View Full Version : photon , electron models.

GUYS -- Im afraid I am giving wrong answers to you. I don't know whether you want conventional or alternatice models of rhe photon and other particles.

In the convential model a change in gravity causes a change in frequency causing a change in wavelength and "C" staying constant for a photon.

In my altrnative model a change in gravity causes a change in frequency causing a change in the speed "C" where C=Co-dC. The wavelength stays constant for the photon.

The conventional photon has no mass. The alternative model has mass.

KEEP ME HONEST! and tell me whether we are discussing conventional or alternative physics.

P.S. both models predict the same experimental results with the exception that a direct measuement of two photons emmitted in different "G" fields will show different values fo C.

DraganT

01-16-2008, 08:52 AM

Hi Karl,

To be as unconventional and rightful as possible let me repeat at this place a part of one of my earlier posts:

1.) The idea p = mc = const for the photon in a G-field could be very useful. (recently Karl V. Thompson through his quon model of the photon, see Millennium Relativity site, and for other reasons R. Sadykov, see The Nature of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light, the same site). If you carefully read my very first article "On Interaction of Motional Masses", Journal of Theoretics, Extensive Papers (1984/2004) or also at this site, you can see fundamental vector gravitodynamic equation of motion (2.3). In the field of some mass M (r_g = GM/c^2) and in the case of probe particle where v=c, e.g. the photon, we get dp/dt = 0, ergo p=const! The chain rule and some simple algebra give dc/c = - dm/m. Because m = m_0exp(-r_g/r), see Addendum of the article above, follows obvious c = c_0exp(r_g/r) or through Taylor's development c = c_0(1+ r_g/r +...). And all this totally outside the SR/GR theoretical frame. Moreover, the mentioned equation (2.3) is so fundamental that it leads to the quite new celestial mechanics (Gravity Probe - B, Pioneer trajectories; planetary, stellar and galactic gravitomagnetic effects - very interesting could be what different theories could give us as plausible results).

2.)What really failed in the strong field domain r_g = 1 is SR/GR itself; r_g = GM/c^2. This is a wrong theory from the very beginning, let me say: totally wrong kinematical/geometrical paradigm. Linearization of GR through linearized metrics is a mathematical trick (similar to the QED renormalization). Real linear gravity is Heaviside-like vector gravitodynamics (my very youthful idea and totally independent work, but during the past decade, very actual again in Nielsen, Jefimenko, Strelcov and recently Tajmar & de Matos, de Mees, Nduriri etc.). Some of the above authors stay in line of SR, some of them still in linearized GR but I totally stepped out (but from Newtons picture definitely). The most interesting conclusion/consequence is that Lorentzs gamma is only a special case of one more fundamental scale factor incorporated in the above gravitodynamics. I call it hyper-factor, i.e. 1/sqrt[exp(2 r_g/r) - (v/c)^2]. Because exp(2 r_g/r) >= 1 then could be v>=c. There is no SR limits at all and (in all experimental limits) THE GRAVYPHOTON COULD HAVE SOME REST/PROPER MASS AS A CONSEQUENCE NOT AS AN ASSUMPTION.

Best as always, Dragan

If you accept the alternative photon model then C can be greater than Co, it;s initial speed at emission. Let me give you an answer (using alternative photon model). A sodium D line photon emitted from sun with speed = Co , will have it's frequency increase as the gravitational intensity decreases so that by the time it reaches earth it's wave energy(not it's relativistic total energy) will have increased and it's speed will have increased. That is; speed greater than Co.

Your are right about exceeding Co. --- best, karl

DraganT

01-17-2008, 05:44 AM

Karl,

First of all, let me say it is special pleasure to talk “physics” with you.

What is the most important thing to grasp that is for the light (photon) cannot be either of two

1. c’ = c +/- v (Galilei-Newton relativity)

or

2. c’ = c (SRT)

or in other words, both kinematics (Newton’s and Lorentz-Poincare-Einstein-Minkowsi’s, respectively) are fundamentally wrong regarding “light” (and that is its natural limit, of course).

As for GR, because its linearized spherical symmetric (Schwartzshield) metrics leads towards radial value for c

3. c’ = c(1 – 2HeaM/r); Hea = G/c^2

where of course photon is zero in rest mass (null-geodesics which locally gives again c’ = c). Main problems: 1. unnatural singularities for r = 2HeaM and 2. Hilbert-Einstein non-linaer 2-rank tensorial equations are in fact unsolvable for a general case. That “theory” was doomed for fitting and guessing from its beginning. Not to mention quasi principles such as EP, local Lorentz symmetry etc. which all are totally non-existent.

For example (and I already stated this several times before): let us conduct Pound-Rebka under free falling circumstances (in outer Space)! My claim is: red-shift would be found which would mean EP is false, i.e. the very basis of each and every metric theory of gravity is lost. And if so, photon again simple has to be “massive”. Even more important, static G-potential is in form of exp(-k/r) which means new mathematics without singularities.

Gravity is not geometry, that is the point. And it is “acceleration” even less. So again, neither Einstein nor Newton. We are talking here about most fundamental change (of paradigm) possible.

Now, I would say, your elegant two-quon photon model has its quite natural basis because it satisfies the basic premises of one “wave dynamics”. I also am very interested in modeling of microcosmic entities and I was reading gladly different such a tries: Kanarev, Bergman, Williamson, Shpenkov & Kreidik etc.

For example, I have an idea for your further modeling: “electron” could be closed toroidal loop of your binary photon. Furthermore, the whole standard model schema is more than questionable one. Namely, what if e.g. “muon” is nothing else but superluminal electron, neutron is also binary proton-electron system governed by this “wave gravitodynamics”!? So, no quarks, no gluons, no asymptotic freedoms, no strings, no branes, no “Ptolemaic physics” whatsoever.

And as last but not least, what if

c’ = c[exp(-2k/r) – (v/c)^2] !?

That would be the physics ;-)

BRs, Dragan

p.s. Later maybe more about "graviton" :)

dragan --- congratulations for admitting to the possibilty of a closed geometry. Dragan , take the time to read the words in my paper even if you don't follow math. best, karl

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2021 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.