[dleviwing]

Hi PB
Though the photon analogy is one way of looking at all fundamental structures and forms, it would be better to realize that the photon is only a measured quantum of a wave function. It represents the quantity of fundamental substance that will interact to impose a change in the wave function of a particle.

Space, spacetime, aether and so on is the fundamental substance in a state of chaotic wave function. Particles are localized domains of circular standing waves of this substance consisting of a primary wave function particle and its harmonic wave function fields. Standing waves are confined by angular momentum (magnetic moment) until the wave function becomes a pure wave symmetry function.

If an interaction results in destructive interference, the localized domain will expand. (repulsion) If the interaction results in a constructive interference, the localized domain will collapse. (attraction) If you look at the big picture, gravity becomes the constructive interference of the fundamental substance’s wave function and the expansion of the universe is the result of the destructive interference; if you’ve ever wondered if there was an opposite force to gravity.

It may help you to take you photon analogy to the next step if you read my blog on Toronics. This may allow you to move beyond the particle physics paradigm.

BTW: I corrected the 120 type-O for you.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi PB, I like your simple explanation of the elementary fundamental space as photons. Also, your compression analysis is exactly the hydrodynamics I have been posting about for over a year, now. Thanks, great job...

Now, if we can unite your's, David's and my ideas, we have the possibility of a completed sub-quantum model of the entire universe, i.e., a completed TOE...

Thanks also David, for your simple explanation of repulsions and attractions, as per electrodynamics. It seems electrodynamics and hydrodynamics are completely compatible. This also seems to be the absolute equivalence principle of all fundamental space/substance motions. All we have left to do, is figure the real photon/wave/masses, at different true velocities___sub-quantum and quantum___and that should fill in the real mass gap, and completely unite quantum and relative mechanics...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob Velocity is calculated as distance / time. For a photon to travel at infinite velocity must mean that it is able to traverse any distance in zero time. Zapping across the universe in less than the blink of an eye does seem somewhat inplausable. Our perception of time and our measurements of the size of the universe make it easy for us to dismiss such a claim. If, on the other hand, you accept the idea that nowhere in the universe is it devoid of even the smallest spot of light or that even in the coldest corners of space the temperature is not quite absolute zero, then you accept that the universe is full of energy. The prospect now of an energy particle zapping unopposed across the universe in an instance becomes a lot less feasable. The actual distance that a photon is travelling at infinite velocity is relativily small, determined by the permeability of the free space it is travelling through. Every time a photon reacts with another you have the most fundemental process in the universe. A process that controls all matter and is the basic tick of the universe. Everything that happens in the Universe happens at the rate of one photon reacting with another and it all happens at the same rate. What about time dilation and relativity ... ? Compressed space gives you time dilation due to there being more energy packed into one area. Space includes those areas between the shelves of an atom, in between the structure that makes up an electron. These places are not empty. A photon being emitted from an atom takes slightly longer to be emitted because of the compression. It also takes longer to travel from the atom to your eye where it impacts with your retina. The signal now travels to your brain to register the impact, but it takes longer to travel along your optic nerve because of the compressed space. To you everything happened normally, but to a person in a different referencial frame it was slowed down. The photon itself still travelled at inifinite velocity between encountering other photons/energy it just encountered more of them. Objects travelling at high velocity, in fact any velocity it doesn't have to be high, encounter more photons/energy than they would if it were stationary. Imagine a clock face and around the outside there are 60 photons. It takes a single photon 60 ticks to complete on revolution. Now double the compression of the local space. There are now 120 photons around the outside of the clock and it takes 120 ticks to complete. If this clock where an atom, then the effect would be on the orbit of each electron. PB.

[Planet_Bob]

David, Lloyd,
here's something to mull over while I decipher your posts and come back with something rational.

Calling the particles photons is merely convention. They are not particles and they are not waves. They are the localised manifestation of NOT NULL. They are something. How much of something they are depends on the other somethings around them.

Mass

If we take the previous example of the electron, ignoring for the moment that QM thinks its a point particle, we have a stable structure consisting of packets of energy(photons) interacting constructively together.

The total amount of energy is used to determine its Mass, although that doesn't really say much because a gamma ray has the same amount of energy yet it has no Mass.
What we are really talking about when it comes to Mass is how much we have. This is determine by the energy and the extremes that each photon can move within the structure. Although these extremes define the periphery of the structure, the energy is constantly moving throughout the structure, so it can be assumed that there is a constant density of energy throughout.
That gives you Mass.

