The Photon Challenge

I'll be including a section that publishes constructive criticism of the challenge.
Preference is given to those persons prepared to offer their real name and qualifcations however this is not esential.
if you are interested PM me or post it here...please indicate whether you wish to remain anonymous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is so because you will never understand one simple fact: nature doesn't give a crap about the way you want things to be in your own little fantasy world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

couldn't agree more...just a matter of who's fantasy we are talking about hey?
Gotta ask youself: Why believe in something that not only can't be proved to exist but may very well not exist?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Predictive power.

 

ha..good answer!
and do you feel that that would change even if the modelled causation of the light effect was made to be more than a fantasy?

 

Your model would have to agree with all of the tested predictions of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and would also have to disagree with anything that predicts differently, for all the cases we've studied to date. In order to check whether your model is capable of doing such a thing, you'd need to have roughly 8 (dedicated, intense) years of maths and physics under your belt, as you mentioned before. You'd need to frame your model in the precise mathematical language that you would learn over those 8 years, before you could start doing any meaningful calculations with it.

 

in totally agree with what you are saying, as the test data aquired so far is afterall data acquired. [ this is and never has been in question nor has the value of 'c' either ]

However do you not see how focusing on Matter as the causation instead of the photon could easilly yield such a result with no changes needed to the aquired data? [ just interpretation of that data would change.] In fact most of the equations already done could be probably re-interpreted for Matter instead.

I that the question I am asking with the Photon Challenge could easilly be reversed simply because the light effect and matter are unable to be treated independently.

That is to say what if science held the belief that matter caused the light effect and someone came along with the proposition that a photon was the causation and somehow managed to produce a photon and given that they are inseparable could easilly have a strong case if eveidence of a phton was available.

The key distinction to this puzzle is that mass is able to be evidenced in fact self evidenced where as the photon is only a modelled abstraction.

 

Quantum physics treats light and matter on pretty much the same footing. Both arise as excitations of various quantum fields; the primary differences are in the spins, rest masses, particle couplings, and gauge symmetries each particle obeys. There are known particles such as the W and Z bosons which carry forces in a manner similar to photons, but they also happen to have rest masses.

Now for your part, you don't seem to understand what is meant by a scientific observation, because qualitative observations are only useful as a guide for what should be measured quantitatively in painstaking detail. If you say you see multiple light emission points from a scattered laser beam, but it looks like there's only one laser source in the reflections, how did you measure the amount of blurring on this reflection, how did you physically compare the dimensions of the laser projector with its reflection? You sure you don't have several scattered images of the laser projector, but they're blurred together because of its size? What instruments are you using to help your eyes focus on the precise details (I'm guessing none).

An example of what a scientist means when they have predictive power: Say I have a film strip and it has a bunch of horizontal scratches evenly spaced, say, roughly 1mm apart on average. Using light sources, lenses, projector screens and polaroids, I want to filter out those scratches while leaving the rest of the image intact- can your model guide you to a process for producing such effects? Physicists have been doing it in the lab for more than 100 years, and it's the basis for much of what Photoshop does these days through virtual computations. How would you go about doing it?

 

all valid questions:
I wont. I am not a scientist in the usual sense of the word.
Science continues as it always has just simply pointed in a better direction and still doing what it takes to quantify their subject materials.

 

I have immense respect for genuine scientist and their work so make no mistake about that. However caught up in a political, cultural situation has generated a state of irrationality/paranoia when it comes to anything threatening the light effect model.

All you guys have got to do is put the photon where it belongs and that is in the Matter involved and with a slight yet dramatic change in understanding dimensionality of space and volume and the photon problem is solved and you have your Gravitational constant [Higgs bosun] as well.

 

A clue can be found in the straight forward question:

How big is the universe when t=0 [both moment and duration]?
Find the answer with the photon as it is modelled and then find an answer with out it.
The Wheeler–DeWitt equation, I think, uses the light effect model as part of it's computations if I am not mistaken...and if at all relevant.

 

1) You have no way of knowing what your ideas would lead to, including the most likely outcome which is that they would have no relation to anything in the real world. You simply have no way of checking, not mathematically nor physically, and things don't become true just because they sound good in your ears either.

2) Let's say your wild hypothesis were in fact correct. Since the Higgs is only for determining the inertial properties of matter, whereas relativistic energy is what determines how strongly it produces gravity, your hypothesis is wrong for attempting to draw a completely bogus connection between the two concepts. Light beams have no rest mass, yet they carry an energy and do in fact produce their own gravitational field. These are the kinds of things you can only learn by doing real science, not taking scientific words out of a crossword puzzle and sticking them into some personal hunch.

 

fair enough...I am sure you are all really good at it too...

 

There are more things I don't know about the subject than do know, but the point is I can plainly see the futility in taking a bunch of scientific jargon, mixing it around and trying to come up with an intuitive picture that could actually describe and predict reality with a high level of precision. This is nothing personal, it's purely in the defense of honest science- a lot of the terms you're using and referring to only make sense after those 8 years of background building up to it.

Take the Higgs, for example- it's impossible for the average Joe to understand what physicists mean when they say "the Higgs gives particles their masses". What they mean is actually closer to "the Higgs is needed in order for us to assign masses to the particles of the Standard Model in a mathematically consistent way". And in order to understand the latter phrase, you still need vector calculus, advanced calculus, variational calculus, a good deal of abstract and linear algebra, an understanding of differential equations and complex variables, etc. etc., nevermind all the background required from a physics POV, in order to understand why the mathematics of the Standard Model requires a Higgs. So when a layman tries to talk about "the Higgs", they could just as easily be talking about some imaginary particle with some utterly useless imaginary properties that has no relevance to anything that physically exists.

 

I may not have the technical expertise needed to communicate in a way that is successful with those of scientific learing however I do know some basics I guess.
And when I ask a simple question like
How big is the universe at t=0 ? [ moment and duration]
and get continuous avoidance of the question I start to wonder why?

Logically to me the universe would have no dimension at t=0
Now maybe I am mistaken as I may not be aware how simple logic can get so complex, yet, as yet all that happens is avoidance of the question.
So erudite posters devote much effort to telling me how little I know and how much learning I have to do before I can even ask that question or is it answer that question?

To me it is a very simple question and answer and even a 10 year old can grasp it reasonably well.

So I wonder why attack me for asking a simple question?
May be it is simply a question we don't want to hear and certainly don';t want asked?

Why play the man instead of the ball?

 

Photon

For any members, interested in alternative explanation on photon:

Photon is a corpuscle of light or similar radiation.
It is created and sustained by gravitation from universal medium, using free ‘quanta of matter’ available during occasional local breakdown in universal medium.
Photon has disc-shaped matter-core that spin about one of its diameters.
Both inertia and mass are associated with a photon.
A photon simultaneously moves linearly through and spins in universal medium. Its motions are essential to its sustenance.
Photon is moved by universal medium, at the highest possible linear speed and a spin speed proportional to its matter content. This is the reason for its constant linear speed.
Distortions formed about a photon in universal medium, carry photon’s matter body at the highest possible linear speed. These distortions, in any plane, are similar to an electromagnetic wave.
Photon has both a matter body and an associated electromagnetic wave.
An attempt to increase linear speed of a photon increases its frequency rather than its speed. An attempt to reduce linear speed of a photon reduces its frequency rather than its linear speed.
Gravitation can affect a photon only in its disc plane. Gravitation cannot affect its flat disc faces.
All properties of light can be explained by photon’s corpuscular nature.
Photon has no source body. It is independent of all other matter bodies.

For full description on creation, sustenance, actions and properties of photons, kindly refer to 'Hypothesis on MATTER'.