h a l f b a k e r yPlease listen carefully, as our opinions have changed.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Simulating light - the photon as two particles
Generally it is assumed that the photon is a basic quanta of the magnetic field and electromagnetic spectrum. But for a moment I'm going to suggest another way to simulate light relating to computer simulation and possibly real physics.
Instead of
just assigning an assumed behavior for photons, the behavior of photons might be simulated though simulating the interaction of a negative mass particle and a positive mass particle. I'm suggesting that together a negative mass particle and a positive mass particle might behave as a photon does. So that might be one way to simulate light.
What are some primary properties of light?
* Tendency to travel at the speed of light.
* Zero mass
* Wavelength and filterable with a polarized screen.
Negative mass particles have never been observed, however they are not entirely ruled out by our current understanding of particle physics.
A negative mass particle would:
* Repel positive mass
* Is attracted to positive mass
* Paired with an equal positive mass, the particles would rapidly accelerate to the speed of light.
* Because their masses cancel each other out and they would have zero mass and zero energy from their acceleration due to the properties of the negative mass particle.
* They might exhibit a wavelength like behavior. Push and pull work oppositely with negative mass particles. Because of the different way the two particles react to collision, instead of bouncing off one another the two particles might waggle in a chasing wave like pattern. This waggle might be proportionate to any energy the pair picked up during their formation or from other interactions. If so then this would cause a wavelength behavior. This wave motion could also give the particle pair a filterable polarity as observed with polarized light.
Problems? Many:
* Negative mass particles have never been observed.
* In a double slit experiments light behaves as waves. Yes, but particles have been observed to do this as well. So photons are not exclusive in behaving as waves though double slits, larger particles and even buckyballs behave this way too. So I'm going to ignore light's behavior as a wave as other particles can interact that way as well.
* Would a negative and positive mass particle waggle and exhibit a wavelength like behavior? I don't know, that's a real stretch. But they wouldn't bounce off each other, so I suspect they might move in some entangled sort of way.
In summary, I suspect that photons could be simulated with two particles. This may or may not be how light really works. But that's what I'm cooking. Fish it or bun it.
Stuff you can make with quarks
http://hyperphysics...cles/haddia.html#c2
[ldischler, Mar 22 2011]
two-particles photon theory
http://lighttheory.com/light/index.htm
the theory proposed by Victor Urbina [imturok, Mar 31 2011]
[link]
|
| |
Just a quick thought: would it not be impossible for a black hole to absorb a negative-mass particle? |
|
| |
//A negative mass particle would: * Repel positive mass * Is
attracted to positive mass * Paired with an equal positive
mass, the particles would rapidly accelerate to the speed of
light.// |
|
| |
You might actually be on to something here. Two orbiting/oscillating particles could account for a lot of the wave-type properties, as well as energy and the fact that photons seem to appear from nowhere in atomic particle interactions - the same as other particle/anti-particle spontaneity. |
|
| |
I'd still like to understand this, but I still cannot tell what
you mean by // A negative mass particle would: * Repel
positive mass * Is attracted to positive mass // Was this a
tpyo? |
|
| |
But if negative and positive masses repel, then how come
//Push and pull work oppositely with negative mass
particles. Because of the different way the two particles
react to collision, instead of bouncing off one another the
two particles might waggle in a chasing wave like pattern.// ? |
|
| |
Also, if the forces are basically gravitational, would they be
significant for individual particles? Gravitational forces not
important compared to electrostatic and other forces
between "normal" particles. |
|
| |
I prefer to think of us as "charm" and "strange". |
|
| |
//one vernon and one maxwell// - inseparably bound by a repulsive force, which completely explains... well, nothing. |
|
| |
//explains...well, nothing.//
//no ...everything.//
|
|
| |
Both answers are correct. It just depends on whether you
mean "explains" in the sense of philosophy or reality. |
|
| |
//A negative mass particle would: * Repel positive mass * Is attracted to positive mass *// |
|
| |
In an analysis by Robert Forward, if negative masses are attracted to positive masses, and positive masses are repelled from negative masses, then a pair of equal masses, one negative and one positive, will rush off in one direction and quickly approach the speed of light, and there is no violation in conservation of momentum or energy.
