Pages: 1, 2

gonegahgah
This is just a starter for a new thread on my current growing theories I have about the form of matter, mass and energy in all its forms.

Current popular thinking is that light and all other emr (electromagnetic radiation) exists as a dual nature wave and particle.

I am looking at a different mathematical form than a wave; another form that exists in mathematics. It is the spiral.

Usually we draw spirals on a piece of paper but I think most of us will be able to remember back to our childhood where we cut out spiral snakes and allowed them to hang by one end making a three dimensional spiral.

It is these three dimensional spirals I am talking about and not the two dimensional spirals that you would draw as a two dimensional representation on a piece of paper.

Why do I think that spirals might be the form in which light exists and not waves? Well, let's take an analogy.

I'm not sure how many of you would be familiar with a slinky? They are those metal spirals that you can buy from stores. You plonk them on a step and cause them to topple by their top and they continue to topple down each stair in an organised orderly fashion.

Okay. Let's take one of these slinkys and put it on a table. Now let's stretch it out a bit.

Now look at the slinky from the side and what do you see? You will see a wave pattern. Cool. But even though it looks like a wave to us from the side it is not; it is actually a spiral.

What if it is the same for light?

This is only a small start. I will keep adding further aspects of this theory to this thread over time.
Insyght
Interesting. Would not this cause a problem with polarizaton though?
Guest
What about making it a double helix? Like DNA?

no reason.
gonegahgah
Now let's look at atoms.

Atoms are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. But what exactly are these things?

We are told that electrons are negatively charged energy particles, protons are positively charged energy particles and neutrons have no charge.

How can we have one emr (electromagnetic radiataion) of different frequencies (eg. light, etc.) and yet have three particles in atoms?

The current theory on electrons is that they are standing waves - whereas emr is a moving wave. See links:

Electrons Can Behave as Waves
Standing Waves on a String

Just as I would like to replace the idea of light waves with light spirals; so would I like to see electrons and protons also as being spirals.

Why? Because waves have only one direction (frequency) but a spiral has two directions (spin and counter-spin).

A spiral if you look at it is either clockwise at both ends or counter-clockwise at both ends. So this gives us automatically two directions.

I am thinking that the attract of opposites charges and repel of same charges is somehow linked to the two directions. That is that if you have stationary spirals of mass spinning very fast with the same spin type then they will repel each other but if you have stantionary spirals spinning very fast with the opposite spin type then they will attract each other.

I am having a theory that mass moving in relation to mass is the basis of magnetic effect and in exactly the same manner the negative and positive effect of electrons and protons.

I will try to examine the mechanics of this and give a better conceptual understanding of it soon.
Guest
Sounds like string theory, but with single helix's instead of strings.
Guest
or maybe colours of quarks, and other fundimental particles
gonegahgah
Insight,

Interesting question.

I've looked at the following sites to understand polarization:

Polarization
How Do We Know Light Behaves as a Wave

Maybe polarization, this is just a guess, has more to do with the angles of light rather than with actually only allowing vertically aligned light through. Maybe light is smaller than they are recognising. Maybe the slits allow light from a narrower range of angles to get through and not so much of the angles that are coming at an angle against the slit.

Kind of like you can fly a plane at a greater up and down angle in a canyon than you can under a wide bridge.

Does polarization work with lasers?
WaterBreath
Your plane example is exactly the analog of the current explanation of polarization. Imagine the plane's wings as the geometrical plane in which the transverse EM wave of the light ray lies. If the plane is flying nearly horizontal, it could not enter a narrow canyon without breaking off its wings. This is the same concept as polarization of light. The parts of the light beam that are aligned horizontally cannot enter a vertical filter.

If light were spirals, then the only thing determining whether a photon could make it through a filter is whether the diameter of the spiral is smaller than the filter gap (the canyon's width). In your theory, what determines the spiral radius? I would guess it wouldn't just be equal to the wavelength, right? Otherwise a polarizing filter would be able to almost completely block all light with a large enough wavelength. Which they can't do, AFAIK.

Regarding lasers, it is possible to polarize lasers. In fact, it's possible to give a laser a "circular polarization", which means that as the photons zoom along, their polarization plane rotates at a defined frequency.
professor andy
How would these spirals superimpose on each other? It'd be strange to think..

And what about the photoelectric effect? This doesn't explain it..

I was thinking, maybe energy is a dimention in itself, and it can manifest itself in all these different forms, because its a dimention our minds cant grasp.
Insyght
Please excuse the interruption here, but what makes a wave a wave? Why the up/down up/down movement? [simplified] What "force" makes this occur?

Is it just down to a warping of space?

For example: some burst of energy is thrown out at 45 degree to a horizontal plane. The energy at first has the power to warp space more at first, but that becomes less and less, until space starts to push back, forcing the energy down with equal "force"... then space is stretched the other way, until space forces it up again?

If not, how does a wave keeps it's self a wave? why not shoot the energy in completely straight lines?
gonegahgah
Professor Andy,

I'm not sure how they would superimpose upon each other or what they do as they pass near or through each other at different vectors? I don't know how to answer that first question yet.

The photoelectric effect is not a problem I am thinking. Nor the effect of light spirals at the right 'frequency' bumping electrons temporarily into higher 'orbits'.

For the photoelectric effect enough kinetic energy is transferred from a spiral to the relatively free floating electron to give it its escape velocity. The spirals in maintaining a total conservation of energy slow down through a combination of loss of spin and reduced spiral progression or in other words a reduction of their relative frequency.

It has been my thought that the spiral may actually address the dual nature question of light ie is it a wave or a particle. I looked at the following link:

The Photoelectric Effect

This talks about that duality. Spirals would address the duality I have the thinking. Spirals behave with the frequency of their spiral rather than the amplitude of a wave.

If you go to this link and then go to the next page you will see in the last paragraph:

"We can only conclude that light is somehow both a wave and a particle--or that it's something else we can't quite visualize, which appears to us as one or the other depending on how we look at it."

A spiral might fit the bill.

Now the question I posed about 'photons' bumping electrons into higher energy states. I have a thinking that it may be similar to those click-clack toys that you can buy and put on your desk. Those toys where you pull one dangling ball back and let go and it sets off a chain reaction of backwards forwards clack-clack-clacks.

The same idea may occur for light spirals bumping electrons into higher energy states. They may go in and bump the electron up an 'orbit' and the electron in the process of swinging back bumps the original photon back out again.

I'm not happy with the notion of light simply ceasing to exist and then another light of identical frequency being later brought back into existance when the electron returns to its original orbit.

Please remember that I am theorising so the mechanics are quite possibly slightly different to what I am saying. But I am happy to explore how spirals could meet todays experimental results.
gonegahgah
Hi WaterBreath,

But light is shooting around at all angles so I was thinking that maybe this was more the reason for the reduction in light passing through - ie reducing the pass through to only certain angles.

The laser question is the hiccup though. Can you point me to more info if possible. Thanks.

With a polarisation filter I imagine that some loss of light will occur always where light strikes the actually dark areas. Even some of the 'correctly aligned' light would suffer this fate wouldn't it? In other words a fraction of the filter acts like normal sunglasses (the posts) and the other (greater?) fraction acts like the gaps between a grill.

ggg
gonegahgah
Insyght,

This is where spirals are an interesting idea because they have an in-built stability whereas a wave doesn't.

Especially standing waves as in electrons. You would expect a standing wave to wobble. If it has an even number of overall flexing crests then the wobble would be rotational back and forth around the centre. If it has an odd number of overall flexing crests then the wobble would be back and forth through the axis.

The other problem with a standing wave notion is that the mass has to squash through the axis as the crests alternate.

A spiral might stand and spin with more stability and doesn't require any squashing.

I could be wrong; maybe a spiral would have the desire to rotate around its centre. Can someone tell me?
Phoenixz33
QUOTE (gonegahgah+May 13 2005, 10:51 AM)
The current theory on electrons is that they are standing waves - whereas emr is a moving wave.

Not so sure about this one. As I was taught it, this concept was part of the Bohr model of the atom, which was ditched for the quantum mechanical model of the atom later. Since the quantum mechanical model is generally accepted, I'm not so sure that the idea of electrons being standing waves on Bohr orbits of the atom works out anymore.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ewav.html

(Read all the way to the bottom)
gonegahgah
Sorry. By centre I mean end over end around the middle point.
gonegahgah
Phoenix,

Isn't the current model the one where the electrons form clouds of probability and form shapes in this respect like tear drops, etc?
gonegahgah
Spirals have something else that I am looking for and that is the ability to sync based upon relative frequency.

Waves which should have there energy equal to their amplitude don't translate to the real world. Instead the dynamics of light and atoms is based upon the frequency of light (not its intensity) and I am assuming the corresponding frequency of electrons, protons and neutrons.

With spirals this may allow this principle better than a wave would. A light spiral of the right frequency could sync with an electron spiral allowing it to interact whereas light spirals of other frequencies would bounce.

If you think of two solid slinkies coming at each other from different directions. If they have the same frequency relative to each other then they are more likely to pass through each other. But if they are of greater different frequencies then they will collide and bounce off each other.

Now add to this the electromagnetic effect of mass moving in relation to mass (one of the things I am thinking may be) then it may create some interesting interactions that resemble the same thing you see with light and atoms.
gonegahgah
Another thing that did worry me was that in the magazine NewScientist, issue 9 April 2005, they had a picture taken of a light wave.

I was away from home and feared the wave might be a complex wave.

It was to my relief that the wave was exactly as I had hoped when I got home.

It has smaller amplitudes at either end and the larger amplitudes in the middle. But it was a simple wave still.

A complex wave would be difficult to say that it might be a spiral.

A simple wave however can easily be represented by a spiral.

A simple wave is one where every change in amplitude passes through the axis whereas a complex wave can have little changes of direction (or bumps) before passing through the axis.

The example picture they gave could easily be represented by a spiral that tapers at either end.
Ons -offline
Sorry, I will be catching up here:

QUOTE
Please excuse the interruption here, but what makes a wave a wave? Why the up/down up/down movement? [simplified] What "force" makes this occur?

Well, here's a wild one. It is the ultimate speed limit, the speed of light that is this force; whatever causes such force in the first place, I don't know.
Why?
Well, think about it like this; if light is going already at the speed of light, BUT is also going in a warped, wave/spiral -like pattern, wouldn't it mean that light is going a longer distance in the same amount of time? Even multiple times longer, and thus faster? So hihger frequency lights would travel faster than lower?
So perhaps it is a quality of the physics to "slow down" a propellant by making it spiral around the diameter that is the smallest possible diameter where something can still go above the light speed? Thus the more energy it has, the more it has to spiral/ shorter the frequency?
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Please excuse the interruption here, but what makes a wave a wave? Why the up/down up/down movement? [simplified] What "force" makes this occur?

Well, here's a wild one. It is the ultimate speed limit, the speed of light that is this force; whatever causes such force in the first place, I don't know.
Why?
Well, think about it like this; if light is going already at the speed of light, BUT is also going in a warped, wave/spiral -like pattern, wouldn't it mean that light is going a longer distance in the same amount of time? Even multiple times longer, and thus faster? So hihger frequency lights would travel faster than lower?
So perhaps it is a quality of the physics to "slow down" a propellant by making it spiral around the diameter that is the smallest possible diameter where something can still go above the light speed? Thus the more energy it has, the more it has to spiral/ shorter the frequency?
This is where spirals are an interesting idea because they have an in-built stability whereas a wave doesn't.

...And the above is the reason for this stability.

QUOTE
Especially standing waves as in electrons. You would expect a standing wave to wobble. If it has an even number of overall flexing crests then the wobble would be rotational back and forth around the centre. If it has an odd number of overall flexing crests then the wobble would be back and forth through the axis.

The other problem with a standing wave notion is that the mass has to squash through the axis as the crests alternate.

A spiral might stand and spin with more stability and doesn't require any squashing.

So basically you're saying that electron is (in) a wave that got caught by the nucleus? Brilliant. And somehow deepen my sence of the workings of electrics.

But...
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Especially standing waves as in electrons. You would expect a standing wave to wobble. If it has an even number of overall flexing crests then the wobble would be rotational back and forth around the centre. If it has an odd number of overall flexing crests then the wobble would be back and forth through the axis.The other problem with a standing wave notion is that the mass has to squash through the axis as the crests alternate.A spiral might stand and spin with more stability and doesn't require any squashing.

So basically you're saying that electron is (in) a wave that got caught by the nucleus? Brilliant. And somehow deepen my sence of the workings of electrics.

But...
Not so sure about this one. As I was taught it, this concept was part of the Bohr model of the atom, which was ditched for the quantum mechanical model of the atom later. Since the quantum mechanical model is generally accepted, I'm not so sure that the idea of electrons being standing waves on Bohr orbits of the atom works out anymore.

Sorry, didn't get it. But I'm tired. I'll try that one again later.

QUOTE
Is it just down to a warping of space?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Is it just down to a warping of space?

Sounds like string theory, but with single helix's instead of strings.

Well, here comes my piece that I managed to ask in the wrong thread last time.
The String-theory could be on the right track, but it's termology is utter decaying monkey-corpse.
First of all, they've even admitted it, they cannot prove the strings by tests; and until it can be proven, it's just philosophy.