The next big question is Inertia.

All the component energy of the electron is whizzing about, all at the same velocity, inifinite, unless they constructively interact with other parts which will limit their velocity to the speed of light.

If the electron was stationary, then there is equilibrium within the structure.

Now add a photon into one side of the electron. For the photon to become part of the structure it must interact with another photon which is already part of the structure effecting its trajectory in the process.
The photons are still whizzing around the structure, only now there is an imbalance in one of the directions caused by the addition of the photon.

If each photon were to have a standard orbit within the electron and if one of these had its orbit altered by the interaction with the new energy, it is conceivable that the shift in orbit, and the additional energy, could increase the overall sideways orbits (while maintaining sideways equilibrium), while reducing those at the rear.

You would then have motion in the direction the additional photon was travelling.

Obviously it would be somewhat more complex if you were dealing with rockets and motors, but essentially the same just lots and lots of times over.

In addition to this you would also have a structure that is slightly wider and slightly shorter (in the direction of travel).
Lorentz anybody ?

PB.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by dleviwing It represents the quantity of fundamental substance that will interact to impose a change in the wave function of a particle.

I almost agree with you here, almost.

It does not impose a change on a particle, but rather on another quantity of fundamental substance.
The particle is a structure made entirely of this substance and although the wave function of the particle is effected, it is caused by the change imposed on its component substance.

IMO there is no Micro to Macro leap here. Events at the Micro level do not directly effect the Macro world. They do so by effecting changes to the Micro components of the Macro world.

An electron being bombarded by photons is not directly effect by the photons. It is the components of the electron that are directly effected and the change imposed on them subsequently alters the properties of the structure, the effect being that the electron can be seen to have changed.

Originally Posted by dleviwing Space, spacetime, aether and so on is the fundamental substance in a state of chaotic wave function.

Space and aether are essentially the same thing, but SpaceTime is something that was created to make the maths easy.

Originally Posted by dleviwing Particles are localized domains of circular standing waves of this substance consisting of a primary wave function particle and its harmonic wave function fields.

You already have the frequency of the primary wave function. The speed of light. It is the rate at which all the fundemental substance in the Universe interacts.
All other waves have as their base, the primary wave.

Originally Posted by dleviwing If an interaction results in destructive interference, the localized domain will expand. (repulsion) If the interaction results in a constructive interference, the localized domain will collapse. (attraction) If you look at the big picture, gravity becomes the constructive interference of the fundamental substance’s wave function and the expansion of the universe is the result of the destructive interference; if you’ve ever wondered if there was an opposite force to gravity.

Interference relies on two waves overlaying each other. Two photons cannot occupy the same space, so how do they interfere ?

Originally Posted by dleviwing BTW: I corrected the 120 type-O for you.

Thanks

PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob You already have the frequency of the primary wave function. The speed of light. It is the rate at which all the fundemental substance in the Universe interacts. All other waves have as their base, the primary wave. Thanks PB.

Hi PB, this is the point where I see almost all quantumists' and relativists' ideas break down. What I mean is, trying to use quantum/relative logic to understand sub-quantum actions___I say it can't be done. The sub-quantum, or more appropriately, pre-quantum universe, requires its own special language of description. As an example, you talk of sub-quantum photons, or entities that make up photons and actions; Dave talks about sub-quantum substance of space and motion; and I often talk of sub-quantum hydrodynamic motion and substance. The way I see it, all these subjects require an entirely new sub-quantum linguistics and maths to accurately describe any of these events. Yes, it is true we can apply many of the quantum and relative world's maths and actions, to this sub-quantum universe, we can not, at the same time, assume its total correspondences, i.e., such as that of the velocity of light, or the true values of mass. We only can know such velocity of light as being of the quantum/relative universe, since the big-bang, inflation, first star, or however you want it. We can not know the speed of light to be an eternal wave motion, and herein lies the problem of trying to associate quantum ideas with sub-quantum ideas. We must first take a closer look at a possible pre-quantum, sub-quantum reality of slower, much slower motions___first and foremost. There is no law in the universe, that says light had to travel C or faster, for eternity. As a matter of fact, it most likely travels slower, and faster, in many areas of the universe, than in our local area of the aether. This would explain much of quantum/relative cosmology's problems of observations and facts, since such facts would make it truly impossible for observers to tell whether the universe is expanding or contracting, or whether certain parts are doing both___conspansion is a very real possibility, without us ever knowing the difference, since we are local area light locked in our real vision...

