An Idea

[Profpat]

Well there is supposed to be a mass particle (Higgs boson was it?). What ever happened to that?

The collider broke down and so we have to wait its discovery until they repair the LHC.

[Fredrick]

A little more research on photon collision:

Question

Why don't photons collide with each other when traveling towards each other?

Asked by: James Tanquary

Answer

Photons in free space act almost exclusively as waves. Therefore, when they cross paths they merely set up an interference pattern for the very brief time of their interaction. No energy is exchanged and the quantum state of each photon is unchanged after they pass each other.

This interference pattern is akin to ripples on water that approach each other, form an interference pattern of peaks and troughs and then continue on their way.

If matter is present where the photons cross, non-linear effects caused by accelerated electric charges may allow the photons to interact. This interaction could be considered a collision of sorts, resulting in exchange of energies with many possible outcomes.

One such outcome is called frequency doubling, where two photons are combined to form one photon at twice the frequency.

Answered by: Scott Wilber, President, ComScire - Quantum World Corporation

I guess from this answer there would be no change of direction to the photons.

Not quite, Pat, the answer I am looking for is not based on a single entity colliding (head-on or not) with another entity of the same make; I am looking for the answer of what happens to a single entity when it moves through a differently directed gale wind of other entities of the same make in a universal environment. That answer has not being given yet. The only answer formulated so far is that the bent light from distance stars shows how spacetime curvature is indeed 'a real thing.'

As you know, I see gravity as a phenomenon, yet the phenomenon is only found with entities with mass, something photons lack. The bending of the light we see from distant stars must be explained, and I do not think the spacetime curvature is a very elegant solution. It has some flaws: (how can something that is massless be curved by gravity) or (why accept an unseen entity of spacetime with a bend when there is a rather simple answer available from classical physics).

To take the example of the wave, we know it is not annihilated when in an environment of other waves. Yet will a single wave from somewhere near the North Pole, and moving straight South, end up at the diametrical position near the South Pole when at the equator a million waves of similar sizes move from east to west?

In this case, we have not yet established the answer because it has never been investigated throughout. I am quite comfortable with the thought that the ongoing barrage of equatorial sideway waves will have an effect on the journey of the single longitudinal wave. Though it will be difficult to distinguish on the shores of the South Pole which wave came from where, I believe the path the single wave travelled is not straight North to South, but bent -- not just along the curvature of the earth, but by the collective sideway pushing of the equatorial waves. Diamond cuts diamond, oxygen molecules push other oxygen molecules out of their way; similarly, photons push photons out of their way in their own high-speed spacetime framework.

I believe together with you that quantum physics, classical physics and relativistic physics all belong to the one abstract entity we can call physics. But the beauty for me is that with this classical explanation I can chip away one aspect that so far seemed to support the existence of spacetime curvature as an actual player in the framework we call the universe.

Where to place general relativity and quantum physics within the larger framework of physics, that is the question of the ToE, and I believe this provides a refinement of the picture.

Thank you for all the research; it is quite helpful.

[MJA]

And this is real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlPqL7IUT6M

=
MJA

[Profpat]

And this is real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlPqL7IUT6M

=
MJA

Thanks Surf's up!!

P.S From your signature it looks like you do value education. Bravo!!

[MJA]

Thanks Surf's up!!

P.S From your signature it looks like you do value education. Bravo!!

Only when the truth is taught, but until then, no.
But then the truth is self-evident, and for that all we really need is One.

=
MJA

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

You're welcome regarding the information, sorry it wasn't specific to your theory. It is a very interesting question though.

I view photons to be like a ghost particle. The form of the energy when 3D mass is converted into 2D energy. The photon being a 2 dimensional transverse wave, with an electric moment and a magnetic moment, complete with the visible light spectrum.

Your analogy of diamonds and oxygen is true but both have substance and mass, something our photons are missing.

You may be right Fredrick but for me I'm still sticking with curved space, until further evidence is available.

Best,

Pat

P.S. MJA of course only truth has value, never lies.

[Fredrick]

You may be right Fredrick but for me I'm still sticking with curved space, until further evidence is available.

I prefer to go with evidence, Pat, so what evidence is there for curved space? So far, I have not seen any, except for theories that only exist at the abstract level, meaning that the information supporting the theory is also only abstracted information.

The only real information we have are the images, such as this one:


In this image you can see that light has travelled from a certain spot to earth via what is not the shortest route. The bands of light indicate at least a warped collective delivery from their sources, and the question is how this was delivered.

How we answer the question may tell more about us than about the actual universe. I am looking forward reading what (and if) you can find about actual evidence for a curvature in/of spacetime.