But here's the deal; if they cannot see it, they couldn't possibly say that they are strings! They could be wobbling balls, or pulsating rods. Or, as I threw, vortices in the sea of Aether (the Aether was to explain waves in space. Nevermind).
The strings are just an analogy that helps one fathom the principle it's supposed to work with. In the end, the only constant is movement. All energy is movement of some sort; kinetic movement to radiation, to warmth, gravity and so on. Movement of something. But movement of what? Exactly. The X. The mathematical term. We don't know it. We can only investigate it by looking at the Universal constants, like the speed of light or the size of a quark. Strings and such would be merely place-holders for the truth we cannot investigate.
So could be we will never see much beyond the level we are investigating now (well, heck, we ARE investigating light, that makes our visual experience.). The "particles" could go on and on to even smaller sizes all we know, perhaps even creating some odd forms of life to which electrons are suns and so forth. All we can conclude that there is something. All energy = movement.

QUOTE
The same idea may occur for light spirals bumping electrons into higher energy states. They may go in and bump the electron up an 'orbit' and the electron in the process of swinging back bumps the original photon back out again.

I'm not happy with the notion of light simply ceasing to exist and then another light of identical frequency being later brought back into existance when the electron returns to its original orbit.

Could be, but if it's just movement, it wouldn't be too hard.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The same idea may occur for light spirals bumping electrons into higher energy states. They may go in and bump the electron up an 'orbit' and the electron in the process of swinging back bumps the original photon back out again.I'm not happy with the notion of light simply ceasing to exist and then another light of identical frequency being later brought back into existance when the electron returns to its original orbit.

Could be, but if it's just movement, it wouldn't be too hard.

Isn't the current model the one where the electrons form clouds of probability and form shapes in this respect like tear drops, etc?

But... is the Uncertainty-theory based only on the fact that we humans cannot measure electrons without interfering them? I mean, it's like we'd be blindfolded (indeed) and tried to determine where the ball is flying by hitting it with a bat, thus feeling the speed etc.?
That wouldn't mean that the ball didn't have a pre-determined track, rite? Not that I should think that people are THAT stupid, but...

Anyways, good stuff ggg.
Phoenixz33
QUOTE (gonegahgah+May 13 2005, 06:02 PM)
Phoenix,

Isn't the current model the one where the electrons form clouds of probability and form shapes in this respect like tear drops, etc?

Yes, that's the current QM model, but you seemed to be referencing a concept from the Bohr model of the atom, which was your standing electron wave thingy.
dan21
there were papers published in 'Acta Physica Austriaca (Vol. 4, 1950 and Vol. 5, 1951)' an Austrian Journal, by Prof. Felix Ehrenhaft, head of Physics at Vienna University, (in the days before he fell out with all other physisists) in which he demonstrated his experiments in 'photophoresis' that appeared to show that light did move in a spiral.

gonegahgah
Cool Dan, I'd like to find out more obviously if you can help.

Hi Phoenix. Think of this though... If you have a constant diameter spiral (like a spring) spinning in one place very fast what will it look like? A cyclinder. If you have a sprial that tapers down to a point more slowly at one end and more steeply at the other end and it is spinning in one place very fast what will it look like? A tear trop? If you have a spiral the evenly curves towards both ends and it is spinning in one place very fast what will it look like? A sphere.

But in all cases it isn't any of these shapes. Instead if ends up having a 'probability' of being in a particular place rather then occupying all that space.

The thing it does allow I'm guessing is for the spirals to form shapes that will be in electromagnetic balance with surrounding forces.

Hi Ons. I don't believe in adding another ingredient called an 'aether'. I am attempting to reduce all things down to one single ingredient called mass. There would be such a thing called void even if momentary where there is greater mass. Under that requirement light is still mass in spiral form and is its own medium of travel rather then requiring an aether.

Just like all atoms eventually turned out to have a common base I want all sub-particles along with emr and other mass (such as dark matter) to turn out to have a common base as well.

Under this attempt I also hope to get to the premise that things can not be thought of in terms of solids any more but in terms of something liquidy called mass that exhibits behaviour due to its gravity aspect. Magnetism then becomes the notion of gravity moving relative to gravity that I put forward possibly creates a rotational force being the magnetism. Electricity then becomes the notion of things flowing and following each other in some pattern due to that gravity (where the relationship between mass remains constant) plus some magnetism (where the relationship is relative movement).

These would then form all sorts of interesting patterns such as atoms, light and other emr, dark matter, metals, wood, liquids, acids, black holes, galaxies, quasers, etc.

It also leads to the idea that everything is the effect of mass upon mass. So all interactions, every single one, occur at gravity speeds which is instaneous and only dependent - in degree - upon distance and relative movement. Light then just becomes mass moving through space which sometimes bumps into these large organisations of mass known as suns, planets, etc.

As an aside:
To create antigravity you would have to create an engine that would know how to detect the forms of mass below (including air) and knows how to oppose that mass's complex external and internal movement so as to create a counter force in the same fashion that electrons and south poles repel each other. Hence maybe why UFOs (if they exist which they might not) to cause radio interference and car engines to stall. You think they would have some effect upon us also (apart from anatomy probes of course).
Phoenixz33
QUOTE (gonegahgah+May 14 2005, 07:46 PM)
Hi Phoenix. Think of this though... If you have a constant diameter spiral (like a spring) spinning in one place very fast what will it look like? A cyclinder. If you have a sprial that tapers down to a point more slowly at one end and more steeply at the other end and it is spinning in one place very fast what will it look like? A tear trop? If you have a spiral the evenly curves towards both ends and it is spinning in one place very fast what will it look like? A sphere.

But in all cases it isn't any of these shapes. Instead if ends up having a 'probability' of being in a particular place rather then occupying all that space.

The thing it does allow I'm guessing is for the spirals to form shapes that will be in electromagnetic balance with surrounding forces.

Why spirals? I could say the same thing about a plane cut out in whatever shape I want - if I rotate it fast, it'll look like some 3D object. What about spirals makes them relate in any way to probability distributions?

By the way, the probability distributions of electrons, visualized as orbitals (ex. the sphere, the teardrop shapes, the rings) are defined by wavefunctions. Technically, these wavefunctions never reach zero as you get farther away from the nucleus, so the orbitals actually drawn aren't actually representations of the boundaries of where the electron can be, only about 90% or so. How would your spirals account for electrons that end up not being found inside of your volumes of revolution?

I won't even begin to question the whole mass thing. That's just... >_<
Phoenixz33
QUOTE (dan21+May 14 2005, 06:31 PM)
there were papers published in 'Acta Physica Austriaca (Vol. 4, 1950 and Vol. 5, 1951)' an Austrian Journal, by Prof. Felix Ehrenhaft, head of Physics at Vienna University, (in the days before he fell out with all other physisists) in which he demonstrated his experiments in 'photophoresis' that appeared to show that light did move in a spiral.

His papers also showed he believed in magnetic monopoles. The fact that the existence of magnetic monopoles has generally been considered to be false, even to this day, probably means it's hard to take this guy very seriously.
gonegahgah
Not another particle! How many do we need? I agree Phoenix that no such particle is likely to exist as a monopole.

If you read what I've written Phoenix I'm instead trying to say that magnetism may be the rotational force produced by the gravity of mass moving in relation to mass. Just as whacko you may like to say but definitely in place with my attempts to reduce everything down to a two things called mass and void; mass having the characteristic of occupying space and having gravity and void not.

You asked "Why a spiral?" and "What does it have to do with probability?".

What is the probability of a spinning spiral of mass occupying examined parts of an electron? It's not a hundred per cent is it? The probability percentage will vary depending upon the circumference of the spiral at any point. The bigger the circumference of any cross-section of the spiral the less time the spiral will spend in a point on that circumference.

Why possibly a spiral. Three reasons. 1. A spiral may be the most natural shape you will get where rotational forces are present. Look at tornadoes, whirlpools, wind devils, even galaxies. 2. I need opposing directional rotation to give negative mass (electrons) and positive mass (protons) and waves don't give me that whereas spinning spirals will. 3. I recently saw a picture they took of light in the New Scientist magazine which looked like a wave and the only way you are going to get a wave with any three dimensional shape is with a spiral as I've explained.
gonegahgah
Here's a new one:

E = m x f^2 x spiral spin

So for light it would be:

E = m x f^2 x +/-1

and for electrons it would be:

E = m x (big number)^2 x -1

and for protons it would be:

E = m x (big number)^2 x 1

The big number may even be the constant value given to c. I couldn't tell you.

Now the big problem with this is that if our spinning spiral (electron) is remaining stationary in relation to everything else then it will not impart any energy (except long range miniscule effect). But if it comes close enough to something... boy the energy it will express then, wow!

The so called spinning spirals have to make close approach to things to impart a big impact. Again this is due to the exponential decrease in their gravitational and magnetic effect over distance.
gonegahgah
I am still reading up on and trying to puzzle the question of polarization.

I do have a question in the meantime.

It relates to the two slit experiment where it is shown that light can seem to intensify (nodes) and cancel out (anti-nodes).

The question is... If normal sun light is unpolarized and is therefore coming at us with the waves in all 360 degrees of orientation at all sorts of phase differences, why don't they cancel out and make the sun appear black?

With the polarization I am trying to work out a couple of things. How wide do the slits and 'posts' need to be to achieve polarisation? How deep is the material that is used for the polarization? How does this relate to the size of the light passing through it?

I do have questions also about waves themselves. If they have an electric part and a magnetic part at 90 degrees to the electric part then wouldn't that also impact on them getting through the slits? Also how wide is a light wave? How high is a light wave (amplitude)?

If light is in spirals then maybe part of the loss would be due to the phases of the spiral as it meets the slits, part would be due to hitting the 'posts' and part would be angular where waves are more likely to collide and defract because of trying to get through the slit at an angle to the narrow orientation, whereas light trying to get through the slit at an angle to the tall orientation would not experience as much of this. Just thoughts. Will have to explore issue more...
Phoenixz33
QUOTE
If you read what I've written Phoenix I'm instead trying to say that magnetism may be the rotational force produced by the gravity of mass moving in relation to mass.  Just as whacko you may like to say but definitely in place with my attempts to reduce everything down to a two things called mass and void; mass having the characteristic of occupying space and having gravity and void not.

It has already been established that magnetism is caused by moving charges relative to each other, not moving masses. If you're talking about gravitomagnetism, that's an entirely different story, and one that I've never heard any support for. Regular magnetism, however, has nothing to do with mass.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE If you read what I've written Phoenix I'm instead trying to say that magnetism may be the rotational force produced by the gravity of mass moving in relation to mass.  Just as whacko you may like to say but definitely in place with my attempts to reduce everything down to a two things called mass and void; mass having the characteristic of occupying space and having gravity and void not.

It has already been established that magnetism is caused by moving charges relative to each other, not moving masses. If you're talking about gravitomagnetism, that's an entirely different story, and one that I've never heard any support for. Regular magnetism, however, has nothing to do with mass.

1. A spiral may be the most natural shape you will get where rotational forces are present.  Look at tornadoes, whirlpools, wind devils, even galaxies.

Actually, I would say that the most natural shape you could get for just rotational forces is a circle. In tornadoes, whirlpools, wind devils, and galaxies, you have more than rotational forces, creating different spiral effects.

QUOTE
2. I need opposing directional rotation to give negative mass (electrons) and positive mass (protons) and waves don't give me that whereas spinning spirals will.

Why is negative mass needed? In simple kinematics calculations, where you collide electrons with electrons and protons with protons, electron mass and proton mass act in exactly the same manner, and both masses are known to be positive. I don't see the need, nor the place, for negative mass.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE 2. I need opposing directional rotation to give negative mass (electrons) and positive mass (protons) and waves don't give me that whereas spinning spirals will.

Why is negative mass needed? In simple kinematics calculations, where you collide electrons with electrons and protons with protons, electron mass and proton mass act in exactly the same manner, and both masses are known to be positive. I don't see the need, nor the place, for negative mass.

3. I recently saw a picture they took of light in the New Scientist magazine which looked like a wave and the only way you are going to get a wave with any three dimensional shape is with a spiral as I've explained.

Light, in its wave form, is composed of two 2D waves: electric and magnetic. These waves travel along a 3rd axis, and each wave and the axis are all mutually perpendicular. To see what I mean, visit this link and scroll down until you see the weird-looking moving picture and read the stuff just before and after the picture as well. They don't look that perpendicular from each other, but they're supposed to be.

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wemwaves.html

You see a blue electric wave perpendicular to a green magnetic wave, both traveling along the same line (the 3rd axis I mentioned) and having the same nodes and antinodes. This is how light fills 3D space.
gonegahgah
Phoenix

You are really sounding just argumentative in the last post.

I am offering up ideas to explain something that seems so far to be magic otherwise.

If you want answers to your questions then I will attempt to answer them. Just let me know. But don't just be rhetorical.
Guest
QUOTE
I don't believe in adding another ingredient called an 'aether'. I am attempting to reduce all things down to one single ingredient called mass. There would be such a thing called void even if momentary where there is greater mass. Under that requirement light is still mass in spiral form and is its own medium of travel rather then requiring an aether.

