass going to infinity at the speed of light, another way of interpreting this is that there is a reference-mass that can go at c and everything heavier is subject to shifting of it's matter wavelength to lower wavelengths as it is accelerated. I believe the Lorentz transformations do not shown in the equation the mass of the photon because the derivation of the equation starts from a reference point and so like all mathematical derivations that model reality without an accurate model (or only somewhat accurate model), artifacts are introduced such as singularities where two values are equal and we see infinity (which of course never occurs). I do attempt to derive an alternate Lorentz transform based on Mach's principle in my first JOT article - it makes more sense that instead of any mass going to infinity it will asymptotically approach a limit that is the total mass of the Hubble sphere. Of course, we can't see the quantum numbers changing either as an object moves faster - the quantum numbers are so high that the curve looks very continuous and I mention that there is the possibility of seeing this quantum gap in more massive objects like galaxies. I also believe Milo Wolf and Chris Hawking's derivation using QST and vector fields reveal the same thing - that Mach's principle is basically at work in governing the Lorentz transform and it all takes place with wave interaction/dynamics instead of fields.

Geoff - As I / WSM sees things the motion of matter (wave-centers) is determined by the velocity of In-Waves from different directions. To travel at velocity of light / waves in space, means that waves must have zero velocity from one direction (which is impossible). I think what you are saying is that there are limits to how much you can slow velocity of waves in Space, and this relates to total amount of matter in universe.

Famous physicist JP Vigier who tried to keep DeBroglie's intentions of matter-wave theory alive has proposed the same photon mass from Heisenberg's uncertainty relation Hh = mc^2 where H - Hubble, h = Planck, and m = photon mass. It comes out to 10^-68 kg. I believe the the reason the photon can travel at c without problems and still have a mass is that it is the upper limit based on it's own mass. Because it is a fundamental wavelength of matter-waves, all other matter will be limited in it's velocity by this fundamental wavelength. As matter is accelerated it compresses space time which increases mass (mc^2 = 1/2kx^2, so increase in compression distance x of spacetime increases mass) and this in turn requires a shorter matter wavelength (or higher quantum number for the matter wavelength). The highest quantum number (or shortest wavelength) that I believe is possible is 10^61, which is the same ratio of the universal radius to the Planck length. It is also the same ratio as the sqroot(Mass-Universe / mass-photon) if we assume mass-photon is 10^-68 kg. So the limitation on speed applies to all quantum numbers n > 1, where n = 1 corresponds to the smallest mass or longest wavelength, namely that of the photon. My problem with the electron assuming this role of the photon is that if the electron does exhibit any mass during any period of time then in sources of intense light such as laser beams, the mass of the beam would literally weigh 10^20 photons/cubic-centimeter * 9.11 x 10^-31 kg/photon = 10^-10 kg/cubic-centimeter or about a microgram. Even in small lasers this would be easy to measure, but as the photon density is much higher in Megawatt lasers, this would really be evident. I understand that the mass may not always be apparent, but I still think that the mass of the electron is such a larger value (and has a correspondingly larger quantum number as mass is quantized), that there would have to be fundamental particles that are even smaller in mass (neutrino, pi-meson, etc) which may also include the photon. Again, interesting thought, but I don't think I can accept that the electron is the most fundamental particle. I may have too much training from standard model stuff, and I try to weed out those biases in my mind as much as possible, so who knows there might be hope for me yet!

Geoff - I think we see things differently here (standard model, founded on 'particles' is very misleading).
Can you explain to me what you mean by words;
Photon
Particle
Force
Mass
Space
Time
Space-Time
Are you aware of how WSM defines these things? How do your views differ. (I am trying to force your mind to consider WSM metaphysics as well as maths physics in your calculations - which should be a good guide!)

