From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3C55BD7F.7F59F82A@visi.net> <3C55D6FA.81639978@visi.net> <0ps58.1550$ru5.1427921@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net> <3C57AEA6.1C5409C7@visi.net> <3c581855$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3c587ee1_1@nopics.sjc> Subject: OT, photon familiies (long): was Re: any thoughts Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:09:57 -0500 Lines: 159 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: nopics.sjc Message-ID: <3c59f929$1_3@nopics.sjc> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!5710051!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!nopics.sjc!directvdsl.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:78528 "Ian H Spedding" wrote [...] > > A "higher plane" made out of photons would be a conundrum. But, > > there is no physical law that states that other families of "photons" > > (with lower E/f) can't exist. I can expand on this if you wish. > > If you don't mind. I would be very interested to read it. Sorry if this seems rushed. It's a complex idea that should normally require a detailed introduction and more time than I have available. Also the ideas are intrinsically mathematical which doesn't always translate well to a.oob-speak. This field of study is normally reserved for people (QM logicians) a lot smarter than me, and who, like John Bell, have made important achievements prior to their going whacko. :) While I, on the other hand, can only brag to having achieved the later condition. To simplify this discussion I will ignore all aspects of quantum chromodynamics (quarks and such). I don't think this oversight strongly effects the points I'll be making. We know photons have a physical extent that we call their probability wave function, and that they can move through each other. This property is simply called linearity and the reason behind it is generally ignored. There are other inexplicable properties that are routinely ignored, such as how a photon can have spin angular momentum (R x P) but no measurable radius (R). Such questions are considered outside the scope of applicability of Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED). This is the agreed upon way for physicists to say "I don't know". :) The other big photon property I will state twice so as to make an important point. Both of the statements are empirically correct. 1) All charged particles have a charge of +/- e and interact with each other by exchanging photons, and all photons have an energy equal to hf (Planck's constant times frequency). This statement version describes how many physicists think, but it is subtly exclusionary. This second version is much more general 2) All particles that have a charge of +/- e will interact with each other by exchanging photons of energy hf. Notice that this way of phrasing the same empirical evidence leads us to some interesting questions. If a particle existed with a charge different than e might it also interact only with photons that have a different ratio between their energy and frequency? A secondary question then presents itself. If so, would these two families of particles necessarily interact? A fairly good argument can be made that they would not. Remember that QED suggests that electrons don't actually detect (repel) each other. They simply create a combined field of virtual photons which in turn exchanges the electron's momentum. IOW, without the virtual photons electrons would mostly ignore each other, maybe like neutrinos. Photons, while not composed of electro-magnetic fields, may have an internally conserved quanta of flux (as the electron does). This flux would be the part of the photons "structure" that "involves itself" in any interaction with electrons. It also would scale linearly as the photon changes its wavelength, such as when it enters a gravitationally warped space. IOW, photons and electrons may repel and create each other because they share some of the same quantum signatures (fermion properties). Also, photons can create electron-positron pairs but not anti-pairs of particles with other charge values. Different "flavors" of photons would probably go through each other for the same reason that "hf" flavored photons go through each other. ("I don't know why") Regular electrons and electrons that have a different charge might not influence each other because they wouldn't share the same type of electric and magnetic fields as these fields are always made out of photons with the same flavor. If a second such family of particles existed, say with Planck's constant replaced by a much smaller number (k), and the electric charges were similarly smaller, then the dynamics of any atoms composed of these particles would be appreciably different. Two big unknowns now come into play, mass of the new k-electron and speed of the corresponding k-photons If the k-electron's mass and charge scaled downward with k then the DeBroglie wavelength might be about the same while the atomic bond strengths and k-photon energies would be proportionally lower. This means that k-atoms would be about the same size but lighter and flimsier than our own. Now for the part that many students of physics choke on. These k-photons may not be required to travel at "our" speed of light (c). The speed c is the ratio of our photon's energy divided