[General] Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

[Vivian Robinson]

Dear All,

It has been a while since my last communication, primarily because of other activities. One of those is quite relevant to this discussion topic. Over the past two + decades I have been trying to understand the photon and its role in shaping the universe, from its smallest sub atomic particles to its observed large scale structure. To this end I have finally compiled a 400+ A5 pages summary of this study. You can see some information and extracts from it at my website www.universephysics.com. Its relevance to this discussion is that it strongly suggests that all particles, from the lightest neutrinos through the electron, proton and neutron to the heaviest cosmic rays and accelerator generated particles are all composed of what I call rotating photons, i.e. photons of the appropriate energy making two revolutions within their wavelength. There is no other form of matter. For example, quarks with fractional charge and gluons have never been separately isolated and identified. Of course the theoreticians overcome that by developing a theory that gluons bind quarks together in such a way that the greater the quark separation the stronger the binding force. In the real world, the best reason for experimentalists not finding something is because it doesn't exist. This study is in three space dimensions and time. This study is a Big Bang, dark energy, dark matter, black hole, cosmological constant, quark, gluon, string and brane free zone. 

In the course of this work I have simplified the mathematics and used them to show how the rotating photon model matches dozens of measured properties of matter. Equally important I have made dozens of experimentally testable predictions of properties of sub atomic particles, yielding properties that are unknown or known but not recognised as such. Included among these is the reduction in the diameter of the electron (and other particles) with increasing velocity. I regard experiment as the only arbiter of the correctness or otherwise of a theory and have given plenty of opportunity for it to be tested experimentally.

The same applies for dark energy and dark matter. Under this model, the universe is infinite and static. The so-called anomalous type 1a supernova (SNe1a) intensities are predictable in a steady state universe. There is no need for dark energy to explain it. The "rapid" rotation of galaxies, thought to be due to dark matter, does not need gravity to explain it. Both of those features are supported by the necessary mathematics and experimental observations. The so-called "pillars" of the Big Bang theory:-
The redshift of photons from distant galaxies
Olber's paradox and the dark night sky
An infinite static universe will collapse under its own gravitational attraction
The greater prevalence of quasars at higher redshift
The hydrogen to helium ratio
all have very good explanations under this infinite steady state model. 

Even before I completed this work, it was apparent to some people that the difference between cosmologists theory for the observed universe and the observed universe was 24 times the mass/energy of the observed universe plus 10^60 other universes in the multiverse, plus several additional undetected space dimensions. Setting aside the 10^60 other universes, which are matched by this infinite static universe model, that still leaves a difference between theory and observation of 24 times the mass/energy of the observed universe. Until such time as dark energy and dark matter are confirmed, that is an error between theory and observation. As I indicate in my summary, that must be the largest error between theory and observation in the recorded history of human endeavour (mathematical division by zero excluded). If anyone knows of a larger error, I would be happy to read about it. Many members of the general public, and some dissenting physicists and other scientists are not happy with such a significant difference being portrayed as the best answer developed by those who call themselves the best scientific minds. Recently the New York Times published an article titled A Crisis at the Edge of Physics, in which it quoted an article published in Nature in which the authors were critical of some scientists claiming elegant theories did not need to be tested experimentally. Such an article in NY Times is an indication there is public interest in these topics. Many members of the general public are not happy that the difference between theory and experiment is 24 times the mass energy of the observed universe. I use this as an example that there is considerable dissent in the scientific community and among the general public against those standard model ideas and there is a need for suitable alternative explanations.

If you go to that website an look at the back cover of this paperback, the last sentence reads: "Using little more than good high school mathematics, some readers will be able to understand topics that baffled Einstein and calculate properties properties of nuclei that baffle nuclear physicists." IMHO this is no idle boast. Using Einstein's principle of mass distorting space-time causing gravity, it shows why an infinite static universe will not collapse under the gravitational attraction without needing a cosmological constant. As for nuclear physics I give rules for determining the structure of any isotope of any nucleus, giving its arrangement of protons and neutrons, its spin, approximate magnetic moment, the skin effect, and with a little more work, its dimensions from its binding energy (or its binding energy from its dimensions, as well as the probability of it being a stable or long life isotope versus a short life radioactive nucleus, as well as some other properties. 

The reason for this email is to suggest that the topic under discussion at the upcoming SPIE conference has somewhat greater implications than you may be aware. It is my suggestion that understanding the photon and the way it makes two revolutions per wavelength to form particles aren't just important. They are everything in physics, calculating Newton's universal gravitational constant G excluded (which I haven't done). I am currently travelling and not able to give more information. I will be meeting with John W in Glasgow in a couple of weeks and will pass further information across to him then. If I am unable to make it to the SPIE conference, which looks increasingly likely, John W may be able to convey more information to you after our meeting. In the meantime I make no apology for agreeing with most of the aspects about the photon forwarded by John W and Martin vdM and remain skeptical about contrary ideas forwarded by others. I am now moving out of telecommunications range for a few days.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson. 

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150617/ca988f71/attachment.htm>