2) On Mach's principle and derivation of Hubble constant-

I believe as you mentioned that the Mach's principle is not just all the mass of the sphere acting on an object, but creating it. In fact, my first paper in JOT where I use Mach's principle with Newtonian fields ( G*(Mass of Universe)*m0 / (r= radius of Universe)] = m0*c^2 (1) ) has elements of truth in that there is an interaction and the forces are real, but yes, we do know that there are no fields and this is really wave interaction where the rest-mass (rest-energy) is what results from the wave interaction of all the other rest masses (or more correctly, all of the other matter waves interacting at a point). So yes, wave inlet and outlet makes perfect sense and is the same thing. It's amazing (and depressing) how much something like the field concept can bear a lot of truth, especially in our regime of measurement, but still be lacking so fundamentally in truth and intuition. It does produce the right answer for many things, but as I found when I expanded my concept into the idea of compressed spacetime with a scalar spring constant, it only works and makes sense if mass is what is created from warped space and this means other masses (other waves) compress and stretch local regions of space to create other masses (or really, other standing waves). The beauty of this model is that it describes the most nagging parts of quantum theory that Einstein hated - instant action at a distance which was later verified by Bohm and others as quantum entanglement. This is really just the pull on the fabric in a lateral direction -no longer standing waves which represent matter, these lateral forces are real and explain why quantum tunneling and entanglement communication are instantaneous. Standing waves have to travel at c - all standing waves in any media are limited by the same equation which depends upon the mass/unit length of the material and the force across the wave - the maximum force being dictated by the wave-version of Mach's principle (the maximum force is all objects pulling on any one object). I believe lateral waves can see much higher forces during short bursts and this period of time explains uncertainty and other time-related aspects of QM. Also, lateral waves are not limited by the endpoints of the Hubble sphere like standing waves are, so I think the force required to achieve the same stretch in fabric is less.

Geoff - Boy there is a lot here that needs to be understood. To begin I am going to remain skeptical about instant / non-local actions. There are so many errors to do with 'particle' foundations that it is good to be cautious in agreeing with 'quantum entanglement' as being real instant actions, rather than caused by incorrect discrete particle foundations.
As far as stretching of space - not sure, so I will keep it in mind as a 'possible' explanation.

As far as replacing the expanding Universe with a constant Hubble sphere, I did think of some good pros and cons here. First, I am still curious how we can see redshift in all directions if we are not at the center of the sphere. Based on the wave interaction model, the waves from the outside of the sphere will have the least influence on the exact center of our sphere because it is the farthest away from the outside of the sphere. So any point that is not in the center of our sphere will see a blueshift in the direction of the center if I am not mistaken. Then if we see redshift everywhere, we have to be at the center of the sphere. We do see blueshift from time to time on certain objects but not really large regions of space. I may be missing something on this concept but it seems logical enough. Is there a better explanation of why would see redshift in all directions and not be at the center?

Geoff - I answered this in another post. Please try and read and reply as this is important. According to WSM cosmology it is NECESSARY that each wave center 'particle' is at the center of its own finite spherical universe (so I do not understand your concern as to why this is so). As you say, empirical evidence supports this view.

At the same time as I have stated before, I don't see how we can expand unless we are expanding into something, which implies matter beyond our sphere. This makes more sense than the theory that we are creating space as we go along, so we are all on the balloon expanding away from each other as more space is created. I never liked this idea - how do we create space? Doesn't make sense. One of the things always pointed to in BB theory is the background radiation - the temperature being as predicted by the expansion of the sphere. Of course, thermodynamics of this system is very coarse and things like inflation don't get factored in. Really, when Alan Guth and others wanted to explain why the background radiation was so isotropic, it would have made more sense to say it has interacted over infinite time with no explosion to begin with than to try and build an inflation model where for a very short time, a lot of mixing occurs. Everybody knows that even in expansion after the inflation period, there are going to be clumps of energy and then there is no way to smooth it out. To get the degree of isotropy we currently see in the background, it would have to be mixing for a very long period of time, much longer than the inflation period Guth proposes. Just my take on this - I believe the Horizon problem is the biggest whole in the BB theory.

Geoff - Agreed. Makes more sense to assume Finite spherical universe within Infinite Eternal Space. I assume CMBR is caused by low temperature Hydrogen in Space. I replied to this in other post also.

