"Is anti-light achievable?"

[humanbydefault]

For a long time I've been trying to make sense out of the interesting notion of "the something" and its "anti-something." I dedicated pages to discuss this issue in my book back in 2005, but I never thought I could imagine that even light could be produced in its anti-form.
I'm not going to go deep into the details of what I see as "anti-matter" in this first post, however I believe that a brief description of it [according to the way I see it] will be in place.
Let's just say that both matter and anti-matter were made out of the same "substance" in the universe. Energies interacting with each other in an eternal confrontation and producing a multi-level structure of "standing nuclear waves" [harmonics] from the very core of the atom to molecules, matter and beyond. It's like the universe repeated its same pattern over and over again.... for example:

When you look-up to the sky in a night without moon.. what do you see?
You'll probably see a "dark ocean" brighten by multitude of tiny points [bright lights] called "stars", am I right? I believe that much the same picture could be found as we travel deeper into the atomic core. High energy speks of lethal radiation "connected" with others in a "mutually beneficious" interaction where each one find the way to save its "stored energy" by the right reflection of their radiation waves coming from their interior.

All you see across the universe is the same energy after being 'transformed" through out the same pattern of interactions among them. Matter is one of the results of such process... Let's say [with all due respect] that matter is nothing more than a "side effect" of the process that garantee the "survival ef energy" in the universe.

If you read my last thread titled "Einstein's myth: space and time" You'll understand the roll the eather has in the complex structure of the universe at all levels... If you haven't read it, don't bother reading the rest of this post, because is useless.
Go to:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/spacet...html#post22669
... and get the picture first.

It does not take too much imagination to understand where the existence of "anti-something" could come into place. I said that there is no such thing as "one single eather" extending across the universe, but the "interface of multitude of "local eathers" starting from the core of each atom to the rest of the universe. I discussed with you [back then] that the individual characteristics of "local eathers" is what results in what we perceive as 3D space and the corresponding measurement of its entropy: time.

Now! Imagine that as the eather is transformed from one level to the next something very interesting will happen: a RELATIVISTIC INVERSION OF THE DIRECTION OF THE SPIN PRESENT ACROSS HARMONICS.

Yet easier: Let's picture a spinning platform with an increasing angular speed as its radii increases. Like a "mary-go-round" built into another one and so on... but each one spinning faster than the previous one.

If we were standing in the middle of the rotating platform we would see those one rotating with less angular speed as "moving backward" while those on front of us toward the outside moving faster in opposite direction.. right?

It's is interesting to notes that all of them were moving in the same angular direction [very important!] however their relative speed were different. It's as you can see: a matter of "perception" too!

Now! I think that we could "play hard ball" from now on:

I say that MATTER and ANTI-MATTER are both made out of the SAME ENERGY [forget about "dark matter and dark energy from now on!] the only thing standing between them is the ORIGIN of both entities! That's what made them "anties" in the first place! We know that "matter" [an atom for example] absorbs energy and scatter that energy back to the eather in a form of radiation [photons,etc.] The same way high energies [electrons or protons] made to collide with protons or neutrons inside particles accelerators are able to do the same process in billionth of a second... that's is what makes our anti-things available for an instant.

The following is a fantastic idea [out of my imagination] with the aim of producing "anti-light" which if made to collide with regular light-photons will alienate each other out in contact....!

We know that some aminoacids have a complete [inverse] chemical spinning "arm" with respect to others... right? That's the reason they were baptized with "L" or "D" to differenciate them. I predict that if we [somehow] attempt to force the absorption of energy on aminoacids with opposite spinning, we will be able to produce photons and anti-photons that could be considered as
the same example as matter and anti-matter. Remember the fact! We just needed to produce a relativistic "phase inversion" in the scaterring that is about to take place in both experiments and I believe that employing those chemicals we may be able to achieve it...

What do you think?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[Guille]

Very true what you say about matter and anti-matter, they come from energy. Dark energy isn't there. But again, dark energy isn't really anti-energy in the same way as anti-matter is to matter. About the experiment you propose, I think it would work, but how would you detect or proof that there are actually two opposite types of photons coming out?

[humanbydefault]

Interesting comment indeed.

You can't unless you introduce a "distracting" element in the experiment. Remember that whatever you migh do to "measure" the status of a photon [light] in the wave, you'll produce changes in the original system. The only evidence we could show as proof is the instantaneous collapsing of both waves and the burst of energy at the point of interception.

Two normal light-waves "collide" in space and nothing happens. The very reason light has been classified among the "bosons"... right? "They can occupy the same locale simultaneously." We know that two electrons [with different quantum status (numbers)] can NOT be in the same place at the same time. That's why they are named "fermions."

So... How could anyone explained that after two light waves intercept no one proceeds with their original propagation leaving a busrt of energy instead?

Is this enough to answer your question?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

Let's assume that I'm right. Anti-light can and do exists in the way I depicted above... Let's also assume that some far regions of the universe are scattering light in a RELATIVISTIC opposite spin with respect to our common light.... What would we be able to "receive" in our telescopes while watching those regions?