Just like all atoms eventually turned out to have a common base I want all sub-particles along with emr and other mass (such as dark matter) to turn out to have a common base as well.

Under this attempt I also hope to get to the premise that things can not be thought of in terms of solids any more but in terms of something liquidy called mass that exhibits behaviour due to its gravity aspect. ...
These would then form all sorts of interesting patterns such as atoms, light and other emr, dark matter, metals, wood, liquids, acids, black holes, galaxies, quasers, etc.

Ggg: We are actually closer to our views than you think we are: I'm heading for a single element too (though should be remembered, that such an objective isn't the best scientific one! One should always try to find out the truth, not try fit truth into an eloquent theory! But this is just a test of this theory, right?).
My "Aether" is the same as your mass. The only distinction in our theories is, that mass is everywhere; my 'void' is still mass, while the particles are moving mass. Just like your spiral creates an electron with it's spinning.
The reason for this filled analogue is, that effects afar, like gravity or magnetism have a slightly better chance for getting an explanation. Though I'm quite ready to ditch the whole idea, when proper evidence is presented.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I don't believe in adding another ingredient called an 'aether'. I am attempting to reduce all things down to one single ingredient called mass. There would be such a thing called void even if momentary where there is greater mass. Under that requirement light is still mass in spiral form and is its own medium of travel rather then requiring an aether.Just like all atoms eventually turned out to have a common base I want all sub-particles along with emr and other mass (such as dark matter) to turn out to have a common base as well.Under this attempt I also hope to get to the premise that things can not be thought of in terms of solids any more but in terms of something liquidy called mass that exhibits behaviour due to its gravity aspect. ...These would then form all sorts of interesting patterns such as atoms, light and other emr, dark matter, metals, wood, liquids, acids, black holes, galaxies, quasers, etc.

Ggg: We are actually closer to our views than you think we are: I'm heading for a single element too (though should be remembered, that such an objective isn't the best scientific one! One should always try to find out the truth, not try fit truth into an eloquent theory! But this is just a test of this theory, right?).
My "Aether" is the same as your mass. The only distinction in our theories is, that mass is everywhere; my 'void' is still mass, while the particles are moving mass. Just like your spiral creates an electron with it's spinning.
The reason for this filled analogue is, that effects afar, like gravity or magnetism have a slightly better chance for getting an explanation. Though I'm quite ready to ditch the whole idea, when proper evidence is presented.

As an aside:
To create antigravity you would have to create an engine that would know how to detect the forms of mass below (including air) and knows how to oppose that mass's complex external and internal movement so as to create a counter force in the same fashion that electrons and south poles repel each other. Hence maybe why UFOs (if they exist which they might not) to cause radio interference and car engines to stall. You think they would have some effect upon us also (apart from anatomy probes of course).

Um, I think we should stick to physical evidence we can test ourselves, not something this questionable. If we start considering these, I've noticed with myself that the more "evidence" I accumulate, the harder I stick to a theory that still could be false. It's hard to let go...

QUOTE
By the way, the probability distributions of electrons, visualized as orbitals (ex. the sphere, the teardrop shapes, the rings) are defined by wavefunctions. Technically, these wavefunctions never reach zero as you get farther away from the nucleus, so the orbitals actually drawn aren't actually representations of the boundaries of where the electron can be, only about 90% or so. How would your spirals account for electrons that end up not being found inside of your volumes of revolution?

Could you tell me Phoenix, what are the evidence that suggest Uncertainty aside the fact that these orbitals cannot be measured easily?
Phoenixz33
QUOTE
The question is...  If normal sun light is unpolarized and is therefore coming at us with the waves in all 360 degrees of orientation at all sorts of phase differences, why don't they cancel out and make the sun appear black?

The light waves don't interfere with each other if they're streaming toward you, so there's no chance of them cancelling out.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The question is...  If normal sun light is unpolarized and is therefore coming at us with the waves in all 360 degrees of orientation at all sorts of phase differences, why don't they cancel out and make the sun appear black?

The light waves don't interfere with each other if they're streaming toward you, so there's no chance of them cancelling out.

I do have questions also about waves themselves.  If they have an electric part and a magnetic part at 90 degrees to the electric part then wouldn't that also impact on them getting through the slits?

Though light is really two waves in one, you will usually see light described as a single wave for clarity. Usually, this is the electric wave, and I believe only the electric wave is important for determining polarization (if someone with a better background with polarization could help me here, that'd be great - I only have my high school non-AP physics class to draw upon right now). This link describes polarization pretty well, also explaining why light has to be a wave and cannot be a spiral:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys...ght/u12l1e.html

It is a good link, despite the fact that it's from Glenbrook (grr... GO MAINE SOUTH! GO HAWKS!)
Phoenixz33
QUOTE
Could you tell me Phoenix, what are the evidence that suggest Uncertainty aside the fact that these orbitals cannot be measured easily?

This uncertainty stems from the very nature of the wavefunctions that describe the electrons an atom. This is well explained at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_orbital

"Since an orbital specifies the places where an electron is most likely to be found, it is possible to define a region of space within which the electron is likely to exist (with ~90% probability, for example), and outside of which it is not likely to exist. This region of space is also sometimes called an 'orbital'." - the Wikipedia link

This isn't a question of measurement, but simply how the orbitals are defined. Pictures that you see do not account for 100% of where the electron can be, because according to quantum mechanics, the electron could technically be anywhere at a certain time. However, it helps to see where approximately 90% of the measurements will say the electrons will be, which is inside those orbitals. That's why they're drawn - not to give an absolute picture of where the electrons can and cannot be, but to give an approximate picture of where the electrons will probably be.

And gg, I'm sorry if I sound argumentative, but this has been gone over in physics numerous times. I believe that the only reason that this seems like magic is because you haven't learned of what physics has explained. I would suggest picking up some textbooks on optics and researching the current theories first, before postulating your own. I do appreciate your scientific curiosity, but part of science is that it must be based in emperical evidence. There has to be a reason why spirals are better than waves (such as explaining witnessed phenomena that waves cannot) and the theory on spirals has to be at least somewhat cohesive.
Guest
QUOTE
This isn't a question of measurement, but simply how the orbitals are defined. Pictures that you see do not account for 100% of where the electron can be, because according to quantum mechanics...

I was especially asking that quantum mechanics part. What is the evidence that suggests that electrons etc. cannot be in one defined spot, but basically "in two places at the same time?"
gonegahgah
Phoenix. I don't think that first statement is correct. If you are able to get two light waves to travel together that are 180 degrees to each other then what will be the total overall wave? According to the wave principles used they would completely cancel each other out. And with the other posts here where I've been told that light can go out of existance once it hits an atom then I guess this would be the same thing and these two light waves would cease to be???

I don't think you are correct on that one and I think that even physicists would back me up on that one.
Phoenixz33
As far as I know, the Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that until measured, that electron will be in a superposition of all of its possible states. When it is measured, the states collapse into a single wavefunction which determines where the electron is found. This is usually illustrated in the Schrodinger's Cat paradox. (poor cat! )
Phoenixz33
QUOTE (gonegahgah+May 15 2005, 06:10 AM)
Phoenix. I don't think that first statement is correct. If you are able to get two light waves to travel together that are 180 degrees to each other then what will be the total overall wave? According to the wave principles used they would completely cancel each other out. And with the other posts here where I've been told that light can go out of existance once it hits an atom then I guess this would be the same thing and these two light waves would cease to be???

I don't think you are correct on that one and I think that even physicists would back me up on that one.

These light waves would not interfere with each other. To give another line of reasoning, if these two waves cancelled out, where would their energy go? It has to go somewhere, since energy must be conserved.

If anyone has told you light can go out of existence once it hits an atom, they're wrong. The light (best expressed as a photon now, since it is interacting with the atom) couples with an electron, increasing its energy and sending it into a higher-energy orbital. Thus, conservation of energy - the energy from the particle of light is transferred to the electron. Remaining energy can be emitted by the electron in the form of a second, new photon. Also, the electron may be in an unstable state in its higher-energy orbital, and will spontaneously drop down to its previous state, releasing the energy in the form of a new photon.
gonegahgah
What do you mean by the photon couples with the electron?
Phoenixz33
It's just a fancy schmancy term for emitting or absorbing a photon. In this case, the electron absorbs the photon ("couples" came to mind first, I dunno why I didn't think of "absorbs")
gonegahgah
Phoenix

I assume, as was said by someone else here, that you mean that the electron gains energy, but not any mass, because you contend, like most others here, that light has no mass.

I assume therefore that that leads to the idea that the extra energy is gained by adding extra movement of some sort to the electron. This is because I assume you contend that the electron is mass and can only take up extra energy by moving faster.

Kind of like thinking of light as a travelling movement imparter without any physical form. Is that a good interpretation?

I'm guessing that you contend that electrons are mass and protons and neutrons too. And that together they make matter in the form of atoms which in total can be considered as mass.

I'm also guessing that you contend that light is simply movement of energy through space and has no relation to mass. I'm guessing you also say that this is not the case for electrons which are mass that is moving.

This means that we have electromagnetic radiation, electrons, neutrons, protons (and sub-particles I guess if you want to go that far) and that these are completely different from each other and do not have any common ingredient.

I assume my notion that maybe only one common thing is the ingredient for everything is nonsense?

Am I correct in deducing your accepted theory?

ggg
Guest
QUOTE (Phoenixz33+May 15 2005, 11:14 AM)
As far as I know, the Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that until measured, that electron will be in a superposition of all of its possible states. When it is measured, the states collapse into a single wavefunction which determines where the electron is found. This is usually illustrated in the Schrodinger's Cat paradox. (poor cat! )

Not evidence, just the uncertainty that WE cannot know it. In truth, it still can have a single, specific spot. Not a cloud of possibilities.

Again, just like a blindfolded person would have a baseball-field as the possible area, where the ball might fly by; but it is most likely, that when someone yells pitch, it'll be by the pitching plate (what are the correct terms in english again?). Then, when he hits the ball (the electron bounces from the measurement-device), he knows where it was at that given time.
Doesn't mean that the electron/ball didn't have a clear, single location, just that WE couldn't "see" it there otherwise than by hitting the object. Observations might be holy, but come on, not so holy as to DEFINE truth where there are multiple interpretations.

Now that's just speculation based on my current knowledge, eg. what I quoted you for.
gonegahgah
Ons

Thanks for looking at my spiral idea. That is appreciated.

Unfortunately, the main problem I have with an aether is that if you have stationary mass in space that is being called the aether and being mass it has gravity then it is going to want to move towards the strongest gravitational force.

This is of course unless you see this aether as infinitely stretchable whereupon it never gets thinner no matter how much parts of it moves towards higher densities. But this is questionable simply because there are higher density regions. If it were able to stretch infinitely it would also be able to compress infinitely and we would have nothing but an evenly spread aether everywhere.

I just can't accept the idea of an aether. If light is mass travelling as a spiral then it needs no medium just like planets don't need to be tethered in space.
gonegahgah
gonegahgah
Here is some interesting information on this Photophoresis mentioned by Dan.

Can't recall the site I got this from sorry.
Originally, photophoresis denoted the phenomenon, discovered by Ehrenhaft, that very small particles suspended in a gas are moved when they are illuminated by a sufficiently intense beam of light. Motion can occur in the direction of light (positive) and against that direction (negative).

Monte Carlo Simulation of Photophoresis of Submicron Aerosol Particles
New calculations of the photophoretic force are presented for a spherical particle that may be coated with a volatile concentric spherical shell. The distribution of heat sources within the particle was obtained from an extension of the electromagnetic model of a concentric sphere of Aden and Kerker. The calculation for heat conduction within the sphere utilized a Monte Carlo technique. The nun momentum and energy transport at the particle surface was obtained in the “free molecule” regime. Computations were carried out mainly for particles at the nucleation mode (0.022 μm radius) and the accumulation mode (0.16 μm radius) of Eastern United States haze for conditions corresponding to the upper atmosphere. The photophoretic force was frequently much greater than the gravitational force and, in some cases, it was negative. Indeed, negative photophoresis for smoke, desert dust and soot coated with dirty ice might account for levitation of such particles with subsequent transport in the atmosphere over greater distances than might otherwise be anticipated. Metal particles, such as silver, also exhibited very strong negative photophoresis at wavelengths for which there was resonant excitation of surface plasmons.

And people laughed at my antigravity. Well not really. Most people ignored it.

I still can't see any mention of emr or atomic particles being spirals like I'm suggesting. Maybe I'm the only idiot to suggest it.

I don't find a lot of info on this Photophoresis experiment. This is probably because as mentioned somewhere it can't be explained by current theory. This can sometimes be the reason why something gets ignored.

Maybe my spirals (negative spin and positive spin) would help to explain it.
Ons -offline
(Should remember to add my name. Lazy me.)

I know you need to stretch your credibility on these issues alot to understand this theory, but sometimes the only way to go forward is to make a complete overhaul (if we have hit a dead-end, that is).

QUOTE
Unfortunately, the main problem I have with an aether is that if you have stationary mass in space that is being called the aether and being mass it has gravity then it is going to want to move towards the strongest gravitational force.

