[MJA]

Originally Posted by cosvis Hi to all who are interested in cosmic theories. I am glad of your responce, Pat, and I hope to hear from others also. The mass of a photon is not relativity mass because the photon has no rest mass, it is constantly on the move with the speed of light. I is, however, affected by gravitation and thus must have a gravitational element. I call it virtual mass and it is not like a particle. I rather think of it as a string or wave. Scientists are speculating about strings in the universe and they propose a particle know as a graviton. I rather think that a photon consists basically, of two strings made up of gravitational and kinetic energies. These energies of a photon or quantum particle, are equal, opposite but conserved. We know how much energy it has; the amount of energy of a plank constant, and thus we can work out the quantity of its virtual mass. E = f h where E stands for the energy of the photon, f stands for the number of the frequency of the photon, and h is the energy of a plank constant. But we also know from Einstein: E = mcc energy is mass times the speed of light square. Thus: (vm) = (f h) / cc (vm) stands for the virtual non rest mass of a photon. If this theory so far, is true, it might give a new insight to the problem of the 90% missing mass of the universe. It might be in fact just all the radiation that is contained in the universe, especially around galaxies. If the photon is basically made of two equal, opposite and conserved gravitational and kinetic energy waves or strings, it might also give a new insight to the string theories of the universe. There are lots of new and interesting ideas to come in this theory, please share with us your ideas. Yours Cosvis.

Hi Cosvis,

I think = is the only absolute in your equations. Everything else (E,m,vm, f h,) including c, or the contant of the speed of light is only relatively uncertain at best.
Building theories on uncertain measure creates only more of the same.
Start with equal, it is nature's true constant.

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Gee, that's funny___The whole world runs on the equality of inequality...

[cosvis]

Hi and thanks to all,

M.J.A. I appreciated your remark:"Start with equality =, it is nature's true constant." I do feel myself a bit overcome by awe when trying to speculate about our vast and beautiful universe. But we have the ability to probe, to think and to speculate and I find it quite alright and lawful to indulge in a little bit of joyful speculation. I am so glad that we are able to share our ideas by means of the internet on this TOE Quest site. I can assure you, these are just my ideas and reflections of what I have learned, but I certainly can not guarantee them to be correct; I leave that to the scientists.

L.G. Your remark "The whole world runs on the equality of inequality." intrigues me, it is little bit deep for me and I still have to think about it.

I am glad you asked about the antimatter Pat, because that is my next step in my view of the physical universe. I speculated that the universe is a vast black hole and in its initial state it consisted of pure radiant energy or light. When we examine a system of moving bodies around a center of gravity, unless it is influenced by forces outside its system, we notice that its center of gravity remains steady. The greatest force of its potential gravitional energy of each moving object is not at the center of gravity of the system but when it is furthest away from its center of gravity. In fact at the center of gravity, its potential gravitational energy is zero and unless it was moving it would end up at its center.

When examining a black hole then, where is its greatest force of gravity; at its center or at its event horizon? It would be at its event horizon where its force of energy is so great that not even light can escape because it can not move faster than the speed of light. Einstein speculated that the light beam would be bend; it would not loose its speed nor its virtual mass or its gravitational effect. In fact, it is possible to speculate, that the hottest, most violent and gravitational powerful spot of a black hole and the universe is not at its center but at its event horizon. It could be here, in the most violent part of the universe that the formation of matter and antimatter occurs.

Stephen Hawking introduced the idea that a black-hole can evaporate, loose energy, to such an extant that it would explode as a white hole. I do not know if this is possible but what entrigues me is the way he speculated how it could possibly occur that a black hole could loose energy. As far as I can remember he speculated that at the event horizon matter and antimatter was formed. One part of the matter remained inside the black hole and the other antimatter escaped the black hole and thus there was an energy loss of the black hole.

I think it is a fact that matter in the form of sub atomic particles can be formed from energy, just as energy can be formed from matter. If Stephen Hawking's idea is right that matter and antimatter can be formed at the event horizon of a black hole, it could give us the answer of how matter and antimatter could continuously be formed in the universe. If the universe is a black hole than the continuous formation of matter and antimatter could occur at its event horizon and this could continue for ever. Matter would continuously be formed at its event horizon as energy is continuously been formed from matter as we can observe by the nuclear reactions that occur in stars.

This could also give us an idea where the antimatter is located. It could exist outside on the event horizon of the blackhole. It could possibly also form galaxies and stars and other heavenly bodies but made out of antimatter; just as galaxies, stars and all the heavenly bodies are formed within our universe. The antimatter universe would never be able to leave the gravitational pull of the universe, nor would any antimatter be able to penetrate into our universe because it would first be consumed and formed into pure energy or light. Similarly, no matter would be able to penetrate into the antimatter part universe because it would first be consumed into pure energy or light. As it is consumed it would again be formed into new matter and antimatter. This process could continue for ever.