[Profpat]

Well you know as I know, the best evidence for curved space is the light bending, which you are using to support your theory. In your theory, why does the light CURVE back, why wouldn't it just go off in a straight line as predicted by classical physics?

I may not be comprehending your entire theory correctly Fredrick, for which I apologize.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

[edit] Light deflection and gravitational time delay

Main articles: Kepler problem in general relativity, Gravitational lens, and Shapiro delay
General relativity predicts that the path of light is bent in a gravitational field; light passing a massive body is deflected towards that body. This effect has been confirmed by observing the light of stars or distant quasars being deflected as it passes the Sun.[57]

Deflection of light (sent out from the location shown in blue) near a compact body (shown in gray)


This and related predictions follow from the fact that light follows what is called a light-like or null geodesic—a generalization of the straight lines along which light travels in classical physics. Such geodesics are the generalization of the invariance of lightspeed in special relativity.[58] As one examines suitable model spacetimes (either the exterior Schwarzschild solution or, for more than a single mass, the post-Newtonian expansion),[59] several effects of gravity on light propagation emerge. Although the bending of light can also be derived by extending the universality of free fall to light,[60] the angle of deflection resulting from such calculations is only half the value given by general relativity.[61]
Closely related to light deflection is the gravitational time delay (or Shapiro effect), the phenomenon that light signals take longer to move through a gravitational field than they would in the absence of that field. There have been numerous successful tests of this prediction.[62] In the parameterized post-Newtonian formalism (PPN), measurements of both the deflection of light and the gravitational time delay determine a parameter called γ, which encodes the influence of gravity on the geometry of space.[63]

The above is from Wiki. Remember Einstein's theory also predicted black holes and other things which appear to be true.

P.S.
PhysicsCentral: Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life
Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, ... GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the ...
www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm - Cached - Similar

From the above article:
Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

[Fredrick]

Well you know as I know, the best evidence for curved space is the light bending, which you are using to support your theory. In your theory, why does the light CURVE back, why wouldn't it just go off in a straight line as predicted by classical physics?

I may not be comprehending your entire theory correctly Fredrick, for which I apologize.

Best,

Pat

No need to apologize in your own thread, Pat, and I'll gladly answer the question you still have about the light curving.

In the image we can see bands of lights in locations that beg for explanation. In my theory these are the locations where the light photons ended up more collectively than in other places.

As you know, sandstorms in the Sahara can pick up particles that are dropped far away (even as far away as South America). The dust particles come down at the edge of the wind, at the locations where the wind stops being windy. As long as there is wind, the particles are carried along. No-more wind translates into no more carrying capacity and the particles fall/float to earth and settle. Where the particles fall tells us something about the wind and where the wind ended, the location does not tell us something about the Sahara. Only the particles themselves tell us something about the Sahara.

If photons from distant stars are picked up by the solar winds coming from in-between stars with them keeping more or less their initial direction, they will more or less collectively end up at those spots where the solar winds are losing their strength.

So the light bands we see must be curved, because the solar winds blow at least in the abstract at the same strength in all directions, and therefore lose strength in all directions at the same distance from a star; hence a somewhat rounded feature should be found in the outcome.

I am quite certain the bands are most of the times not perfect rings, because we only get to see the photons coming our way. Their appearance must therefore resemble the sun as if reflected in shiny rounded objects, just like the somewhat rounded reflections found coming off the hoods or bumpers of cars.



The view is slightly warped, because the view is not the original, but rather what we see is the original view being warped. Besides, there are many objects between the distant star and ourselves, so interference should be considered the norm, and the partial circles of light (the bands) are only coming through that part of the universe when without (much) interference. On top of that, we can be certain that the solar winds are not always blowing perfectly themselves.

Let's get these ideas grouped: we would see a perfectly round band of light surrounding a stellar object in between
* if the distant star was perfectly aligned with the in-between stellar object and ourselves,
* if there were no other interferences occurring in between,
* if the stellar object in-between does not outshine or block the distant star, and
* if the in-between stellar object has a regular solar-wind output.

I'd say the chance of us seeing such perfect ring will only happen with a giant in the distant, and a 'weak but steady' solar entity perfectly aligned in between. And even then, the light reflected off the in-between solar-wind creation may not shine that brightly towards us. In general, I am not surprised to only see 'pieces' of such ring.

P.S. You used the correct word about Einstein and black holes: appear. We cannot say that black holes are true because we do not have the evidence to use that verb.

Thank you, sir, for your question and your continuing interest in what others are thinking and conjuring.