Sorry, forgot that part. I didn't mean it is mass, I merely compared the similiar parts of our theories. Here's my version of gravity, in regards of this Aether -theory (actually having finally a half-consistent explanation):

In my theory:
-There is no mass. There is only movement. Mass is movement too, and so is gravitation. Why?
--Because E=mc^2. Thus we can (with slightly poor logic) conclude that mass is energy. And because energy can be kinetic or gravitational too, and these two forms can interact with each other naturally, we can conclude that energy = movement.

Thus, everything = movement. But movement of what? Exactly.

Think of everything as an ocean: energy is movement of the water, particles are small vortices locked into a spin around themselves. See, fits fine. They are movement. Gravity? It is the pull of these small vortices. The pull can happen only through the misplacement of the water in between these vortices. Orbits are thus explained partly by the direction of this swirl.

But where does the water go? And what about objects that orbit the other way?
This is why I said I'm ready to consider other options; this one still needs explaining. But then again, so do all the current theories, that's why I'm not ditching it yet, just throwing it for a few tests every now and then.

So, now that you hopefuly understand, let's continue with the spirals then, no?

Ons -offline
QUOTE
I don't find a lot of info on this Photophoresis experiment. This is probably because as mentioned somewhere it can't be explained by current theory. This can sometimes be the reason why something gets ignored.

That is not wise, no no. Though understandable, as they try to go one explanation at a time, and were tied elsewhere.

But to get the best results, we should always consider all pieces of evidence at once, because we might go into a dead-end which explains everything EXPECT this tiny detail... A huge waste of time as you'd know, if you've tried any of those IQ-tests where you have people, their characteristics and houses where you must put them according to lacking knowledge on each case.
Phoenixz33
Ok, here's my attempt to not double or triple post!

QUOTE (gonegahgah+)
Kind of like thinking of light as a travelling movement imparter without any physical form. Is that a good interpretation?

Very close! Light is made of photons that have energy and momentum, but no mass. These photons may impart their energy or momentum onto other particles.

What happens when the electron absorbs the photon is that the electron gets a "kick" in energy. Does the electron necessarily move faster? Mmmm.... well you see, what happens is that the electron also has a potential energy from the nucleus - I don't know how much you know about the electric potential, but the electron needs more energy to stay farther away from the nucleus. That being said, with more energy, it can, and enters a higher-energy orbital.

Meh, I know that was hard to understand. Check out this applet:

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/appl...files/Bohr.html

It explains the Bohr model of the atom, which is technically incorrect, but a good enough model for what we're talking about. Bigger orbits mean higher energy, and it takes the energy from absorbed photons (like UV light, in this applet) to raise the electron's energy and allow it to jump to a higher level. In the actual QM model, higher orbitals mean higher energy, which isn't a ton different from the Bohr model for our purposes.

The idea that there is one common ingredient for everything isn't exactly nonsense. However, at least today, it isn't sense either. It's something that physicists have been trying to find for centuries, and as we dig deeper and deeper we get more of an understand of the physical world. You may have heard of String Theory, yes? String Theory is an attempt to create a picture of the world based solely on vibrating strings making up all the different particles we see. However, there are other attempts to unify all of physics as well, and none of them have succeeded so far.

So, I'm not saying your idea of spirals cannot necessarily be correct, but it fails to deal with already-witnessed physical phenomena and doesn't explain anything better than current theories do. I'm not opposed to having one ingredient for everything, but if you take more physics classes, you'll find out that concepts of energy and momentum are far more important than concepts of forces, mass, and motion.

If you want to further your theory, I would suggest learning the theories out there right now, starting from classical mechanics and working your way up to advanced QM and more theoretical concepts (I don't know how far along you are on physics education). Hell, that's what I'm doing - eventually, I'll make my living out of researching either nuclear or particle physics, as it looks like now.

QUOTE (guest+)
Not evidence, just the uncertainty that WE cannot know it. In truth, it still can have a single, specific spot. Not a cloud of possibilities.

Could it still have a single, well-defined spot even if we're not looking at it? Possibly. However, how can we ever know if we don't measure it? Physics is a very empirical science and in order to know something exists or takes place, we need to be able to measure it. We can't say "we know that the particle exists in a single spot when we're not measuring it" because we haven't measured it being there. In fact, by logic, we can never know.

Between the times we measure it (by bouncing another particle off it, usually), we can't say what goes on. However, we can calculate the probability distribution that says "90% of the time, when we measure its location, it will be in this region" or "80% of the time, when we measure its velocity, it will be in this range of velocities." That's the most we can, for sure, say.

The arguments raging over whether or not the particle has a defined position, momentum, etc. when we're not measuring it started almost a century ago at the beginning of QM, and as far as I can tell, they'll go on forever. I don't see any possible way of knowing, so physicists go back to their work and delegate these questions to the metaphysicists and philosophers.
Phoenixz33
QUOTE (Ons -offline+May 15 2005, 09:20 AM)
In my theory:
-There is no mass. There is only movement. Mass is movement too, and so is gravitation. Why?
--Because E=mc^2. Thus we can (with slightly poor logic) conclude that mass is energy. And because energy can be kinetic or gravitational too, and these two forms can interact with each other naturally, we can conclude that energy = movement.

Energy can take a lot of forms. Mass, kinetic (translational, rotational, vibrational), potential (gravitational, electric, magnetic, strong, etc. etc.) are all just different forms of energy. You're right that E = mc^2, and that mass is a form of energy, but only kinetic energy is movement. Thus, energy doesn't necessarily mean movement, but movement necessarily means energy.
Guest
QUOTE
Could it still have a single, well-defined spot even if we're not looking at it? Possibly. However, how can we ever know if we don't measure it? Physics is a very empirical science and in order to know something exists or takes place, we need to be able to measure it. We can't say "we know that the particle exists in a single spot when we're not measuring it" because we haven't measured it being there. In fact, by logic, we can never know.

Exactly. We cannot know. But just because we cannot measure where the electron is, doesn't mean that it is "everywhere" at the same time either.

So if we take the "it has a definitive spot, but we cannot find it out without interfering with it" -approach, we can ditch such ideas like parallel universes and super-positions, and go back to the deterministic model of that there is nothing random.

It could be all over the place what we know, yes, but is there a reason for this? No, don't think so.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Could it still have a single, well-defined spot even if we're not looking at it? Possibly. However, how can we ever know if we don't measure it? Physics is a very empirical science and in order to know something exists or takes place, we need to be able to measure it. We can't say "we know that the particle exists in a single spot when we're not measuring it" because we haven't measured it being there. In fact, by logic, we can never know.

Exactly. We cannot know. But just because we cannot measure where the electron is, doesn't mean that it is "everywhere" at the same time either.

So if we take the "it has a definitive spot, but we cannot find it out without interfering with it" -approach, we can ditch such ideas like parallel universes and super-positions, and go back to the deterministic model of that there is nothing random.

It could be all over the place what we know, yes, but is there a reason for this? No, don't think so.

Energy can take a lot of forms. Mass, kinetic (translational, rotational, vibrational), potential (gravitational, electric, magnetic, strong, etc. etc.) are all just different forms of energy. You're right that E = mc^2, and that mass is a form of energy, but only kinetic energy is movement. Thus, energy doesn't necessarily mean movement, but movement necessarily means energy.

Exactly. that's why it's just an incomplete theory. Thanks.
Phoenixz33
QUOTE
It could be all over the place what we know, yes, but is there a reason for this? No, don't think so.

What I have been trying to say is that it can be either way, but we'll never know. This means that neither interpretation is favored over the other. There is no support for the particle being everywhere at once, but there is no support for the particle being at any one place either.
dktekno
Exactly as I have thought things out. But I've been critisiced by other people for doing so "mass is not spirals", but nobody wants to tell me why its not.

So, i've been left with the idea that all mass is just some energy formed as spirals.
But with critics without giving any reason. Its like:

"it is just not so, get it god damn it"

And if I try to get an answer WHY then I am told that I am stupid and they can't take me serious.

So... welcome in the club for those who believe mass is energy in spirals.
gonegahgah
Hi Phoenix

Sorry, I thought that you were discounting spirals completely without any consideration.

I'm not so sure about your "it fails to deal with already-witnessed physical phenomena" and your "[it] doesn't explain anything better than current theories do". I think saying that may be being a bit too authoritive.

Remember that there is still a fight over the dual nature of light being a wave according to some experiments and being a particle according to other experiments. Just because it is spoken about in both contexts doesn't mean that the issue has been resolved by any means. It is still under much cross-debate.

It is because of this conflict that I consider other possibilities. Remember that these theories also "fail to deal with already-witnessed physical phenomena".

Can I just get some idea of yourself Phoenix. Have you put this spiral idea, that a delusional poster (me) has been posting, to any of your other fellow students or even to your professors? I'm not trying to get you to get their thoughts though of course I should and would listen to all thoughts. I am interested in that question though to know, a bit better, you Phoenix the person.
gonegahgah
Phoenix

This post is about the question of electrons kicking up to higher orbits and then desiring to get back to a lower orbit.

QUOTE
What happens when the electron absorbs the photon is that the electron gets a "kick" in energy. Does the electron necessarily move faster? Mmmm.... well you see, what happens is that the electron also has a potential energy from the nucleus - I don't know how much you know about the electric potential, but the electron needs more energy to stay farther away from the nucleus. That being said, with more energy, it can, and enters a higher-energy orbital.

I'm not in total disagreement on this at all but can you explain the mechanism a bit better to me. You have a -ve trying to get to the inner +ve but it can't do so because it has too much energy (or movement) to fall into the centre. Is that right? So the -ve gets kicked up to a higher orbit moving it further from the +ve centre. Does it still have the same -ve charge as before? Being further away is there now a lesser pull between the -ve and the +ve? I assume attraction is distance related. If both of those conditions exist then there would be less attraction and the atom would have higher energy. In that case why does the -ve try to return from whence it came? If that is not the case then what exactly does occur? I realise that there would be also be less repulsion from the other electrons but does this add up mathematically? And what about Hydrogen which doesn't have other electrons to move further from and deplenish repulsion?

I'll take a quick look at it with sprials. If the -ve spiral gets bumped up into a higher overall distance from the +ve centre then it does so by spinning faster. This spin increase may be overall or may be partial by increasing the length of the spiral and diameter of higher parts of the spiral. I'm not sure whether it would be a total spin increase or a partial modification of the electron. The net effect of increasing the spin of the spiral is to increase its -ve total. This then might be enough to cause it to want to return from whence it came.

Of course the same analogy may exist for your model Phoenix so can you help me to understand more fully the accepted mechanism?
gonegahgah
Just looking a little bit more at these electron probability clouds in terms of spirals...

From what I've seen for Hydrogen it is expressed as a sphere and Helium as two tear drops pointing away from each other.

A Hydrogen atom may have a spiral that fully encloses the nucleus and that curves down to a point at either end. A Helium atom may have two spirals that point towards the nucleus and form a tear drop shape because they repel each other.
Phoenixz33
Science is a beautiful thing. At a certain time, scientists have a framework of theories that represent as much of the physical world that they can explain. These theories explain physical phenomena best, and leave the least things unexplained.

When a new theory comes along, not only must it be self-sufficient and cohesive, so it has no gaps, but it also must explain more than the old theories have. In that sense, and ONLY in that sense, can it be counted a "better" theory. If the theory cannot explain more than old theories have, at most it can be called an "alternate" theory. If it explains less or is not self-sufficient or cohesive, it is a "worse" theory.

QUOTE
Remember that there is still a fight over the dual nature of light being a wave according to some experiments and being a particle according to other experiments. Just because it is spoken about in both contexts doesn't mean that the issue has been resolved by any means. It is still under much cross-debate.

Wave-Particle Duality is not at the forefront of science. It is at the very foundation of QM, and has been accepted for almost a century now. Any respectable introductory physics series in college readily teaches about wave-particle duality without hesitation. Light (and matter, as well) has both properties of particles and waves, and this is well established.

Let me reiterate, a new theory MUST be able to explain everything that the theory it replaces can explain, and MUST be able to either explain other physical phenomena the previous theory could not. For example, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has equations that reduce to classical mechanics at non-relativistic speeds, and explained phenomena like the results of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. It also posited testable things, like that atomic clocks synchronized, and then flown westward and eastward around the world, would show different times when they got back together. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explained otherwise-unexplainable phenomena like gravitational lensing (which you can find in some Hubble photos) and the perhelion shift of Mercury's orbit.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Remember that there is still a fight over the dual nature of light being a wave according to some experiments and being a particle according to other experiments. Just because it is spoken about in both contexts doesn't mean that the issue has been resolved by any means. It is still under much cross-debate.

Wave-Particle Duality is not at the forefront of science. It is at the very foundation of QM, and has been accepted for almost a century now. Any respectable introductory physics series in college readily teaches about wave-particle duality without hesitation. Light (and matter, as well) has both properties of particles and waves, and this is well established.

Let me reiterate, a new theory MUST be able to explain everything that the theory it replaces can explain, and MUST be able to either explain other physical phenomena the previous theory could not. For example, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has equations that reduce to classical mechanics at non-relativistic speeds, and explained phenomena like the results of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. It also posited testable things, like that atomic clocks synchronized, and then flown westward and eastward around the world, would show different times when they got back together. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explained otherwise-unexplainable phenomena like gravitational lensing (which you can find in some Hubble photos) and the perhelion shift of Mercury's orbit.