It is also possible to speculate that there are two blackhole universes one made of matter and one of antimatter. Both are linked at the event horizon and would never be able to escape from each other, because this would require lots more energy but as we have assumed at the begining of our theory, that there exist only a finite quantity of energy and energy can not be created nor distroyed.

What do you think? Could this possibly be so or is it just wild speculations?

Yours Cosvis.

[Profpat]

Hi Cosvis;

I think our theories here are somewhat similar.

Yes I think our entire universe, came from a black hole, ( point, bindu dot, beginning point, center point ), and we are still attached to that black hole ( Gravity ).

Georg Cantor wrote about how an infinity of curves, is within every point.

Now I think reality reflects that concept.

Big bang theorist speculate that our entire original ( prebigbang )universe was more then a billion times smaller then the proton. Thats what I call spatial expansion.

Here is where we may part company. Again I believe in a symmetrical universe, and not the more common belief in an asymmetricl model.

At the beginning, when our universe was a point, it expanded into what we have today. Within that universal point was an infinity of curves, ( strings, radiation, heavens, )

With these strings, radiation, particles were formed. ( See my Idea for detail particle formation )
Both particles and antiparticles, ( You are right Cosvis gravity is the same for both, only the charge is different ).

I believe the particles went in one direction and the antiparticles in the opposite direction. (Many to some being annihilated in this process) Thus creating an antimatter parallel universe. In fact RP and I were speculating that a representation of this idea would be in the symbol of the Tao. Each one going eternally around the other.

But as with God only One universal point ( black hole ).

The problem as I see it with your theory, is that there there is no evidence for this antimatter in our observable universe Cosvis. That of course doesn't mean it can't be in the unobservable universe.

Well just some of my thoughts.

Best to you,

Pat

[cosvis]

Hi Pat and all.

I also can see similarities between your theory and my ideas. I like your idea about the symmetrical universe and the anti parallel universe. This complimentarity seem to be quite normal in nature. The Chinese philosophers talk about the Yin and Yang principles in nature. There exist many examples of this symmetrical feature like the male and the female, white and black colours, matter and antimatter, possitive and negative charges. It is even found in the most basic element of nature, the electro magnetic radiation or the photon which seems to consist of two gravitational and kinetical energies and forces.

According to my theory there could exist the symmetrical universe, the universe of matter and antimatter which you seem to call the anti parrallel universe. My anti matter universe does not exist within the matter universe but outside of its event horizon; thus it is not observable from within the matter universe. The two parts of the universe touch each other and this touch which may be called the kiss of life or the cosmic crib, is where matter and antimatter are formed continuously from eternity to eternity.

I have difficulties with the Big Bang theory and I will write again.

Yours Cosvis.

[Profpat]

Hi Cosvis;

Yes I think so also.

Even though I am a big bang advocate, I believe in a eternal universe also, it's the Hindu's " string of pearls", or known as the big crunch.

This theory has the universe being created, expanding, closing back on itself, and starting all over again, throughout eternity.

Here is some information for you;

[edit] Photon structure

Main article: Quantum Chromodynamics
According to Quantum Chromodynamics, a real photon can interact both as a point-like particle, or as a collection of quarks and gluons, i.e., like a hadron. The structure of the photon is determined not by the traditional valence quark distributions as in a proton, but by fluctuations of the point-like photon into a collection of partons.[61]

[edit] Contributions to the mass of a system

See also: Mass in special relativity and Gravitation The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount E / c2. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount.
This concept is applied in a key prediction of QED, the theory of quantum electrodynamics begun by Dirac (described above). QED is able to predict the magnetic dipole moment of leptons to extremely high accuracy; experimental measurements of these magnetic dipole moments have agreed with these predictions perfectly. The predictions, however, require counting the contributions of virtual photons to the mass of the lepton. Another example of such contributions verified experimentally is the QED prediction of the Lamb shift observed in the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.
Since photons contribute to the stress-energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound-Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.

As I thought the photon is a ghost particle of the proton, with its quarks, and I think you believe strings,which I agree with.

I still don't understand the difference between zero mass and virtual mass, but they talk about photons having a gravitational effect, so I'm lost on this area.

Best to you Cosvis,

Pat

[cosvis]

Hi Pat,

Thank you so much for all the information that you sent which basically confirms my theory. In my theory a photon or a quantum particle is a virtual particle because sometimes it is seen as a particle and sometimes it is seen as a wave because it continuesly moves at the speed of light and obeys the laws of waves. When it is said that a photon has zero rest mass, it means that a photon can never loose its speed, it is never at rest and thus it cannot loose energy. Because it has no rest mass it cannot be subject to the laws of relativity which depends on speed and time. A particle with rest mass can increase or decrease its speed and mass as it increases and decreases its energy. Einstein showed that a particle with rest mass can not have the speed of light because it would become virtual it would loose its size to zero, it would be in a time frame where time is nil and would have infinite mass which is impossible.