So, since light may be traveling at different velocities, in our observable universe, what's to prove it wasn't traveling at very different velocities, in the pre-quantum, sub-quantum universe? I happen to think it was traveling much slower than present C, in the sub-quantum universe. This would change the entire dynamics of everything we are looking at. It would allow a simple sub-quantum, pre-quantum formation of absolute fundamental space substance, to collect into a first star, by simple hydrodynamics, thus and then producting the real quantum world of electrodynamics, and chromodynamics, if one wishes. You must have the primary wave first, and I say it's a thermo-hydrodynamic wave, or an unlimited many, as the case would be, of fundamental space/matter substance motions...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Dr. Waldrope]

Lloyd,

Illuminate me here .

Are you equating pre-quantum w/ sub-quantum? And if so, are talking pre-B.B.? And if so, isn't this unknowable (in that it can never be tested/proven)?
Or I am I, in my dull way, mis-interpreting?

Couldn't the pre-B.B. thing be all matter and energy in our local universe infinitely compressed into a singularity (possibly a meta-photon?)that is in a state of superposition until it self collapses; or are my semantics to off base and/or simplistic???

yours,
dr.w

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie As an example, you talk of sub-quantum photons, or entities that make up photons and actions

Hi Lloyd,
the entities that I'm trying to describe are not sub-quantum photons, they are photons.
Photons are the fundemental energy particle and they are spread across a vast spectrum covering visible light, infra red, ultra violet, xrays, gamma rays. The list goes on.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie I often talk of sub-quantum hydrodynamic motion and substance.

Hydrodynamics, fluid dynamics and thermodynamics are all relevant.

The first law of thermodynamics deals with energy being changed from one form to another, but niether created nor destroyed. This maintains the energy in the Universe.
The second law of thermodynamics is what makes the whole thing tick. The inability for a cold object to transfer heat to a hotter object. Essentially low pressure cannot move to high pressure, although the high pressure can move to low pressure. This is the same in fluid dynamics.

The interaction of a bit of energy depends on the amount of each bit of energy. Which one will be repelled more.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie The way I see it, all these subjects require an entirely new sub-quantum linguistics and maths to accurately describe any of these events.

No, I don't agree with you. The language, maybe, but the maths is straightforward.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie There is no law in the universe, that says light had to travel C or faster, for eternity.

I fully agree.
For there to be a law that says light can only travel at a set velocity would imply that there is another controlling factor which governs the most fundemental aspects of the Universe.

Read one of the previous post in this thread and consider the idea that light actually whizzes around at infinite velocity between encountering other bits of light.
This allows for massive variations in the actual velocity of light without having to invent special dimensions to account for it.
It would also give you the primary wave at what ever frequency was suitable for the locality.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

DrW, many in the physics community have known for years the faults of quantum and standard models of universal evolution, coming from the single point, is bogus. Since this is bogus, many have ventured in deeper directions trying to fathom new understandings. Much of the newest ideas are exploring pre-quantum, pre-big-bang, sub-quantum scenarios. This is a rather new field, yet present science has left everybody no alternatives, but to find newer and more sensible ideas to the foolishness of everything coming from an infinitesimal point. Although it can probably never be tested or proven, neither can the existing cosmologies' origins, thus it's as valid an investigation as the existing ones. The investigation continues...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Dr. Waldrope Lloyd, Illuminate me here . Are you equating pre-quantum w/ sub-quantum? And if so, are talking pre-B.B.? And if so, isn't this unknowable (in that it can never be tested/proven)? Or I am I, in my dull way, mis-interpreting? Couldn't the pre-B.B. thing be all matter and energy in our local universe infinitely compressed into a singularity (possibly a meta-photon?)that is in a state of superposition until it self collapses; or are my semantics to off base and/or simplistic??? yours, dr.w

[Planet_Bob]

If the Universe, pre Big Bang, consisted of nothing but energy, then it is conceivable that it was all contained in a single infinitesimal point.

If the Universe has no dimensions, ie no Mass to define its size, then it is also conceivable that the same point could have filled the entire Universe. Maybe it was the Universe.

Maybe the way the Universe came about was not so much a Big Bang, but rather Mitosis.

PB.

[dleviwing]

PB;
Though your view of spacetime can be debated, your views of wave mechanics are in error.