I'm not in total disagreement on this at all but can you explain the mechanism a bit better to me. You have a -ve trying to get to the inner +ve but it can't do so because it has too much energy (or movement) to fall into the centre. Is that right? So the -ve gets kicked up to a higher orbit moving it further from the +ve centre. Does it still have the same -ve charge as before? Being further away is there now a lesser pull between the -ve and the +ve? I assume attraction is distance related. If both of those conditions exist then there would be less attraction and the atom would have higher energy. In that case why does the -ve try to return from whence it came? If that is not the case then what exactly does occur? I realise that there would be also be less repulsion from the other electrons but does this add up mathematically? And what about Hydrogen which doesn't have other electrons to move further from and deplenish repulsion?

Phew. Okay. Since it doesn't seem that you know the Bohr model of the atom or the QM model of the atom, my problem is that if I tell you more, I'll probably just confuse you. Let me let you know in advance that taking the introductory series of physics courses at your local college would be a lot better than hearing it from me.

Let's take the Hydrogen atom, for the most simplicity, since it gets really hairy even if you have two electrons. You have a proton in the center, and an electron somewhere around it. Where the electron can be is determined by the eigenvalue solutions of the Schrodinger Equation, which generates orbitals. These orbitals range in energy from -13.6eV all the way up to 0eV, at which point the electron is considered unbound and is not a part of the atom any longer. There exist orbitals within each energy level that correspond to different angular momenta, in the Hydrogen atom, but for the Hydrogen atom (and all atoms with only one electron) these orbitals are "degenerate" - they have the same energy, so we're just gonna forget about them for simplicity's sake right now.

Say you have an electron in the first energy level, -13.6eV. The next energy level is -3.4eV. If a photon comes along with enough energy, the electron can absorb this photon and add its energy to its own. Let's say the photon was carrying 11eV of energy. The electron now has -2.6eV, and gets bumped up to the second energy level. The electron discharges its extra energy, in order to sit in the second energy level, emitting a photon that has the energy difference (-2.6eV-(-3.4eV) = 0.8eV). The electron, and atom, are now excited.

Now, the electron sits in the higher energy level. However, that energy level may or may not be stable. Since the atom as a whole can achieve a lower energy by having the electron discharge its energy to get to the lowest energy level, it does. The electron emits the energy difference between the two levels (11.8eV) as a photon and drops back to the lowest energy level, -13.6eV, again. And the charge of the electron never changes - the -1 charge is part of the definition of what an electron is.

You can see that at smaller, quantum scales, it's best to think of things in terms of energy rather than in terms of forces. Forces get complicated, and because of the nature of quantum mechanics, you don't really know where the particle is unless you're distinctly measuring it. Thus, you usually can't get a force. The link I gave you with the atom with the energy levels is a good illustration of what I was talking about, although it relies on the Bohr model (which, for our purposes, is just as good visually, for the Hydrogen atom). However, I'm afraid I may have just confused you more, but hopefully this confusion and your obvious curiosity in physics will compel you to study physics, take some classes, and learn more in an actual curriculum from a far better teacher than I am. >_<
gonegahgah
There is a single interesting site that I can find to ponder with regard to whether light has mass.

Gravity-Mass Growth

I can only find the one site. It says that planets gain mass from emr in the lower layers. Of course the equation e = mc^2 allows light to be turned into mass but of what type? Electrons? Protons? Neutrons? Atoms? Mass of course is picked up from incoming interstellar matter. Perhaps interesting none-the-less.

I spotted a site that said that solar wind is mostly protons. That is interesting to know. I guess that either makes sense with protons being so much bigger than electrons or maybe more protons are actually ejected than electrons? I don't know.

"positron (10 facts) (antielectron) - The antiparticle of the electron, discovered by Anderson in 1934. It has the same mass and spin as the electron, but opposite charge and magnetic moment. "
Astronomy Knowledge Base
But how? A spiral would generate this effect.

"The second type of radiation that astronauts must be concerned with is solar protons. The protons originate in the sun. ... During the course of the entire flare, the released energy would be the same as that given off by the simultaneous explosion of several million, 100-megaton hydrogen bombs! This energy takes the shape of many things, including solar protons."
ISS Tech Check

"When a solar flare or coronal mass ejection (CME) occur, the sun ejects a large amount of mass consisting mainly of solar protons and charged particles..."
A Study of the Effects of Large Solar Events...
gonegahgah
Phoenix.

Cool. Thanks for the try.

I still feel it is basically a "just because" answer and avoids the mechanics but what can I do. "forces get complicated" feels more like an avoidance then dealing. Perhaps you see it as too complicated in terms of explaining the principle though I do know you have mentioned a lot there? Is that what you mean?

One day I should do exactly as you say. I would certainly like to and hope I find that opportunity when it comes.

Again though... Have you mentioned my ramblings to anyone else - excepting on here of course?

And remember it maybe is a new theory so give me a chance. The other theories have been explored for a much longer time.

ggg
Phoenixz33
It's only a "just because" answer because you haven't studied it. Forces still exist at quantum levels, but they are very very difficult to calculate because you don't know where the particle actually is. How do you calculate a force if you don't know the distance between the electron and proton? Since energy levels are quantized (discrete such that electrons can only occupy certain levels), it's far easier to think of things in terms of energies at that scale.

I haven't mentioned your theory to anyone (MSU's school year has ended, and I'm in a little 1-month break until I go to IU-Bloomington to research the Solar Neutrino Problem). Personally, I fail to find it consistent or substantial, so it would be hard for me to try and explain it to someone else. It would be best if you kept asking around to see if anyone can shed any light on what they think.

Though I am not telling you to abandon your theory, I am telling you that it would be best if you researched the current theories, in detail, first. Then, you know not only what physical phenomena you have to explain, but how others have explained it. You may be able to one-up other theories if you know how they work.

QUOTE
Gravity-Mass Growth

I can only find the one site. It says that planets gain mass from emr in the lower layers. Of course the equation e = mc^2 allows light to be turned into mass but of what type? Electrons? Protons? Neutrons? Atoms? Mass of course is picked up from incoming interstellar matter. Perhaps interesting none-the-less.

Hehe, don't trust that site. The problem with researching on the internet is that a lot of quacks post their theories up. Respectable physicists publish in scientific magazines like Scientific American, Science, Nature, and Popular Science, as well as the actual scientific journals like Nuclear Physics and Physical Review Letters, that are read by other physicists. I have never heard of any theory like John K. Harms's, nor of any experiments or evidence to support his claims.

This link, from the Bad Astronomy website, says that solar wind is electrically neutral. I think you took as fact what McCanney was saying, which, on this page, is being debunked as bad astronomy. Despite the name, solar sails do not work with solar wind. They work with the momentum from photons and not from normal matter. Besides, a highly energetic proton striking the solar sail would probably hit a nucleus instead of an electron.
gonegahgah
Phoenix

See I do have natural curiousity. What is the Solar Neutrino Problem?

Okay I understand the things that you have been telling me to the degree that you have explained them. I'm happy for you to be where you are with your learning and understanding. I do know that I am a layman. Appreciated.

I am in full agreement that those sites I mentioned that you debunked probably deserve the debunking.

I will still ask some questions about specific things that have come up but I will remain truly interested in exploring my idea none-the-less.

Our good old friend Albert Einstein was a layman once. He came to understand the field well though and did look at and predict experimental results so he did get his hands well worked and dirty.

It would have been a bewildering time then among all the confusion of way out ideas in existance at the time and without our current technology so to do anything was an achievement.

Here are some specific things I would be interested to hear if you have explanations for them like the electron 'orbit' changing:

In my last post I quoted "The antiparticle of the electron ... has the same mass and spin as the electron, but opposite charge and magnetic moment."
Is there a QM explanation for this or do we have to resort to string theory?

Why do you - or QM - think some particles move towards the light against gravity under the effect known as Photophoresis?

You would know of the experiment done where an instrument - similar to that used to extract Hydrogen and Oxygen from water - instead of using electricity instead used a permanent south magnet at one node and a permanent north magnet at the other node? Water is not magnetic but a higher percentage of Oxygen appeared under one node then under the other. The permanent magnets also lost some magnetism.
Felix Ehrenhaft
"Can a magnet take water to pieces? No, say physics textbooks."
But what do you and the QM of today say?
I know that he was wrong about monopoles but just because a person gets one thing wrong doesn't mean that everything they have done is wrong.

That's enough for this post for the moment.
Phoenixz33
Mmm, the Solar Neutrino Problem involves the flavors of neutrinos. There are three flavors, according to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and one flavor of neutrino is produced by the solar fusion reactions. However, we fail to detect enough of that flavor coming from the sun here on Earth, hence the problem. The leading theory proposed is that neutrinos can oscillate between flavors over space and time, and do so on their way over here. Thus, experiments have been conducted to see if the detected amounts of neutrinos match what is predicted by the theory. I'll be analyzing the data, mainly, and learning about neutrinos and particle physics while I'm there.

This is a nice page about the problem:
http://www.maths.qmw.ac.uk/~lms/research/neutrino.html
Mentioned on that page, the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) effect is the leading theory, I believe.

QM doesn't really explain the existence of particles. For that, you have to go to the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Thousands of different particles have been found, with slightly different masses, or charges, etc. etc. etc. String theory is an attempt to explain these by treating all particles as vibrating strings (hence, different vibrations give different particles), but it is hotly under debate and is far from acceptance.

Before your posts, I had never heard of photophoresis. My guess is that it hasn't been widely studied, as a Google search will tell you. Because it hasn't been widely studied, however, I don't believe that it's a widely-accepted phenomenon, and until more studies are done, not much can be said about it, if it exists.

As far as I know, no one has repeated Ehrenhaft's experiment. Experiments need to be repeated in order to show that the phenomenon does occur and to rule out any possibility of the results being a fluke. Perhaps you should try the experiment repeatedly yourself and see what results you get?

Albert Einstein used to be a layman at physics, like all of us, until he went and learned and researched the theories before positing his own. Theories like yours, which overturn very basic segments of understood physics, require a lot of research and substantiation - without it, you're labeled a quack forever and no one will ever take you seriously. It can be a dangerous profession for fringe theorists.
gonegahgah
Cool. Good luck with solving the problem when you tackle it.

Regarding theories to explain "right handedness" and "left handedness" then if string theory ends up not panning out we are going to need some other explanation for these phenonema. (Maybe my spirals but we'll see )

If I could only lick the problem of polarization for a start that would help.

I think that - despite your non-committedness on the necessity or ability of physicists to understand the mechanics of the tiny phenonema - that we will have to understand it fully one day if we are truly to become masters of our physical world.

If we did understand it we could almost create the equivalent of wind tunnels via computer modelling. They have done similar things to that haven't they but the computer models remain less than perfect at being able to represent all chemical and physical interactions don't they?

You should be able to whip out one of those devices used to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water things shouldn't you plus a couple of magnets plus all the necessary testing devices and other stuff needed? Aren't you curious as to whether this phenonema is true or not? Of course I can't at the moment but surely you can do that easily enough if you can spare the time?
Phoenixz33
QUOTE
I think that - despite your non-committedness on the necessity or ability of physicists to understand the mechanics of the tiny phenonema - that we will have to understand it fully one day if we are truly to become masters of our physical world.

On the contrary, we're very committed to understanding mechanics on all scales. Mechanics on macroscopic scales are much better understood than those on microscopic scales, but physics on microscopic scales ends up being much more complicated. There are entire segments of physics devoted to microscopic scales: quantum physics, for example, addresses the quantum nature of things at microscopic scales; nuclear physics addresses the physics of the nucleus and is currently attempting to produce an accurate model of the nucleus, just as an accurate model (the QM model) has been produced for the electron clouds around the nucleus; particle physics, otherwise known as high-energy physics because it takes high energy accelerators to probe the really small particles, is devoted to understanding the nature of all the different particles that make up matter and energy. The Solar Neutrino Problem actually falls under particle physics. And it is quite cool!

Our understanding of physics is so great that in effect, we are sometimes limited by the computing power available to us. To monitor the position and velocity of every single particle in a system and to accurately model every force and every interaction between all the particles takes a lot of computing power, so most scientists don't bother to do that. Instead, they can make simplifications to the model so that they can get qualitative results on what they do need without harming the accuracy very much. In this way, we can tone down models to represent the physical phenomena so we can use our computers to calculate the results. IF we had an infinitely powerful computer though, and we knew enough about the physical interactions involved (we don't, of all the forces and effects, which is why we have a job!), we could theoretically model with as much accuracy as physics itself can allow.