If very far from our reachings, "anti-light" bringing the proper info about the existence of even far located region of the same universe of ours collided one-another... disappeared even before getting visible to us... would that be seen as "dark matter?"

We know about the existence of matter by the scatterings of radiation energy previously absorbed by that matter. That's why we account for the existence of planets and moons around us. But what if a big part of this universe were so far from us that the series of eathereal scales in between would resulting in a perfect "spin-transitional effect" causing us to appear "blind" with respect to their existence?

Something similar was written by myself not long ago in a thread I discussed possible cloaking devices... remember it?

Once again.... Do you really think that we are "entittled" to observe the entire creation? Don't you agree with me that understanding the way things must work could give us a clue of things we won't be able to discover for many many centuries in the future?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[mkirkpatrick]

Let's assume that I'm right. Anti-light can and do exists in the way I depicted above... Let's also assume that some far regions of the universe are scattering light in a RELATIVISTIC opposite spin with respect to our common light.... What would we be able to "receive" in our telescopes while watching those regions?

If very far from our reachings, "anti-light" bringing the proper info about the existence of even far located region of the same universe of ours collided one-another... disappeared even before getting visible to us... would that be seen as "dark matter?"

We know about the existence of matter by the scatterings of radiation energy previously absorbed by that matter. That's why we account for the existence of planets and moons around us. But what if a big part of this universe were so far from us that the series of eathereal scales in between would resulting in a perfect "spin-transitional effect" causing us to appear "blind" with respect to their existence?

Something similar was written by myself not long ago in a thread I discussed possible cloaking devices... remember it?

Once again.... Do you really think that we are "entittled" to observe the entire creation? Don't you agree with me that understanding the way things must work could give us a clue of things we won't be able to discover for many many centuries in the future?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

I think you could be onto something here my friend,I will comment more when i get back
home,at the moment i am in maderia in a hotel internet room,and someone is standing over my shoulder!

regards michael.

[Guille]

Interesting comment indeed.

You can't unless you introduce a "distracting" element in the experiment. Remember that whatever you migh do to "measure" the status of a photon [light] in the wave, you'll produce changes in the original system. The only evidence we could show as proof is the instantaneous collapsing of both waves and the burst of energy at the point of interception.

Two normal light-waves "collide" in space and nothing happens. The very reason light has been classified among the "bosons"... right? "They can occupy the same locale simultaneously." We know that two electrons [with different quantum status (numbers)] can NOT be in the same place at the same time. That's why they are named "fermions."

So... How could anyone explained that after two light waves intercept no one proceeds with their original propagation leaving a busrt of energy instead?

Is this enough to answer your question?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

I don't think it's enough to answer my question because it's incomplete. If I understood, you mean that after the light waves collide they could both continue to be there. Ok, you did proof that there are two types of lights, in that ase. But still, how would we proof that there are two different lightwaves in one, once they collide?

[Einstein]

By the way, I've been a member for quite a while now. I'm an auto mechanic by trade. But physics and all the unanswered questions it poses have been a passionate pastime for me. It is my hope and dream to one day develop an antigravity drive engine. That dream may soon become a reality. To make that dream come true some new ideas and new physics have to be developed. This thread really caught my attention. Because anti-light would be negative energy. That's a no no. But I don't care. I have an open mind. So it occurred to me that obviously my thoughts have crossed over into what kind of conditions would be necessary to support negative energy or anti-light as you put it. I see you have given thought to the existance of an eather. But we have to stick to actual physical observations when dealing with the concept. There doesn't appear to be any one universal frame of reference that we can experimentally confirm. So it isn't a big stretch to propose that all eathers are local and appear to be associated with large bodies of mass. But there are other more basic observations that I think you have to look at when dealing with the concept of anti-light. All the length in the universe is positive in value. Time appears to only flow in one direction. So I have given thought to the idea that length is only positive in value because of times arrow. So it would take some reinterpretation of existing phenomena to determine if there are any anomalies that would suggest times arrow could be reversed. I have to ask the question: How would a negative length phenomena manifest itself? Well, time might not flow as quickly within a region where negative length was present. That looks like a gravity field. Maybe. I have been entertaining the idea that mass itself may be responcible for the slowing down of time. But then what is the basic cause for times arrow? I'm guessing on this one. But I'm putting my money on the nuclear reaction within our sun as the cause of the local direction of time. Specifically, the mass of the sun is being converted into energy at a very small but continuous rate. So locally the mass is decreasing in value. This is going on all over the universe. So if times arrow is based upon a decreasing local value of mass then a negative time arrow might be generated with a nuclear reaction where mass increases in value during a nuclear bonding scenario. I do believe elements above iron on the periodic table would fit this requirement. Now that is food for thought for a steady state universe theory.

So basically I have described three types of spatial states. Only two of them appear to be present in our universe. but my current area of experimental research has lead me down a very narrow path to a more basic understanding of what mass is: A timeless state of length. And more specifically how to simulate the effect of mass. That is an area of current experimental research for me. So I will say that manipulating mass so that it increases in value locally may generate a times arrow that moves in the opposite direction. A necessary condition for anti-light. Negative energy, or even a time machine may be the outcome. So maybe that's why our science doesn't really have a comprehensive theory that ties it all together. All those that figured it out have constructed time machines and left.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Einstein, and welcome back to ToeQuest... These two statements of your's are very interesting; "So I have given thought to the idea that length is only positive in value because of times arrow." and "I have been entertaining the idea that mass itself may be responcible for the slowing down of time."