So a test of Steam_Cannon's idea: measure the speed of new (just created) photons as compared to old photons, and the new photons should be detectably slower. |
|
| |
//detectably slower// - you sure? |
|
| |
If the pos-mass/neg-mass pair acts as a single entity of zero mass, then F=ma -> a=F/0, which is pretty big. (As far as light speed goes, I think if you can't get there instantaneously, you can't get there at all.) |
|
| |
If the pos-mass/neg-mass pair doesn't act as a single entity of zero mass, they'll not stay together; yeilding a tachyon and a rock. Or something. |
|
| |
I think, lurch, you have to crack open the pair and look at how the negative mass operates on the positive mass, and vice versa. The acceleration forces are within, not without. |
|
| |
That doesn't seem right. If the //forces are within//, wouldn't that mean that photon momentum yeilds free energy, violating conservation? |
|
| |
I'm not sure about that, lurch. Is the energy and momentum less when it's traveling at less than the vacuum speed of light, eg, in glass? |
|
| |
I still don't get what binds these two particles together, but
it's entirely possible that I'm being dumb here. |
|
| |
If the photon were a variety of uncharged meson, it would be held together in the same way. |
|
| |
+ light makes no sense to me. I give you the vote for challenging
convention. |
|
| |
// I still don't get what binds these two particles together // |
|
| |
It's the One Ring, of course! |
|
| |
Seriously, though, what [[cannon]] is on to is an analogy with electric charge, and Coulomb's Law: Force = q1 q2 / r^2. (like charge repel, positive force, right?) .................. ................ ...................... ..
Compare to Newton's Law of gravitation: Force = - M1 M2 / r^2. (like masses attract, right?) The trouble is that Newton's formula, which must be accepted as canon, right, cannon?, would then predict that negative mass repels positive mass. (That is, M1 x M2 is negative, so Force is positive. See minus sign in formula.) This one is for the fishes. |
|
| |
You also have to consider F=MA, sqeaketh, so that this repulsion results in the negative mass accelerating toward the positive mass, even as the positive mass accelerates away from the negative mass. This works out perfectly for conservation of energy, because the energy gained by the positive mass is perfectly balanced by the negative energy of the negative mass. And the same for conservation of momentum. (You might even explain the accelerating expansion of the universe as negative matter chasing positive matter.) |
|
| |
Nope, bigsleep, not saying any of that. |
|
| |
Not even the beer time part? |
|
| |
[ldischler] - You got me there. a = F/M does seem to make that biphoton hang together. Beer time! |
|
| |
We should work to balance out the croisssants and the fishbones for this exactly and see if there's any measurable increase in light. |
|
| |
The recent CERN experiments that show neutrinos traveling faster than light could be evidence for the two-particle photon theory, because a two-particle photon (with positive and negative masses) would never travel exactly at light speed, but would only exponentially approach it. So all measurements of light speed using "new" photons would be slightly below the ultimate speed. |
|
| |
// The recent CERN experiments that show neutrinos
traveling faster than light // |
|
| |
First of all, that wasn't an experiment, it's something they
weren't expecting and never intended. Second, they have
only recorded events that _appear_ to show FTL neutrinos;
most, if not all, of the people involved in that part of the
project are making it very clear that this may all be simply
an unforseen error in the method of observation. We have
to give them time to make sure this isn't just a mistake
before we all get excited. |
|
| |
If it _is_ real, on the other hand, it could be invaluable to
my continuing work on the teleporting deer conundrum. |
|
| |
My variation is this: both "sub" particles; for which I just
came up with the name "halfoton"; are mass-less, but still
a paricle/anti-particle pair.
So the halfoton and the anti-halfoton can be
spontaneously created as (for example) an electron drops
to a lower orbit, without requiring the mass of the atom to
change.
They are mass-less and charge-less, bound by
gluons/somethings, to orbit each other at a rate
(frequency) that gives the energy stored with-in (as per
Planck); because a faster-spinning thing contains more
energy.
Thus can be explained much of light's weird behaviour:
energy/frequency relations, polarisation, spontaneous
creation (and absorption; the interaction with an
electron cloud causes the pair to re-combine as pure
energy), some wave-like effects (I haven't thought about
those in depth yet...), even refraction and diffraction
somewhat. |
|
| |
(Edit - just noticed a typo...) |
|
| |
I look forward to when AI reads the entire internet and then figures out all the new physics ideas people put up. if even .1% are testable and new then physics will have a big productivity jump. |
|
| |
//It just depends on whether you mean "explains"
in the sense of philosophy or reality// Any
definition of reality will be a philosophy. |
|
| |
And 'any' philosophy intrinsically has inklings of reality because it comes from the human mind which bootstraps out of reality. |
|
| |
Is the unmeasurable unit of density of space-time positive to give a negative mass? You can't dig a hole in nothing. |
|
| |
That in itself is a philosophy. |
|
| |
That would make any thoughts of the human mind, philosophy. Nice, the sentence "How are your philosophies hanging?" can be used. |
|
| |