And I'm not a physics professor with a lot of money or anything. I'm a strapped college student! I don't have the apparatus, nor the money, to conduct the experiment, measure the composition of the gases, and to rule out effects from all other possible sources...though if you gave me money, it would be greatly appreciated.
gonegahgah
If I had the money and time I'd be studying myself

"During the course of the experiment, the motion of the particles traced out a "spiral" path. However, upon magnification of a given section of a given spiral, one saw a "spiral" path within the path of the larger spiral. When a section of this second order magnitude spiral path was magnified one saw an even smaller "spiral" path comprising this second order magnitude spiral path.....and when the third order magnitude spiral path was magnified, an even smaller spiral path was detected."
From: Website + Photophoresis phenomenon

Wouldn't it be cool if light was like spiral paths within spiral paths. I'm not saying it is but wouldn't it be cool.
Phoenixz33
You should research chaos theory and fractals. It's a relatively new (started in the '60s or '70s) field, but the effects of chaos and fractals can be felt almost everywhere, from the behavior of a damped and driven oscillator to biological populations to the timing between drips from your water faucet every night.
gonegahgah
Ah! My computer is now back from the shop

I was looking for another word besides spirals to signify the possible shape of light and it would seem the heavens have answered.

At the library, in the absence of having my computer, I chanced immediately upon issue Vol 184 No 2470 (Oct 23 2004) of NewScientist. The feature article was an article about "vortexes".

The very next night I read a few more pages from a novel I am reading called "Greenhouse Summer" and the very last word of the page I finished on - page 125 - was "vortex".

Is this just a mere coincidence?

The number of 'coincidences' that occur in my life are phenomenal. Some of them defy any sort of odds I would care to ever bet at.

What are the chances we would end up living over the road from a neighbour whom we lived next door to twelve years before at a different location? The chances are very low hey? Okay, add to that that we both happened to start moving in on exactly the same day without realising it. Add to that that our previous houses both settled on exactly the same day. I think the chances of such an occurance are phenomenally tinsy and people would be crazy to bet at those odds. Yet it happened.

Here's another one. My bestfriend of 15 years now. We met on a train after I left highschool. It turned out that our parents had been best friends at school at one stage.

I had another best friend (two... yeh I know) at the time. Both their names started with a 'J' and unbeknownest to me at the time they both had exactly the same birthday.

This is just a mere splash in the ocean of the number of 'coincidences' that occur in my life. Why do they happen?

I'm not sure what the long term reason is yet. But maybe in the meantime one of the reasons is so that I can bring the concept of vortexes and light to the world.

So now I am calling it The Vortex Theory of Light, Energy and Matter.

Come on now. The co-incidence should be enough to tell you that this is true.

Of course I realise that that is not the case. I do always wonder why coincidences are sent my way.

In the meantime I will continue to learn as much as I can about energy physics. Hopefully I turn out to be on the right track and help to contribute one day to this area of human endeavour that continually grows to be an ever more meaningful and useable science at our disposal.
Phoenixz33
Think about it one level higher. Not just the chance that such things come together to create coincidences, but the chances that so many coincidences would come together in one person's life. Perhaps that your life has so many coincidences is a coincidence in itself, eh?
gonegahgah
I like the term vortex because it implies forces at work. If light is vortexes of relatively unencumbered 'liquid' mass travelling at high relative speeds - unlike matter which would be vortexes constrained by forces binding in close proximity - then this word gives a nice early conceptual feel of the reason that light and matter interacts and perhaps why light behaves the way it does in an interferometer.

I'm going to try to get my hands on some polarising lenses to see exactly what happens to light passing through them. Hopefully I can crack that question by studying more about the phenomena of 'polarisation'.

Now that I have my computer back I can begin to delve back into the 'knowledge' available on this subject on the internet. I need to understand the following:

If polarisation, as stated by the educating sites, causes light 'waves' that are rotated at various angles to the direction of polarisation to lose some of their amplitude depending upon the degree of rotation to the polarisation, does it also have any effect on the lights frequency and wave length?

If light is a wave then how wide is a a light wave? How wide are the polarising gaps? Does the size of the gaps effect the ability of the filters to polarise? Obviously a fence with wide gaps is not going to give us much of an apparent effect excepting some difraction at the edges.
gonegahgah
Thanks Phoenix. Maybe so.
gonegahgah
It is my contention that different frequencies of light bend different amounts around massive gravitational objects.

You can read at Gravitational Deflection of Light Beam their theory that different polarizations of light bend different amounts.
This is not in support of my theory but is an interesting aside.

Back to my theory...

Far violet light has about 1.75 times the frequency of far red light in the visible spectrum. To my mind this means that violet light is travelling at 1.75 times the relative speed of red light. With this in mind the violet light should bend less because it is going faster than the red light which is going slower.

Why then do we see a single star instead of a rainbow spectrum under gravitation lensing?

I have the following contentions to argue this:
- the red and violet lights (and in between) that we receive for the star are actually from different original paths from the star,
- these are bent at different distances from the bender to head towards us,
- the bender is very far away from us,
- the distances between the separate paths are small compared to the distance the bender is away from us,
- the last two contentions mean that the separate paths still appear to be a dot to us.

Hence why we still see a single star instead of a rainbow line.

The violet light that we see from the star - which I said is going faster - bends less than the red light so needs to pass closer to the bender to attain a path to us. The red light that we see from the star - which I said is going slower - bends more than the violet light so needs to pass further from the bender to attain a path to us.

What does this mean for the light beam? It means that, despite not seeing a rainbow, that the red part of the light will be older than the violet part under gravitational lensing.

But how do we test this for stars that are so far away?
gonegahgah
This is something that I found to admire...

It doesn't matter what place you stick yourself in space you will see a star.

That is a lot of light coming out of stars.

Especially when you consider how far the light has had to travel and the circumference of the expanding light field from the star.

That the stars are so visible from any point is incredible.
solidspin
hello, gonegahgah -

This is a mistake that many people make. Remember that in a vacuum, whether it's radio waves, or gamma rays, all light travels at ©. Because of the wavelength (or, inversely, the frequency), however, the intensity changes dramatically - not the speed. There are other issues called group velocity or phase velocity, but for this point, they're not relevant.

Draw 2 orthogonal (rt angles to one another) sine curves. Then look up vector math and matrices to solve this, where "cross" means the cross product b/t the two vectors:

E cross B

the 2 curves are the E (electric field) and B (magnetic field), respectively. The solution to the equation is lambda (wavelength) and direction of propagation.

Light has torque, particularly noncoherent light. This is because if you were able look down the barrel at the sine curves of white light coming at you, you would actually see lots of different orthogonal E, B curves. The fact that, for example, white light has a bunch of different frequencies in it, and the wavelengths are different it would appear to turn an object it is hitting.

Gravity obviously bends light (thx to AE's posit of gravitational lensing), but it would be tough to create an experiment, since we would need to make a "gravity generator" and put coherent light @ diff. frequencies near it and measure the bend to prove/disprove your assertion. To increase the level of fantasy, gravity is pretty weak, so you would need whole galaxies' worth to see an appreciable bend. Light comes from everywhere in the universe but coherent light is rare to naturally exist.

Has anyone seen this mathematically? Did AE's prediction actually have the math? We only have conjecture about how gravitons couple to photons, as far as I know. Both are bosons, but that's the limit of my knowledge on whether any theoretical studies have been done on gravitons coupling to photons.

Anyone???
gonegahgah
hi SolidSpin

Would the following be an experiment of similar nature to what I am contending but on a more do-able level...

Take a triangular prism of glass and shine a white light through it.

As it is closer to us and not so far away from us as the benders - that I talk about in my 2nd last post - then we should see the bending of the different frequencies of light more noticeably.
Good Elf
Hi gonegahgah and solidspin,

I hope you don't mind me "butting in" but I couldn't help but notice this long term conversation going on here. I would like to add my 5 cents to the discussion.

I agree that electromagnetism is indeed a kind of spiral. It is almost inevitable when you consider the theory of strings. I am sure you are really trying to indicate that the waves of electromagnetism make no sense unless you consider them in higher dimensions. I have had a "peek" through your thread and this fact seems missing.

Consider a very long room with white walls and ceiling and floor. Lets think of the "back corner " of the room. Consider this as the origin (bottom "left" corner) of a coordinate space in three dimensions. The X dimension running from left to right, the Y dimension running from bottom to top and a Z direction running from the bottom left corner along the long axis of the room.

In the XY plane of the room and about 1/2 way along the Z axis (equidistant from all walls place a thin transparent "hula hoop" with a black "running" bead on it. It is free to move on the hoop. With the hoop fixed in this position and in the XY plane the bead is made to execute constant rotation around the hoop having a constant angular velocity. The walls of the room are self illuminated and I "switch on" ONLY the ceiling and the right wall in the Z axis. A shadow of the bead will be seen to be cast on the "floor" (along the X axis) and the "left wall" (Y axis) respectively. Note that it traces out simple harmonic motion with exactly the right phase relationships for electromagnetism. The phase will be exactly 90 degrees out between them. One of these "shadows" could be the electric field and the other the magnetic field of an electromagnetic wave except for one thing, it is not going anywhere.

Allow this "hula hoop" (in the XY plane) to be carried along in the Z axis in the Z direction at constant velocity, what is seen is the shadows now cast a trace which is the exact form needed... that of two sinusoids, one on the floor and the other on the left wall. They also have the exactly correct phase relationship... a difference of 90 degrees. Note that the "hula hoop" and bead is a time dependent three dimensional object while the shadows are only two dimensional. The other factor that would be apparent is the bead in higher dimensions (3D) does not have any "charge" and independently executes a spiral in the body of the room.

Consider "real" electromagnetism as an "object" executing a "spiral" in more than our three spatial dimensions and we are "forced" to view this in only three spatial dimensions. This higher dimensional object will leave a trace in our Universe of two mutually orthogonal sinusoidal oscillations (interpenetrating the same position in space). The charges are an "artifact" of how we are viewing it because in the higher dimensions... remember it is a single "featureless" object. This "shadow" is cast into our three dimensions and seen by we lower dimensional entities as "two separate fields". They are peculiarly related and we know that one oscillation (in the X direction) is "feeding" the other (in the Y direction) but there is no "mechanism" in our Physics to shunt this "motion" from one sinusoid (electric field) to the other sinusoid (magnetic field). To this day this is apparently true. We just accept this.

When you say "energy"... "energy" is just capacity to do work... nothing else. The shadows on the wall are not particularly capable of doing "work" but the moving bead is. It is a form of kinetic energy of the object executing spiral motion. The charges seen are not the same sign (and subject to change) and are related in time by phase. They are not in the same "direction" as well. They are limited spatially in the XY plane of propagation and the further the "amplitude of the oscillation" is apparently "moved" from the mean position the "stronger" the electrostatic or magnetic "tension". The charges become stronger. This has the characteristics of a Hilbert Space. These are related through the dipole radiation pattern of the "emitter" and are similar to "probability surfaces" in atomic theory.

It is more than "energy"... but we just can't see that "more" because of our lower dimensionality. Real electromagnetic waves propagate in three dimensional space and are not shadows on a wall. They are IN the "surface" of our three dimensional space (which is the bulk volume to we humans... terminology here). This higher dimensional behavior is "lost" from our frame of reference but in an analogous way "fictitious forces" appear just like the centrifugal gravitational forces you feel on a Merry-go-round resulting in temporary electric charges and magnetic fields. Permanent electric and magnetic charges are similar "projections" from higher spaces from higher dimensional objects.

Where are these higher spaces? We are on the "inside" a 9D + T space of string theory. We only see 3D + T of this Universe. All other dimensions are "projections" and we only see "traces" of these extradimensional phenomena. Mostly in string theory our intrest is confined to "smaller" spaces within the atom and such, and we are viewing these from the "outside".

Lastly... why do you think the motion of these extradimensional "photons" is a spiral instead of a straight line? Clearly it is a straight line in those higher dimensions it is just relative to those higher dimensions "WE' are spinning and from our perspective looks like spiral motion. That is where all those electric and magnetic and gravitational forces are coming from. Because we are "inside" this space we are unable to notice it because of the fiction of 3D +T dimensions. I hope this helps.

Have a look at this thread... Only Some Energy Has Mass? - Good Elf

Cheers
gonegahgah
Hi Good Elf.

I never mind anyone trying to help. I would understand even less if people didn't try to help me.

I am presently trying to develop my ideas at the moment in a strict 3 dimensional universe without space curvature and time distortions.

Maybe incorrect but I want to give it a go.

I think I am exploring old things from new angles despite the maxim that we have done nothing that hasn't been done before.

So good luck to me.
gonegahgah
It is interesting to think on how light progresses out from the source.
The expanding star light is a case under question.

Does it expand out as a finite number of discrete light waves in all directions or does it expand out as an ever thinning but even wave front?

It would seem that the intensity of light (how bright it is - which is represented by how big the amplitude of the representative wave is) seems to grow smaller as waves move further from their source.

Does this mean that the light moves out as an expanding sphere? Or do we have the alternative where light moves out as discrete photons creating eventual single photons that are vastly separated from their brethen?

The fact that we can see a star from any point in space gives me the impression that the light moves out in an ever thinning sphere.

On that basis, is the amplitude of a light wave in any way an intrinsic part of the nature of that wave? Or is it otherwise so that a 'photon' can be infinitely sub-divided?
gonegahgah
Nobody has helped me with my last post yet so I will blunder on...

If light is infinitely divisible than perhaps this could help with the question of polarization.

This is an attempt to explain how 'Hurtling Spiral Matter' could perhaps fit in with the results produced by polarization filters. Please feel free to point out problems with my idea.