I have looked at the redshift like this: Assume we are at the center of the sphere or very close to it. Then there is redshift in all directions. Then, as Hubble's law is linear (constant shift per unit distance) this is the same as decreasing wave-density interaction per unit distance. This is also the same as decreasing energy as a result of this decreasing interaction per unit distance. A constant decrease in energy per unit distance from the center of the sphere is the same as a constant force across the sphere (Energy/distance = force), and this force I believe does exist as what we see in Mach's principle - the pulling force that creates rest-mass. I believe this force is F = k(Ru) where k = 7.18 x 10^17 N/m and Ru = radius of the universe. F then equals 1.36 x 10^44 Newtons. If we model the redshift as a decrease in wave density (energy density) as a function of distance from the center of the sphere, then we get delta-Energy / radius of universe where delta-Energy is the maximum redshift we observe at the edge of the universe (or our Hubble sphere). I will run more numbers on this and let you know what I get - it looks promising. I have to sign off for now as my eyelids are getting heavy, but I will get back to this and the rest of these comments soon. Thanks again - I really appreciate the discussion.
Mike

Geoff - As I see it redshift with distance should equate to moving two spheres apart (from centers overlapping to center of one touching circumference of other - so this will not be linear I think). This relates to decreasing wave interactions with distance of separation of two spherical standing waves.
Your maths analysis is close to how WSM sees things, but I will wait till you reply to above before commenting further (your use of language is different to mine, so defining words is a good start, and central to philosophy / metaphysics).
Thanks for reply Mike. Sorry if I am a bit abrupt. And please be patient (as i keep writing to people), it takes time for our minds to adjust to different ideas.
Geoff

[mike]

Hi Geoff,

I will move more comments like this to the cosmology section but I just wanted to answer this one because it is related to WSM.

I had mentioned previously thinking that the redshift we see is a constant decrease in energy per unit distance as this is also Hubble's Law which is constant. I pushed a few numbers (a new slang I guess - I didn't really crunch them but it's the same thing!). If there is a constant energy decrease per unit distance as we look away from the center of our Hubble sphere, then there is a constant energy increase per unit distance if we start at the edge of the sphere and move towards the center we are currently at. This scales linearly - increase the distance towards us the energy level goes up from our perspective. This seems to me to be equivalent to a constant force as Energy/distance = force and if energy/distance = constant then so is force.

Now if we look at a highly redshifted object with a z of 6.4, we find that the MgII emission lines that are used in the spectral analysis show a line wavelength of 2100 nm, see; (for this example).

(http://www.tng.iac.es/news/2003/09/16/fe_abundance/)

Because z = redshift = lambda-shift/lamda_stationary+ 1, we can say the the lambda_stationary which is what we see on Earth for the MgII emission has a wavelength of 388 nm. Then the energy difference between MgII lines here on Earth and at this distant QSO is found as delta-energy = hc/ 2100 nm - hc/388 nm = 4.17 x 10 ^-19 Joules per photon. If we assume that there are 10^80 particles in the universe and that most of these particles are photons (a wide stretch I admit), and that they all experience the same energy loss as a function of distance from our Hubble sphere (an even bigger stretch here - many photons will be at different wavelengths but the process which generate EM waves are limited in the range of wavelengths that they generate so it's only a few orders of magnitude), then we can say that the total energy loss divided by the total distance of the Hubble sphere is approximately (4.17 x 10 ^ -19 Joules/particle) * 10^80 particles / 1.9 x 10 ^26 meters = 2.2 x 10 ^35 Newtons which is the average force pulling across our Hubble sphere that produces this energy loss (from a classical mechanics standpoint - obviously there is a decrease in wave density that creates this but I see this decreasing wave density as less interaction between waves and therefore can be modeled as an elastic force that has a greater effect at closer distances where the waves interact more or the density is higher).

My current model of Mach's principle is to use the elastic model of F = kx where k is the universal spring constant (7.18 x10^17 N/meter) and x is the maximum distance to our Hubble sphere or 1.9 x 10 ^ 26 meters. This produces a force across the Hubble sphere (average) of 1.36 x10^44 Newtons in all radial directions and produces rest-energy that we see as result of the wave compression/interactions. Compare this figure of force from F= kx with the value of 2.2 x 10 ^ 35 Newtons as calculated from Redshift loss as above. There are 10 orders of magnitude difference but and I think the approximations and averaging effect might add to this, but it's nice to note that the numbers are in the same direction and I think the concept may hold - Mach's principle is the same as the wave density function over distance which is also the same as wave interaction and as we see it, gravitational potential. There are usually different ways of looking at the same phenomena (wave-particle duality) but we know that they all have elements of the truth if they match experiment. I am going to keep working on this but the more I look at this the more I like the model.
Mike