by its momentum and this ratio simply doesn't have to be the same for these alternate k-photons. If E/f is different then why not E/p? Einstein's principle of relativity, amazingly enough, goes unperturbed. All the measurable properties of our Universe remain constant in all inertial frames. With e, h and c as variables a very wide range of stable alternate atomic systems (k-families) would be allowed. Note, each of these k-families can be said to form a Universe (or separate dimension) in the following sense. These systems would be interactively orthogonal (perpendicular) to each other, therefore they would behave independently. This does not mean they form true dimensions in the strict sense of the word. They all exist in our x-y-z-t space but they simply don't interact strongly. The important factor is the rate of energy exchange between these families of particles--the flow between these Universes. An important idea in physics called the equipartition principle states that all degrees of energetic freedom will share equal amounts of energy if the system is closed and a bridging force exists between them. Two important points must be made. First our Universe might not be closed. For example: after the big bang the Universe was opaque until it cooled enough for the photon reflecting ions to recombine into more transparent atoms. It is possible that an open edge to the expanding Universe aided this cooling effect by allowing photons to carry energy away from the atoms remaining behind closer to the center. Each k-family would've experienced its own transition to Universal transparency when it reached its own critical temperature. The second important point concerns the strength and dynamics of the bridging forces. Such forces might exist, for example, if two types of photons would cause some mutual non-linear effect as they passed through each other or if a weak secondary force existed between the corresponding electrons. Gravitation might also be regarded as a bridging force. The stronger these bridging forces the faster energy will be able to flow between these Universes. If the atomic bonding energy is too low in a particular k-family and that Universe is also strongly connected to ours then that k-family Universe will become ionized. OTOH, if the k-family Universe has the ability to dump this incoming energy into escaping k-photons then it might still remain stable. Of course, there might even be some stable k-family Universes where everything is about the same except maybe the average temperature. Whew! The moral of the story: Because modern science can't explain e, h, c, m, G, and many other basic structures in our Universe it is currently impossible to theoretically predict the existence of these alternate k-family Universes. OTOH, this same missing knowledge leaves lots of room open for entertaining speculation such as the above. IMHO, we really don't know much about this Universe we think we live in. Wm ###### From: David Mitchell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OT, photon familiies (long): was Re: any thoughts Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 08:17:06 +0000 Organization: Paradise Computer Software Message-ID: <3C5A4F02.DCEB2F56@edenroad.demon.co.uk> References: <3C55BD7F.7F59F82A@visi.net> <3C55D6FA.81639978@visi.net> <0ps58.1550$ru5.1427921@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net> <3C57AEA6.1C5409C7@visi.net> <3c581855$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3c587ee1_1@nopics.sjc> <3c59f929$1_3@nopics.sjc> NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1012560334 nnrp-12:28889 NO-IDENT edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 43 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!edenroad.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77953 William Bliss wrote: > > "Ian H Spedding" wrote > [...] > > > A "higher plane" made out of photons would be a conundrum. But, > > > there is no physical law that states that other families of "photons" > > > (with lower E/f) can't exist. I can expand on this if you wish. > > > > If you don't mind. I would be very interested to read it. > > Sorry if this seems rushed. It's a complex idea that should > normally require a detailed introduction and more time than > I have available. Also the ideas are intrinsically mathematical > which doesn't always translate well to a.oob-speak. > This field of study is normally reserved for people (QM logicians) > a lot smarter than me, and who, like John Bell, have made > important achievements prior to their going whacko. :) > While I, on the other hand, can only brag to having achieved > the later condition. > The moral of the story: > Because modern science can't explain e, h, c, m, G, and > many other basic structures in our Universe it is currently > impossible to theoretically predict the existence of these > alternate k-family Universes. OTOH, this same missing > knowledge leaves lots of room open for entertaining speculation > such as the above. IMHO, we really don't know much about > this Universe we think we live in. > > Wm Very interesting. Thank you. You've certainly opened my eyes a little ;-) -- ======================================================================= = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing =======================================================================