This is the site I am studying at the moment:
Polarization Concepts

You can see how the concept of circular polarization resembles my spiral energy:
Circular Polarization

Maybe a definite size of the gaps isn't essential to get polarization.
Maybe when the light passes through the gaps you get these mostly cheese slices of light passing through. Of course there would also be some defraction around the posts and blockage due to the posts. Some of the light may even to a degree be defracted into the gaps (not sure).

Then we introduce the second filter.
If the second filter were turned only slightly to the first filter then this would allow for less but most of the cheese slices to pass through and form lesser cheese slices on the other side.

If the second filter were turned 45 degrees to the first filter then it would result in even lesser cheese slices now at 45 degrees to the original.

Having passed through the second filter and become a lesser different angled cheese slices these could then be made to pass through a third filter.

If the third filter were turned 90 degrees to the first filter (the second filter being at 45 degrees in between) then perhaps the new angle slices will be able to pass to a reduced degree through the third filter as well.

If the second filter were turned fully to 90 degrees to the first filter it would let the least amount of light to continue through - even less than the three filters above perhaps.

Afterall even for LCD screens which use polarization, if you have the screen displaying a large area of black it actually looks grey - because some of the back lighting is getting through - showing that the polarization is not 100% effective in LCD screens.

I need to get my hands on some polarizing filters to see how thoroughly the polarization actually works with filters.
solidspin
hey, gonegg -

Remember that light is quantized (photons) so it is finitely divisible. This is the good ol' mind bender of wave-particle duality. Also remember that intensity is a function of frequency (kind of why gamma rays go right through you whereas radio doesn't - think of it that way and look on a chart for the wavelength of the 2; then switch to frequency, as it may be easier to think about the things you're trying to describe.

Also, look up plane v. circularly polarized light. This will answer your question. To rely on my previous analogy, if you "look" down the barrel of noncoherent light coming at you, you will see lots of orthogonal sine curves coming at you. By plane polarizing light (using a filter) you only get light waves coming through that are like ±10º from the plane axis of the filter you are using.

If you're lucky enough to not wear prescription glasses (not me), it is VERY worth it to go get a pair of polarized sunglasses. They're cheap, there are 2 of them, so you can do your filtration experiment you wrote about - or wear them and get a real sense of what's going in. Turn your head 90º to an LCD screen or car windows and you will see EXACTLY and PROFOUNDLY what I mean. Circularly polarized light is similar, except that it does the same thing but based on a polar coordinate system (rather than plane, cartesian) and does so for the "d" angle in radians for the phase of the angle and usually uses sodium as the benchmark.

Also, remember that intensity decays as r^-2 so if your 4 meters from a light source, it has decayed to 1/16 of its original intensity.

I would actually recommend the Good Elvish description, since it is much more complete a view of the universe. The tricky math is in the upper dimensions (6), since a collapse occurs. But to "see" things w/ our somewhat blunt perceptions, take the 3D + t and run experiments just to get a feel. Then review the math again for the other 6.

Finally, the prism merely discriminates white light into its constituents. While bending does occur like at the air/water interface or at the prism (see Snell's laws of refraction or Newton's rings of diffraction or inelastic Rayleigh scattering for the color of the sky), we would never see the effect to a level you're describing. It would likely be wiser to take a Good Elvish approach here, and do the math.

miserably spinning solids on a Sat. morning when I should be dancing and shaking my bones - Grateful Dead tewn in there somewhere!
gonegahgah
Hi SolidSpin

What I just wrote was quite primitive I feel and I am sorry for that. I have failed to try to imagine the world of atoms and light at all and their world of interplay. I will try to make a better attempt later.

With the polarization, I may have something to add from my reading of it that you would be interested to know. It is not just the waves that are at +/-10 degrees that are supposed to pass through. It is supposed to be all angles up to but not including 90 degrees to the polarization.

If you pass a wave through at 89 degrees to the polarisation the resultant wave is supposed to be in line with the polarisation but its intensity is supposed to be reduced to cos (90 - 89) x original intensity.

The resultant wave at any angle to the polarisation is passed through aligned with the polarisation but is only the fraction of the intensity of the first wave. In other words, it gets turned (kind of but not physically) but is only the trigonometric fraction of the original wave that is parallel to the polarisation.

Cool hey? But obviously I have to try and attempt to find another explanation.

QUOTE
Remember that light is quantized (photons) so it is finitely divisible.

You said that photons are of a set size but I would like to question that.
Do you feel that light expanding from stars develops gaps due to a nature of finite sized photons? Some stars should possibly then appear to twinkle in space which they don't.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Remember that light is quantized (photons) so it is finitely divisible.

You said that photons are of a set size but I would like to question that.
Do you feel that light expanding from stars develops gaps due to a nature of finite sized photons? Some stars should possibly then appear to twinkle in space which they don't.

Also remember that intensity is a function of frequency ...

Intensity is not a function of frequency in a wave. It will never be.

For example what you see as orange if there is less light you see as brown yet it is the same frequency. There are just less of the orange photons for brown but the frequency does not change.

Intensity is the measure of how much light is present; not its frequency.

QUOTE
the prism merely discriminates white light into its constituents

I don't agree on this either. I would have been happier to hear someone put up the example of a pair of glasses which don't appear to create a prism but I am sure that even they have that effect but not enough to be noticeable as the defraction is small. I'm sure that greater curvature would create a more visible rainbow effect.

I am beginning to see a pattern between polarised lenses and polarising crystals. It is my belief that they actually work in the same way.
They have even been able to create negative refraction where the light is actually sped up instead of slowed down. See Photonic Lattice.

In the same way that I believe polarised lenses behave like polarising crystals, I also believe that gravitational lensing is just that and acts just as a lense or prism would behave.
gonegahgah
QUOTE
Do you feel that light expanding from stars develops gaps due to a nature of finite sized photons? Some stars should possibly then appear to twinkle in space which they don't.

Of course an even wave front (upset by gravitational fluctuations) would have difficulty fitting with my substance theory of light because you would have all the different frequencies competing for the same space.

Another explanation is that our eyes tend to pick up the effect of light hitting them at atomic rates but our brain interprets the something that may be rapid and peppered dots as a continuous stream of cylindrical light representing the dot that is the star. Same with photographic film and telescopic detectors.

How exactly quantisized they are or not I don't know SolidSpin.

But that is still a hoot lot of light particles.

We have to realise that atoms are tiny but that light is even thinner than that.
gonegahgah
It is interesting to read and be told about the idea that an electron or photon hitting an atom will cause an electron in the atom to jump out (not in) by making that electron more excited.

We are told that the impacting photon ceases to exist if it is near the frequency required to cause the jump or looses some momentum if it is a super-high frequency photon.

I've just been reading how a light bulb works. See How Light Bulbs Work.

We then are told that a new photon comes into existance out of nothing when the excited electron returns to its unexcited state.

I know I am stepping on a lot of scientific toes by suggesting that nothing ceases to be or emerges out of nothing.

Let me try to lead myself and yourself along my hypothesises.
I do know it is not accepted theory.

Atoms are small. Very small. Light is further thinner than an atom. It is so thin that it is even thinner than an electron.

These particles (electrons, light/emr, etc) are travelling thorugh and around in what is predominantly void to them because they don't see the world as a world of molecules, arrangements, etc. They just feel the effects of all that other substance around themselves.

You can't really think of the word collision at these levels in the sense that we do at our macroscopic level. Everything at their level is effect and alignment of the essenses (substance) of our universe.

Sure... join enough together and you begin to see collisions on a grand scale but it looks different at the submolecular level.

What you instead see are light 'things' (I'm guessing spirals at the moment) which are shooting along. But it is not that the light 'things' are travelling at a particular speed that has a bearing upon their impact. No instead it is that the light 'spirals' have a particular frequency associated with their spiralling coil.

This creates an associated effect upon other spirals of which I have included electrons. Let me explain. Electrons themselves have been described by physics as standing waves in what I see as a correlation with light waves. In the same sense as this I am correlating light spirals with electrons being standing spirals.

The light is a longer spiral than an electron but it is also travelling so much faster. The consequence is that you can end up with the same frequency even though the spirals are travelling at different speeds to each other. Check it out. Frequency is only the rate at which you get to the next crest (wave talk; or period for spiral efficiendos). If you pass a longer spiral through a point at a faster speed it will still have the same frequency as a shorter spiral (with the same number of spirals) going at a slower speed. Cool stuff hey?

Anyhow, instead of having to strike the electron physically (somehow exciting it and making it jump against the collision) all you need to do is have an effect on the electron. This entanglement would have to do one of two things. Either the light adds itself to the electron or it becomes entangled. Either way it adds itself to the overall effect of the electron and increases its overall negativity and sustance. The substance has greater gravitational pull towards the nucleus and surrounding electrons but it also has greater negativity or positivity (I haven't decided which yet) due to its rotation.

The greater negativity/positivity outbalances the greater gravitational pull and causes the excess photon to be rejected and spat back out.

The increasing negativity or positivity needs to still be thought out so please forgive me until I do that soon hopefully.
gonegahgah
WARNING - New Idea

I have read and been told that light travels a different speeds through different mediums. In space we are told it travels at almost 300km/sec. We are told it travels slower through our atmosphere and even slower through glass.

My idea, to incorporate my spirals, is that while travelling through denser materials the added gravitational attraction surrounding the light causes the light spirals to widen and shorten and thus travel at a slower relative speed to what they were originally travelling in the less dense medium. Once they leave the higher density medium they can again stretch and shrink in narrowness and kick off as longer faster spirals again.
Nick
You are right. What is happening inside matter?
Light comes out of matter? Light goes back in?

It is not really explained what happens in emission and
absorbtion of light. It is not as simple as "light disappears
and reappears." That light somehow is incorporated into
the matter as mass. I would really like to know how that
is done. Einstein said that matter and energy are but both
different manifestations of the same thing.
But how do they go back and forth?

Why does the electron jump outward when becoming more
energetic? It is a wave and as a wave it will get smaller/higher
frequency; but this doesn't explain why it must get farther
from the nucleus.

Ruminations.
gonegahgah
I do hope that we will be able to understand the mechanism one day, whatever it is, rather than having to dance around it the way we are.

Looking more at the spiral idea as a possibility...
Again I'm aware that this is not accepted theory.

If light is travelling through space as a spiral the interesting thing is that the spiral does not need to have any spin as far as it is concerned. In this way it can travel at any speed through space while being accelerated, decelerated and redirected as the gravitational affects of other substances around it, especially denser bodies, weigh upon it. Remember that to the light it is largely travelling in a vast void even while travelling with companion light. Remember how small it is.

Spin then only becomes a factor of its encrouchment upon other objects in space dependent upon the relative spins of their particles.

The different relative spins create rotational gravitational forces which appear to behave differently to direct gravitational forces of the substance.

So I'm offering that the substance that underpins everything has only one force called gravity. In that I am also suggesting that light has substance rather than this idea of massless light.

All the other forces - magnetism, strong and weak nucleic forces, kinetic energy, potential energy - would then need to be re-examined or reinterpreted in terms of how this substance behaves around itself, perhaps under some intrinsic universal natural self-fulfilling alignment in spirals.
gonegahgah
I'm putting this link here just to examine again later. It interests me in relation to the polarization issue.
Weird Light & Plasmons 2

I've recently said that the substance of light is very thin/narrow relative to even electrons.
I've said that it is redirected under the gravitational (direct and rotational) influence of matter.
This comes in two forms - but I'm suggesting that they are essentially the same thing - and that is:
- Redirection while travelling through space among the gravitational effects.
- Redirection while travelling among and closer to denser matter.

I'm hoping that this will come to have some meaning in the polarization question.
Nick
Isn't there a hint of light's substance in its very name?

It's light.
gonegahgah
Let's get a little crazy...

My spirals would also add possible new rerepresentations of atomic nuclei as well.

For a starter idea you could have a single or dual spiral for all nuclei no matter the size of the atom. It might look like a two ended funnel.

Sending 'neutrons' into the atom slowly would give them more time to interact with the nucleus than faster moving neutrons allowing them to distabilise the nucleus ala fission reaction.

The problems of multiple positive forces trying to repel each other and fly apart would be removed by this new interpretation.

Also instead of neutrons, there would just be more substance in the spirals and the spirals would be spinning at a slower overall speed to maintain their balanced positivity to the number of electrons.

The experience where neutrons hitting atoms in high atmosphere knock out and take the place of a proton and then the newly embedded neutron turns into a proton could just be the spiral renormalising itself.

(Maybe 'little crazy' was being over-generous).

We have heaps of trouble seeing electrons let alone the nucleus hidden inside the atom. So who knows...
gonegahgah
I would tend to think that when light is absorbed by an atom that it tends to make one of the electrons or its total entanglement with light more positive.

The reason I favour this is because Hydrogen only has one electron and if that were to become more negative and have higher mass (sorry substance) it would move closer to the nucleus (if not collapse in completely) and would have no reason to spring away.

If a Hydrogen electron were to become more positive through this process then this may allow the greater positivity to outbalance the greater mass causing the extra positivity to be sprung back out as the ejected light 'wave'.