I like your thinking... I would only re-interpret time as velocity of light. How does that work?

Regards,
Lloyd

[Einstein]

I like your thinking... I would only re-interpret time as velocity of light. How does that work?

Regards,
Lloyd

Observations show that the speed of light is entirely dependant upon the relative reference frame it resides within. Or the properties of the local spacetime. But that is an interesting concept you have there. I didn't see it at first. But what you are suggesting is a way to measure the flow of time. By using the speed of light as as measuring tool. If light should cross a span of negative length, meaning negative time, then it should arrive at it's destination before it was sent. Wasn't there something in the media recently where this was done? If light were crossing an area an area of highly compressed length, time would appear to be slowed down. A Bose-Einstein condensate comes to mind.

[humanbydefault]

Einstein hi!

I admire you for two reasons:
First because you seems to have the same passion for physics as some of us here even though it's not your background and second because you really have an open mind... bravo!

Allow me to answer [acoording to my views of reality] why I believe you should reconsider some of your concepts.

TIME ARROW>>> Time ALWAYS "moves" forward. In other words... the arrow of time is always positive [in its absolute nature].
Does it appears to some "observers" (FRAMES OF OBSERVATION) as "moving" backward? You bet! That's why the other Einstein [the real one] called it RELATIVITY.
So... In absolute terms? Always forward. In relative terms? In both possible directions.
Now! What is TIME? Is TIME capable of "moving"...? Those are very interesting perspectives for which I have decided for the logic one.
TIME is any intelligent being's tool used to measure ENTROPY. Entropy [as you may know from the physics books] always "moves" in one direction: the future. The ray of light that leaves its source once never returns unless it is reflected by some means. The object that falls [in a free fall] will never return to its original potential-energy position unless it would be placed in a region of the universe where gravity was not existent and it was equipped with some kind of metaphysical properties that are not a subject of this post...(?)

The notion of TIME is an infinite scalar [a reading on someone's instrument: a chronometer of some sort] and an useful variable in our mathematical equations... As for its "inherent and independent existence"... it belongs to sci-fi books and movies,sorry to say it.
If you have followed some of my threads concerning TIME, you'll find the connection with what I described as "local eathers." To me, each "local eather" in the universe "owns" its local-elapsing-rate-of-time. In simple words: The rate of the entropy process and the direct proportionality of its TIME depends on the region where the given "local eather" SPINS.
The relativistic notion [perception] of ENTROPY [Meaning also TIME] is a constant inside the boundaries [orbit] of one "local eather" and NON-CONSTANT [non-linear] when observations are performed including other "local eathers."

You mentioned that past observations have proved that the existence of the eather was not consistent with their results. You may be referring to those experiments trying to measure the effect of the eather as a frame of reference to the speed of light... IRRELEVANT!

"Our local eather" [whose boundaries are located in the Earth's orbit [spin-path] around the sun is CONSTANT [in its nature] no matter were point you chose for a final frame.
Let's put it this way: In any point of the Earth's orbit around our sun any scattering experiment concerning matter and its interaction with energy [E-M energy in this particular case] will give the same results always. The "Photoelectric effect" will have the same succes in space [inside the physical boundaries of our "local eather"] as it had in our labs on the ground. Those properties I mentioned in previous posting as the consequence of RULES imposed by the density energy-mass of a specific eather are in no way different as long as you do not "cross over" into another "eather's domain."

The speed of light "c" is what it is BECAUSE of the existence of the eather... It's particular density and SPIN configuration to be more precise.

So how could you expect a different result for a relativistic perception of light "c" when those who performed that experiment [you mentioned above] never actually "crossed-over" into an adyacent eather?

I posted [not long ago] that phosphorescense [the glowing green light you have observed in the past] was the perfect evidence of the impossibility [even for light itself] to be able to VIOLATE those rules imposed by the eather.

If it had been possible the scattering of E-M energy from FORBIDDEN electronic subshells, phosphorescense would have never even existed at all. HOWEVER... I believe that there are regions of the universe [probably even in the confines of our own galaxy] where phosphorescense can not exist... period. Meanning that those photons [forbidden by our "local eather"] are perfectly "legitimate" and can and do exist in remote regions of space.

Einstein stated that "c" was a constant... an absolute... I agree! It is in the PERCEPTION of that incredible speed that we must contemplate the effect caused by the "crossing over" of light from one "local eather" to the next.

Same with our perception of ENTROPY. It is [no doubts] an ABSOLUTE process along the entire universe. It "moves" [developes] in one direction only... however its perception will vary depending the frame of observation>>>> the inherent properties of the "local eather" used as reference.

I hope that I have clarify to you some of my positions with respect to those "results" you've mentioned concerning the inability to detect the eather.

HUMANBYDEFAULT