Geoff - Hi Mike, i just saw these latest posts so added a few comments. I am not sure what you mean by word 'Force'. As I / WSM sees it all forces are caused by a change in velocity of In-Waves changing location of Wave-Center. So there are no 'forces' in reality, just waves in space changing velocity as they flow through other waves.
And in your above analysis are you taking into account infinite space, that wherever you go in Space there is matter (wave-centers) that only interact with a finite sphere of other matter (that creates its In-Waves) which is what we call the finite spherical universe. I think we are using a different language to describe same things. Time will tell if we can agree on this. Geoff

[mike]

Hi Geoff,

One other quick note after reading your last post. I no longer believe my previous concept of primorodial blackholes making up spacetime. I found after further research that the best elastic model is one where space is continous and elastic and this leads to various curvatures that show the four (at least four) forces that we identify (EM, weak, strong, gravity). When I started with the elastic model I figured space had to be made of something and I started with Hawking (Stephen) and others who have the Quantum foam model. Ironically, when I plug in the elastic model equations into this and assume one axis for the calculations (still holds in continous model), I get the exact Schwarzchild solution coming out for the ratio of wave velocities (in and out waves by the way - the in waves from the Mach effect from afar and the outwaves from the mass of the object). The ratio of these waves gives Schwarzchild solution if you start with Schwarzhild radius for primordial blackholes in space fabric. Unfortnately, I think this is where the artifact came in - I started with the Schwarzchild solution and it came back out at a later point, so I am not sure it's valid. After looking at the continous model of elastic spacetime, I get a different fomula based strictly on mass/unit length of space fabric without making any assumptions about what space is made of, and this formula produces the exact numerical result as the Schwarchild solution for all values outside of the singularity and for the singularity my formula shows the only singularity is our Hubble sphere. I like this better - it puts the anamoly where it should be - at the limit of observation on our Hubble sphere. Then my model eliminates the obscure singularity that occurs from compressed mattter - something I think is counterituitive and nonsensical. Also, the continous model predicts Hubble's constant accurately - I am not sure where to get it from the primordial black hole model. But in any case, I think I am moving slowly away from the Big Bang model right now - I see a little bit more how redshift is explained and I like the symmetry of it, so let's see what happens.

Mike

[haselhurst]

Hi Mike,
I have replied to top two of your posts above in your posts. The third post on the structure of Space is spot on. There are absolute reasons in Metaphysics and Philosophy for Space being a Continuously connected medium (not made of parts / other things). Am very pleased that you have come to this conclusion yourself.
Geoff

[mike]

Hi Geoff,

When I say "particle" and other things, I am falling back to language that is not necessarily correct but conveys the meaning of what I am trying to say. Here are the definitions from my standpoint:

Geoff - We must always be vary careful about our language, how it is defined, how it connects to reality and real things that physically exist - this is central to philosophy. In physics they use (abuse) the word 'particle' to mean both matter 'particles' and light / energy 'particles'. In WSM matter 'particles' are caused by the wave-center of spherical standing waves, and light 'particles' are caused by standing wave interactions that are discrete.

Photon- I still believe this one is a "particle" in the sense that it is a matter wave which has maximum amplitude at it's "particle" center. It's matter wave extends across the universe and it's wavelength (in my opinion) is equal the Ru = 1.9 x 10 ^26 meters, the fundamental wavelength. It is not discrete in the sense of what standard model defines a particle as - it is in fact spread throughout our universe and just has a localized center where we see it. It can interact with other photons/matter based on the movement of it's localized center or it's wavelength can shift (which can appear to be instantaneous although I don't believe it changes instantaneously, I do believe it can change at a speed faster than light creating what we see in the Aspect experiment and other entanglement issues). This is how I explain the creation of antimatter from gamma-photons - two photons interact, not so much their wave centers but a 180-degree phase shift occurs in the fundamental matter wavelength of one photon and the other stays constant in phase, creating matter-antimatter pair (assuming the electromagnetic energy is available to produce the rest energy of the two pairs. Again, language can be confusing, but what I mean is that the energy is converted into boosting the amplitude of the matter wavelengths of the matter/antimatter pair).