Thus the photon or quantum particle is unique in our universe, it is stable, everlasting or an eternal virtual particle. It has a gravitational effect that will exist for ever because, according to a basic physical principle, energy can not be created nor destroyed. I hold that the photon has virtual mass because it has a gravitational effect. According to Newton only particles with masses can have gravity acting between them. Since however, the photon is a virtual particle, its mass must also be virtual.

This is way I cannot hold for the idea of a singularity because if the photon is truely a stable and everlasting particle, never be able to loose its speed and virtual mass, it can only be formed into matter which in turn could be again in a black hole formation. As a black hole increases in mass and virtual mass or in other words, in energy, it increases its radius because its radius is directly depended on its mass, vitual mass or energy. Since the universe consists of a finite quantity of energy or quantum particles, and since the quantum particles are stable and everlasting particles, the universe can never loose its size or be reduced into a singularity. Since the Big Bang theory speculates a singularity, I cannot hold for the Big Bang theory.

Yours Cosvis.

[Profpat]

Hi Cosvis;

You're welcome. The more I think about your black hole universe the more I like it.

I'm a little confused though, my black hole would be the beginning point when everything including the four forces were one. A singularity point, that we all came from and are still attached to.

Since you don't believe in a created universe, where does your black hole come from, or how was it made? Again you are talking about a universal black hole aren't you? I am.

I'm surprised ( knowing your strong religious beliefs ), that you don't believe in a created universe.

As I recall it was a Catholic priest who came up with the theory and most physical evidence support it.

I need it for my theory, but then again it's a theory.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. Even though that info I sent you talks about gravitational effects of the photon, I still don't understand it. Isn't that like creating something ( virtual mass ) from nothing ( 0 rest mass )?

Einstein showed that a particle with rest mass can not have the speed of light because it would become virtual it would loose its size to zero, it would be in a time frame where time is nil and would have infinite mass which is impossible.

It sounds like a description for a black hole.

[cosvis]

Hi Pat and all.

Thank you for your response. If you reread what I said above somewhere, I did not say I did not believe in creation, I said I would not like to discuss that question here in this site, at this time. The reason is that the question of creation is a metaphysical and personal or religous question rather than a physical scientific question. I feel one cannot proof the act of creation by way of the physical sciences; all we can say is that the universe exists from the beginning of time or from eternity and we do not know when it will end.

Metaphysically, it is possible to proof creation because one uses logic and one of the basic law of logic is that nothing can come from nothing. However, we know that the universe exist and since it could not have created itself, there must exist an infinite being able to create out of nothing. This is a metaphysical question and not a scientific question and that is why I prefer not to discuss that problem here at the moment; it would distract us from examining the universe viewed from a physical perspective.

Likewise, from a personal or religous perspective, I do believe in the existence of an infinite good God who created the universe from eternity. This is a religious question and not a scientific physical question; rather, it is a scientifical theoligic question which demands faith and revelation eg. an acceptence of the belief that God has revealed himself in nature and through prophets and Holy men and women. Also, God exists in eternity and not in time and his action is eternal, thus the act of God creating the universe is an eternal act. From this point of view one could also say that the universe exists from eternity to eternity.

As I said in the introduction of this thread, I prefer to view the universe from three different perspectives, the physical, the rational and the personal. Each perspective has it own way of viewing the universe and its one particular laws. The physical perspective uses observations, mathematics and the physical laws including the laws of evolution. The rational perspective uses logic and the metaphysical laws; this field would include the arts, literature and philosophy. The personal perspective is basically one's religious belief and it uses theology to explain universal reality.

I prefer to discuss each field of science seperately, otherwise one could end up in useless arguments. For instant the question of evolution and creationism, are really two different perspectives of reality, one is scientific physical and the other personal or religous. From a scientific physical perspective there is an evolutionary process in nature; I even hold that the universe is govern by an eternal evolutionary process. From a personal or religous perspective, God created the universe from all eternity with all the evolutionary laws that govern the universe. To me, both theories are correct; the confusion only arises when one confuses one's perspectives. That is why I prefer to discuss the universe here first from a physical perspective and leave the metaphysical and personal perspetives for another time.

I hope, I am not confusing you Pat, but let us come back to our physical perspective of the universe. I like to show why I have difficulties with the Big Band theory of the universe but this has to be continued at another time.

Yours Cosvis.

[Profpat]

Well OK;

In the meantime here is a little more research on black holes:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia •

Jump to: navigation, search
A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite. Such quantities include the curvature of spacetime or the density of matter. More accurately, a spacetime with a singularity contains geodesics which cannot be completed in a smooth manner. The limit of such a geodesic is the singularity.
The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, or single point. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). These singularities are curvature singularities.

Best,

Pat