If the nucleus is as I describe in my last post - rather than an approximate sphere as always depicted - then this may set up balance points around the nucleus in which the two innermost electrons opposed to each other could reside. Being both negative they would retreat to the opposite sides at the balance points above the wasteline of the nucleus.
gonegahgah
Think about this substance that to my mind makes up light, electrons, the nucleus, particles, dark matter, etc.

When it is in the form of light it appears similar to all its brethen in the spectrum except for varying frequencies.

Lets say that for some reason that that frequency is due to its circumfral spin in relation to other substances that it encounters - specifically matter.

As I've been saying, if it travels through different areas of density - including space - then these will pull at the circumference of the light (also making it shorter in the process or allowing it to get longer in less dense regions).

Okay lets say you have a cylinder of liquid and you spin it; what do you get? A spiral of course.

Now add in different densities through space and matter and what do you get? Slower fatter spirals.

Of course as the known universe thins out light will be in a less dense medium and will get faster and longer as time progresses.
gonegahgah
"Light waves with electric fields parallel to these chains are strongly absorbed because of the dissipative effects of the electron motion in the chains. The direction perpendicular to the polyvinyl alcohol chains is the "pass" direction since the electrons cannot move freely to absorb energy." (hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu)

"Thus, a Polaroid filter with its long-chain molecules aligned horizontally will have a polarization axis aligned vertically. Such a filter will block all horizontal vibrations and allow the vertical vibrations to be transmitted" (www.physicsclassroom.com)
This site even shows a really good diagram of what I mean.

Not quite like what they show us in the fence example is it? Its like turning the fence sideways and still only letting vertical waves through.

I wanted to clarify this idea for everyone so that they can see that it is not as straight forward an idea as it would first appear to them.

Again I hark back to the notion that light is very thin and hence this analogy of knocking the wings off the light is errorneous.

Time to get those polaroid filters I think so I can play around with them.
Good Elf
hi fellas,

QUOTE
Thus, a Polaroid filter with its long-chain molecules aligned horizontally will have a polarization axis aligned vertically. Such a filter will block all horizontal vibrations and allow the vertical vibrations to be transmitted"

Too "cheap"... Just a suggestion...Maybe what you need is a "Kerr Cell" and 'rotate" the plane of Polarization - not block most of the light at all. This way you do not put "shades" on your source
Kerr Cell

Cheers
gonegahgah
Hi Good Elf,

I'll check out some polaroid filters first and see what I get.

Thank you for the idea. That would let more light through.
gonegahgah
These are the things I am contending about light that are not from what I understand in some cases even thought of by current accepted theory or go against current theory:

- The frequency of light has to do with its relative spin as it interacts with a receiver or region of space.
- As far as the light is concerned it is not spinning.
- It can therefore hold its shape under its own minute direct and rotation gravitational self-control.
- As it travels through gravitational fields it does have a spin relative to these.
- The more gravity pulling at the light the more it will be redirected. (This is accepted theory I think).
- Where it is pulled by gravity from several sides it will pulled towards those sides and will get fatter and shorter.
- This will slow the travel of the light but does not change its frequency.
- Where the pull is uneven around its sides it will elongate.
- The elongation itself does not spin; the points on the sides move in and out as the light rotates through the varying gravity.
- The natural form you will always experience from something spinning, in this case through and relative to gravitational forces, is a spiral.
- Light experiences free fall dependant upon its angle of travel to the gravity as do all substances.
- As mentioned last post, light's affected velocity can be considered to be its frequency.
- The higher the frequency of the light, the higher its relative velocity.
- The higher the relative velocity, the less the light will be redirected by a region of gravity.
- Light will undergo frequency change only when it is redirected.

- Redirected light will maintain the same dimensions for the same amount of gravitational influences regardless of frequency change.
- What causes the frequency change for redirected light is the overall change in the speed of the light.
- In other words, the speed changes but not the dimensions of the light.
- This differentiates it from where the speed and the dimensions both change - like when it travels through denser materials.
- This is also different to the red/blue shift that is experienced for objects that are moving apart or towards each other.
- That occurs because the receiver is moving at a different speed to the emitter.
- Light speeds up as it approaches a gravitational pull and slows down as it leaves a gravitational pull.
- If it travels directly towards a gravitational source it will speed up but its frequency will not change.

There is probably more.
Anonymous triplets
This is an idea from a yet-crude scientist, but ...have you considered congruities between waves and spirals? Imagine trying to render unto the third dimension a two-dimensional representation of a sine wave....it kind of spirals.
gonegahgah
Yep. Like a wave a spiral has a wavelength (or period in spiral terminology).

In this respect it would seem that a spiral would hopefully finally provide an answer to the dual wave/particle nature that light has.

I don't know why it should be but I don't know that it has even been considered before. The idea of a spiral seems to be a completely new unconsidered idea.
gonegahgah
I've added a few more lines to my post 20/6/2005 9:52am.

This is to account for why light would maintain its dimensions - fatness over length - when it experiences a frequency change due to bending around a sun or large gravitational object.

I've contended that light maintains a particular size - fatness inversely proportional to length - dependent upon gravitational forces surrounding it.

The question arises that if this is the case and the light has the same dimensions once it passes the sun at the same distance as it was before making its approach to near the sun then how could the frequency be different.

Congruent with my current beliefs, the light itself has sped up from its pass of the sun and this gives the increase in frequency; not a change in dimensions of the light.

Accepted theory says that light travels at only one speed. I contend that it doesn't.
gonegahgah
Notes to self:

If light temporarily entangles to atoms when it is absorbed then wouldn't this add weight to those atoms. Light is very unheavy and short time absorbed so how could this be experimented for?

Should the frequency of light change in free fall or not? It would accelerate so you would tend to think so. This would be offset slightly by the greater tug effect of the air for the increasing velocity but not by a proportionate amount I would tend to think. And if there were no air then their would be no medium effects to change the fatness of the light. But because the light is being stretched it would tend to get narrower also. So maybe the frequency doesn't change. But maybe the light doesn't stretch and instead gets more rarified to its brethren as in reduced intensity. So the intensity would reduce but not the frequency. Oh, the conumdrums...

The Mass of Light

Heat is radiated in space as infrared red light. Heat is supposed to be vibration of molecules or kinetic energy. Interesting conumdrum.
gonegahgah
I had a discussion with someone I know today and they believe that a cannon ball will fall at the same rate as a marble because they are insignificant next to the big Earth.

I have to admit that I used to toss between this idea and a second idea of trying to figure out how perhaps momentum and (the other word I can't think of at the moment that starts with 'i') must balance out some how.

I was never happy though until now. Now I have my different theory.
Can it really be that no-one else has stated it this way before?
I really would rather it otherwise.

Restated:

If you had an atom of gold - just because it is non-reactive - and you send it passed the moon then it will deviate through a certain path.

If you send a second atom of gold on the same trajectory passed the moon it will deviate through the same path.

Now lets send the two atoms of gold one after the other passed the moon. They will happily follow each other through the same path as they did separately.

Now lets stick the two gold atoms together and send them passed the moon. They will still happily follow the same path.

What does this say to me. That gravity acts upon both atoms whether they are stuck together or not.

If we extrapolate that out all they way then this says that no matter how many gold atoms are packed together then every atom will be affected by the gravity.

Hence our gold comet will follow the same path as the gold atom.

I really don't understand what is wrong with this idea?
Guest
gonegahgah,

It seems that a few posts have already mentioned this, but here's another. The idea of light waves moving in a spiral is not new. The problem is, that the cults that are in power, say "we don't care what form the photon takes". (because they don't know; like a teenager "doesn't care" that they are being grounded.) Therefore, you will have to search very hard to find the "alternative" faiths that believe (without seeing) that it could be spiral. It certainly is not a stretch, as the last poster pointed out, it is the only conclusion logical going from a 2D sine wave that appears on their machines, to a 3D, same symmetry, wave that is spiral in nature.

In your last post, did you consider the effect (casmir) that each gold atom in a stream of touching gold atoms would have on each other? The first one through has the affect of gravty pulling it down, and the push from those behind it. Then , the ones in the middle would be more at "equilibrium", having both push and pull forces, as well as down (towards gravity). The ones at the end... (you get the idea).

Bottom line: not the same paths. VERY similar, but not identical.

Now relate this to the "problem" of black body radiation, and continuous spectra. Raleigh's predicted curve, and Weins' didn't match, and Plank answered with discreet energy quanta. A previous poster said something similar: no true curves, just straight lines between points, with an overall affect of a curve. The Elvish statement of Null Geodesics also applies.

Individual realities and Group realities are similar in many ways, but never the same (just like us!).

Now render your gold atoms invisible, and observe (by impact, absorbtion, whatever) the first one. Does it not have energy/momentum that exceeds what would be expected? Does the last one seem to be moving at speeds in excess of what we would expect? Think of a line of race cars, and the tactics they use to win. Use the high banked curve to represent the gravitational pull. There are places on the track that you can break free of the pack and make a successful pass, and others where you will lose many places if you try. There are the "resonant" quanta -- specific places where the sum of the parts is greater thatn the whole. Of course, this must be "conserved" with the opposite affect. "Dissonant" nodes, if you will.

Modern "science" has yet to develop the technology to isolate and observe the concept of a single photon. Just keep that in mind when you are blazing new trails, but using their equipment and data!

RJ

gonegahgah
Guest,

There would, I believe, be rotational gravitational effects to take into account. Anytime an atom moves in a different relation to another atom there would be a rotational force.

This is very much the same as Einstein's frame dragging effect I believe.

The more atoms of course the more overall sum effect.

Where things stay in direct relationship I don't believe rotational gravitation effects come into being except possibly to hold things in place.

For example the moon always faces the same face to the Earth and so exerts less rotational effect than if it were rotating in relation to the Earth. It still exerts effect though because it is still passing over the surface.

I can't help but feel that a lot of things that I've imagined have in instances turned out to relate closely to what Einstein said but instead look at them in a new - and hopefully more accurate - perspective.

As a whole though I think the object's gravitational pull internally upon itself where it is locked in shape would not have an effect on the object's path through space around a gravitational force. As an example, if it weren't for the moon the Earth would describe a smooth orbit around the sun. Not perfectly smooth, due to Solar fluctuations and other gravitational influences, but much smoother.

However, the rotation of the object in relation to the gravitational force it is passing may possibly have an influence on the path though I feel.

I thought of rotational gravitational effects even before I learnt of the so called frame dragging effect. So I'm not completely off my tree.
gonegahgah
It is interesting to think about why we see things in the visible spectrum and not in the infrared, radio or x-ray spectrums.

There seems to be an interesting nature of many atoms that much of the useful light is reflected in the visible spectrum. This shows something about the nature of the atoms.

If we were to see in the X-ray spectrum then we would tend to see less in the way of reflected light. X-rays seem to treat us as though we are thick glass. They pass right through us experiencing some scattering.

So this wouldn't obviously be very good for seeing light reflecting off things. Everybody would look like ethereal ghosts to us.

If we were to see in the infrared spectrum then we would largely be seeing the heat that is radiated from bodies rather than reflected light. Why is it that atoms are so amenable to absorbing heat radiation but not X-rays? Obviously it has to do with the properties of atoms and their relation to different wave lengths.

This gives me pause to reflect how tiny light waves are again. Why is it that visible light reflects off people but not X-rays? X-rays of course will be absorbed by metals which are denser than we are.

It goes to show - and I think people keep forgetting this - how much space there is in the atomic world. Those light waves are moving around largely in space as far as they are concerned.

Why is it then that light waves will bounce off our flesh but not X-rays. It has to be that light is much more easily influenced by nearby matter than are X-rays. If it is easily influenced this means that its path can be changed more radically. This is despite the current theory which gives the presumption that light travels at the same speed regardless of its frequency. Not that that matters because it is only the frequency that matters in this respect.

You have to remember that this occurs even though X-rays will travel through us slower than they will through air. The same thing that applies to light through glass applies to X-rays through us. I believe this is because their frequency does not change even with the slowing.

In this respect I still think that even though the light - and other emr including X-rays - are slowed down as a whole as they travel through the denser medium, the light and other emr still carry the same frequency they entered with. How is that possible? Well, if the wavelength also shortens as the light slows than the frequency can remain the same.

So it would appear natural for us to see in the visible spectrum. I know bats listen with sonar but it would appear that visible light is what we see because of the natural relationship it has with atoms.

What everyone has to remember is how small light is and how cavernous matter is. It is only then that we can begin to look at this nanoscopic world with some sense. We can begin to ask why different frequencies behave in different ways with the largely empty masses they encounter.
gonegahgah
The other curiousity that arises for me is Heat.

We express heat as atoms moving or vibrating faster.

What is of interest to me is that the only way atoms will seem to slow down and condense is to pass on their heat and if they can't do that they will radiate the heat.

Why is this of interest?

Because it is my understanding that atoms are attracted to each other because of their masses. As atoms zip passed each other they drag at each other causing each other to slow down. Eventually gravity should take over and pull the atoms back together.

Then why is there a need to radiate heat?

Of course we all know the best way to keep water hot (or cold) is to stick it in a thermos which consists of glass and a vacuum keeping the water separated from the atmosphere. This helps to slow down the process of cooling because the only avenue for cooling is radiation.

Why do cooling down and heat radiation go hand in hand?
Why can't things just regroup under mass attraction without radiating heat?