Geoff - IN WSM the light 'photon particle' is due to standing wave interactions and resonant coupling between electrons in atoms / molecules, causing them to move from one standing wave pattern to another (we discussed this on phone, and it is written up on website for those who want to know more (use search function)).

Particle - A tricky word. The standard model more or less means it to be discrete (although even the standard model admits virtual particles are not entities separate from the rest of space-fabric). I don't believe in discrete particles interacting with each other through fields. I believe all "particles" are standing matter waves with localized centers. Also, these standing waves by definition of a standing wave, are quantized in wavelength and are therefore some multiple of a fundamental wavelength which I find after several paths of investigation to be 1.9 x 10^26 meters , or Ru. By reasoning, this fundamental wavelength should also correspond to a "particle" of a certain "mass", and either through Schrodinger's equation, deBroglie's matterwave equation, or through my elastic space time formulation, I find this mass to be the same - 10^-68 Kg. I believe all other particles (Ok, wave-centers) have matter-wavelengths that are multiples of this fundamental wavelength, including the electron. Because neutrinos have been shown to oscillate and exhibit mass-like properties yet the mass of the neutrino is estimated to be very small based on these oscillations (less than mass-electron), I believe there is a smaller mass unit than the electron and charge can be associated with these smaller masses. I may be wrong, but we are getting close to zeroing in on the neutrino's mass experimentally and I think some of the upper limits I have read are 2.2 eV, so it's far less than the 0.5 MeV of the electron.

Geoff - I better understand your view now. In WSM we agree with your idea of matter 'particle' as Wave-Center, but we are saying that the electron is the only fundamental wavelength, which must be similar to Compton wavelength of electron (2.6 * 10^-12m from memory).

Force - I don't believe that force is a field. I believe waves can interact and that spacefabric being elastic can "pull" from one wave center to another. It's a real force, just as if I were pulling on a rope. I believe classical mechanics describes it adequately without any spooky fields as Einstein still pondered about. I believe there is a large force pulling across the expanse of the universe (known Hubble sphere). This force has already created ripples that turn into standing waves. This is matter that we see. The standing waves, because they compress and tense their local space-fabric, can also create a tensile or compression force on surrounding parts of the fabric, thereby affecting other standing wave centers (masses). This is what we see as gravity between two bodies - the tensions in the spacefabric between two or more standing waves. The standing waves exist because of the universal tension (force) in the fabric, but that doesn't mean the standing waves don't produce local forces (tension/compression) as well. So I believe that forces are just mechanical forces, nothing else. All manifestation of forces that are described as waves changing velocity or phase are still interacting through just tension and compression in a fabric. To me, this is what's intuitive and therefore correct.

Geoff - As per our phone conversation, WSM is saying that all forces are caused by a change in velocity of In-Waves as they flow in through other matter (this is assumed to be a Property of Space). Higher wave amplitude waves travel faster (charge), waves in higher wave density space (where there is more matter) travel slower (gravity). This has not been quantified (so needs work of maths physicist). But the gravity one should not be too hard to calculate as we know how much waves curve past sun, and we know mass / wave density of sun.

Mass - The amplitude of the localized wave-function of what we perceive to be a "particle". This wave function is the standing wave of what we perceive to be a particle. It's mass is also found as a function of it's wavelength. The shorter the wavelength, the higher it's mass. This is how mass gets quantized - the quantum scalar wave has the property that as n (which is integer multiples of the fundamental wavelength) increases, so does the energy of the wave. This is the classic solution of the Schrodinger wave function inside of a barrier potential - for two dimensional box the solution to allowable energies is E = [(nx)^2 + (ny)^2 ]pi 2h^2/(2mL^2) where nx, ny are quantum numbers, m is the mass of the wave center and L is the length of one side of the box which has infinite potential well. Therefore, as n increases, so does mass and the frequency of the wave (because wavelength of "particle" equals fundamental wavelength/n, decreasing wavelength and increasing frequency with increasing n). This is also what we perceive to be the uncertainty principle - increasing n by one increases energy but decreases matter-wavelength (and therefore increases frequency, which travelling at the speed of light produces a decreased period of observation time for event changes in the mass. Lower time x higher energy = constant = h/2pi (uncertainty principle).

Geoff - As per Newton's Law of Inertia, Force = Mass by Acceleration thus for gravity, mass is wave density, force is change in velocity of waves, acceleration is how this change in In-Wave velocity changes location of Wave-Center. This is important as it is explaining how acceleration (change in velocity) is caused by change in velocity of waves in Space (note the common factor of change in velocity - very important logical connection).

Space - A continuous elastic fabric in three dimensions. The elastic constant k, is the same in all directions. Although vectors work well as approximations in 3-d space, true matter interactions occur at the scalar level, hence requiring only one axis for interpretation. Mass is only valid on one axis (again, scalar quantum wave amplitude), and this follows to reason as any combination of vectors form a resultant which is the acceleration that determines the mass we measure. Although mass is the property of a standing wave, we interpret it from our observations as the concept of inertia, which requires motion in one resultant axis. This keeps the property of scalar quantum waves consistent with what we actually measure (mass is a scalar quantity).

Geoff - Agree. Note also that a three dimensional space (and one dimension of time) really means a space that can form spherical waves - where sphere is defined with three variables, and time is caused by wave motion (i.e. it takes 4 variables to define spherical wave).

Time - what we perceive to be the flow of events based on our matter-wave velocities relative to a background of standing matter waves which have maximum velocity of c. Therefore, a rest-mass by definition is at rest with respect to our reference frame. It's matter wave velocity is c and if it is not moving, there is no relative time shift with respect to c. Once it is moving there are non-standing matter waves produced (necessarily because it's kinetic energy is compressing the local space fabric) and these matter waves are moving a velocity less than c. We perceive the time of flight of this mass based on the velocity of it's non-standing matter waves relative to c. The non-standing matter waves of a moving object are what we see in experiments like the single-slit electron diffraction experiment that verified matter waves of the electron.

Geoff - I think I agree here. But ultimately time is a human idea, not a real thing in itself (like space is). Time is caused by Motion, as wave Motion of Space. This satisfies rules of metaphysics / philosophy (by effectively uniting Space and Time as the Wave motion of Space - thus explaining dynamic unity of reality).

Space-Time - Sometimes I say spacetime. I really mean space fabric as I don't believe time is rolled up into space as an extra dimension. I believe the time as a fourth dimension concept was a nice way of handling the math for relativity and it works as long as the rules of keeping invariance and covariance are held. But I believe space is as defined as I did above and time is what we perceive based on what I have defined above. The math for relativity still works out - it's just the ratio of velocity of matter waves to the velocity of background waves which are c.

Geoff: Space-Time = Wave Motion of Space.

Geoff - Are you aware of how WSM defines these things? How do your views differ. (I am trying to force your mind to consider WSM metaphysics as well as maths physics in your calculations - which should be a good guide!)

I am starting to gain an insight into how WSM defines these. I can see there are some differences and some similarities. I won't say that I have even my own version of the universe down perfectly - there are a lot of holes in it. I do believe there are some good fits with experiment, and I am sure I will understand more about WSM as I read it. I do tend to agree with the quantum scalar wave interpretation of matter. This is a good starting point - scalar quantum waves are pretty straightforward in how they behave (I still believe Schrodinger's equation is correct but as he interpreted it, not Born's interpretation). What I particularly like about the elastic space-fabric is that it explains why the strong nuclear force (fabric compression/tension) has such a short range but is still the same force that causes electromagnetism, gravity and weak nuclear force. They are just regimes with different laws of deformity for the space fabric. They have the same elastic constant, but respond differently over short and long distances. Very similar to regular materials, which makes the theory even more agreeable. The one fundamental difference I struggle with in WSM right now is the significance of the electron wave. I don't see the electron as having this important of a role - I view it as just another standing wave with n = some large number that is a multiple of n=1. This is still my bias based on how the equations work, but if you can explain to me how the neutrino and photon are massless even though they exhibit momentum and single slit properties, I may have some reason to consider it more.
Thanks,
Mike

Geoff - I better understand our differences too. Lets be patient and see how things pan out over time as our minds adjust to new knowledge. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer above so carefully. Sorry my replies are a bit abrupt, but since we talked on phone some of the above may no longer be relevant.
And i enjoyed our chat! Today i got my microphone working so I can call you in future using Skype (either to your computer, which is free - or to your normal phone which only costs about $2 an hour).
You are a fantastic addition to this forum - I hope that we can agree on enough over time to do some good work together.
All the best,
Geoff

[haselhurst]

Hi Mike,
I have added comments to your above post. Will be interesting to go back over this in another month or so and see how close we are!
Cheers,
Geoff

[mike]

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for your comments. I enjoyed our conversation as well and I look forward to calling you from my PC to yours when I get my microphone/speakers setup. I really understand what you are saying now after discussing it over the phone - the photon is just the result of interacting matter waves between vibrating atoms/molecules and as these can vibrate from a photon, so emission and absorbption spectra is explained. I really like this model - it makes within matter wave theory and the concept we talked about with mixing can explain the difference in energy levels of the atom. The famous modulation equation (multiplication of two sine functions - standard trig identity) shows that when waves interact they modulate each other (mixing) and this results in sum and difference frequencies being produced. The energy level diagram of atoms are used to traditionally calculate photon energies which are done by subtracting the energy levels where the electrons transition. This difference energy gives the energy of the photon. If the matter-wave interaction producing a photon is the modulation of two vibrating matter-waves, then the energy corresponding to each matter wave is hc/lambda. Then the interaction of these matter waves produces a mixing effect of (sum of matter-frequencies) + (difference of matter frequencies). As the sum of the frequencies is more energy than can be produced by the combined system of interacting matter waves (more energy with hc/lambda1 + hc/lambda2), the resulting energy pattern has to be the difference of these frequencies. The energy difference that creates the photon would then be hc/lambda1 - hc/lambda2 which would correspond to the energy levels of the atom where the electron is making transitions (or the vibrational energy states of a molecule, etc.).

Geoff - As per our phone conversation, WSM is saying that all forces are caused by a change in velocity of In-Waves as they flow in through other matter (this is assumed to be a Property of Space). Higher wave amplitude waves travel faster (charge), waves in higher wave density space (where there is more matter) travel slower (gravity). This has not been quantified (so needs work of maths physicist). But the gravity one should not be too hard to calculate as we know how much waves curve past sun, and we know mass / wave density of sun.

On the subject of density of matter waves and gravity, I am intersted in doing some calculations on the amount of curvature based on wave density. This doesn't sound terribly hard and here is my first starting point. I know that for waves in elastic fabric, velocity = sqroot (applied force/mass-unit length of fabric). Again, force is wave interaction which reduces to F = kx, where x is compression or tension displacement due to local waves. As mc^2 = (1/2)kx^2, the higher mass of an object, the more compression displacement, x. As an external matter wave front corresponding to a smaller mass approaches the area of compression (another matter wave front of higher amplitude and higher mass), the approaching matter wave "sees" a higher mass-unit length in the fabric (due to the compression of the fabric). This then lowers the velocity of the approaching wavefront based on velocity = sqroot (force/mass-unit length) where force will go up but mass-unit length will go up much more, so velocity decreases. I am going to work on this one some more - it is good food for thought. Thanks for the ideas.

Mike

[haselhurst]

Hi Mike,
I like your summary of new ideas and how to apply maths to them. Wish I could help more, but in time I will get better with maths, and others will slowly filter in with useful knowledge. So over next few years I think we can do some great work. I'm excited! My hope is that the metaphysics is correct, and thus the maths will work out correctly too.

My microphone now works so Skype me when you want to discuss any of above (or just say hello). And at some stage you should add me as member of your contacts, and I should get a message asking if it is OK to show my online status to you (likewise I have done same for you, so you should get a message from 'haselhurst')
Cheers,
Geoff

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

Read the above and again I know more of what I do not know.

As for the expanding universe.

I just try to keep it simple.

If matter recycles it will expand and contract in the process. This being finite spheres and spheres that are able to collide and mix.

The age of the spheres will be determined by the recycle or the rejuvination. We see this in supernova leaving behind a compact core and we aslo see this after a nova and the core being rejuvinated by surrounding matter.


The parts within the universe are able to expand and contract. The universe itself cannot expand or contract. Why? Because infinity is a funny number.