Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Geomagnetic reversal

Unread postby JouniJokela » Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:01 am

I didn't find any topic about this issue. Here's some background;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

The thing which I want to discuss, is What exactly happens in this Geomagnetic reversal? I mean the magnetic field are obviously produced by some bigger scales issues than Planetary ones.

We have ie. Uranus which is rotating completely flipped. Here's some good stuff about it from this forum;
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=646&start=15
The Magnetic field of Uranus seems to be totally disconnected from the axial rotation.

But then we have Venus; It doesn't have Magnetic field. One may come to a thought that Magnetic fields are produced by the moons. But then Mercury has no Atmosphere and no moons, but it has a Magnetic field.
The moons are not so plausible explanation as Uranus Moons are rotating completely wrong when compared to The Magnetic field of Uranus.

So what's going on?

The Magneto sphere of Uranus is also heavily twisted;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Magnetosphere

To me it seems that the Moons are pretty much fixed to the plantal rotation. Even when co-rotating. It also seems to me that the Magnetic field is -originally- produced by the rotation of the planet core. Therefore Venus doesn't have such; it doesn't rotate. I don't belive either for the Theory that some impact has forced the Uranus to flip; I have calculated the energies here;
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215049/uranus-the-physical-model-to-change-its-rotation-axle

So what I think, is that Geomagnetic reversal, is not caused by the magnetic fields to change their positions, but from the planet it self to be flipped 90 degrees because it's mass center has become instabile. At least such a phenomenon can be seen in Uranus today. The flip would be caused by "solar wind" or "kinetic gravity" (see my other posts).

my idea is that the mass center instability is caused by radioactive decay on the "south pole" and Mass production in "north pole". This mass addition is supported by the observations of the phenomenon called "Post-glacial-rebound",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound Though I doubt that the origin is "glacial".

The rotation axle of the planet (which is driven by sun) will slowly change back to approx perpendicular to planetal plane, etc, What this could mean for the history of Earth? Funnily enough this kind of scenario is allready produced through other ideas;
http://www.worlddreambank.org/J/JAREDIA.HTM

...I think this is enough info to start the discussion.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Geomagnetic reversal

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:06 pm

JouniJokela » Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:01 am

I didn't find any topic about this issue.


JJ, At one time, a lot of 'related' threads were combined to save aether.
A couple discussing your topic:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4008&hilit=magnetic+reversal&start=225

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930


[Are you using something like a google site search site: thunderbolts. info ........ ?
The local search function here is pretty feeble...]
seasmith
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Geomagnetic reversal

Unread postby JouniJokela » Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:29 am

Thanks.

I will go these threads through with time.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:47 am

Jouni Jokela's paper is interesting at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294535112_QED_explanation_for_Gravity_and_Radioactivity_Theory_of_Everything. It's already being discussed, but I think it should have its own thread, so here's one.

Is this what the paper says?
1. Gravity is a pushing or squeezing together from outside, not a pull from inside.
2. There is no Mass.
3. Everything is Photons.
4. Photons are emitted by Length Contraction, an effect of Relativity.

That's a start at least.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby JouniJokela » Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:52 am

Thanks.

I just wrote a comment explaining the Radioactivity more throughly in the Crater-creation-thread, here;
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4056&start=315

To your questions;
1. There is no independent "gravity", the true observations can be completely explained through QED-interactions and Kinetic theory. The for long known problems (Energy & Drag) which has made this practically only theory for the machinery behind the gravity, can be explained and even observed completely. This is the best introduction to this old theory; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation it's bit simple, but this is basically what it's all about.
2. Yes
3. Or everything is light. Photons are the form of light which has no volume. When enough Light condensates at on point, it reserves a certain volume permanently and this can be experienced as a matter.
4. Yes. This is the "radioactivity" which is not much different than thermal radiation, or any radiation. Shortly said it's the nominal wave-length of a particle which decides if it's radioactive or not. If it only emits, but doesn't get the same amount to be absorbed (because there is not the enough needed wavelengths around) it looses energy, and this can only end to a decay. This means that every material will decay, if it's just placed on Quantum-vacuum.

It's really diffucult to write about this. This is just so damn wide topic. I add this question which was written here;
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241012/neutron-electron-and-proton-mass-dark-matter-and-dark-energy
These masses are;

n (neutron) 939.5654133(58)MeV/c2
p (proton) 938.272046(21)MeV/c2
e (electron) 0.510998910(13)MeV/c2

Neutron mass minus Proton mass; n−p=1.2933673MeV/c2

And (n−p)/e=2.531 According to Feynman (Electron mass II-28-5) this value was ~2.6

…So today, there is no known solution to this problem. We do not know how to make a consistent theory—including the quantum mechanics—which does not produce an infinity for the self-energy of an electron, or any point charge. And at the same time, there is no satisfactory theory that describes a non-point charge. It’s an unsolved problem. In case you are deciding to rush off to make a theory in which the action of an electron on itself is completely removed, so that electromagnetic mass is no longer meaningful, and then to make a quantum theory of it, you should be warned that you are certain to be in trouble. There is definite experimental evidence of the existence of electromagnetic inertia—there is evidence that some of the mass of charged particles is electromagnetic in origin. It used to be said in the older books that since Nature will obviously not present us with two particles—one neutral and the other charged, but otherwise the same—we will never be able to tell how much of the mass is electromagnetic and how much is mechanical. But it turns out that Nature has been kind enough to present us with just such objects, so that by comparing the observed mass of the charged one with the observed mass of the neutral one, we can tell whether there is any electromagnetic mass. For example, there are the neutrons and protons. They interact with tremendous forces—the nuclear forces—whose origin is unknown. However, as we have already described, the nuclear forces have one remarkable property. So far as they are concerned, the neutron and proton are exactly the same. The nuclear forces between neutron and neutron, neutron and proton, and proton and proton are all identical as far as we can tell. Only the little electromagnetic forces are different; electrically the proton and neutron are as different as night and day. This is just what we wanted. There are two particles, identical from the point of view of the strong interactions, but different electrically. And they have a small difference in mass. The mass difference between the proton and the neutron—expressed as the difference in the rest-energy mc2 in units of MeV—is about 1.3 MeV, which is about 2.6 times the electron mass. The classical theory would then predict a radius of about 1/3 to 1/2 the classical electron radius, or about 10^−13 cm. Of course, one should really use the quantum theory, but by some strange accident, all the constants—2π’s and ℏ’s, etc.—come out so that the quantum theory gives roughly the same radius as the classical theory. The only trouble is that the sign is wrong! The neutron is heavier than the proton.
There is said to be 26.8% dark Matter and 68.3% dark energy.

0.683/0.268=2.5485
This is almost the same as (n−p)/e=2.531 It should be noted that Neutron mass can't be directly measured.

Question; Has dark matter and energy ratio something to do with (n−p)/e ratio?

..or might they just be the different aspects of the same unsolved problem.

Edit, because of claimed Numerology.
- Electron has a mass and Charge.
- Proton has a mass and Charge.
- Neutron has mass, but no Charge.

If Potential energy and Kinetic energy has a natural 2:1 ratio as defined by Froude-number, and Charge=Kinetic and mass=Potentialenergy This produces the following ratio;
2Masses+Charge=Total or
2/3total=Mass And 1/3total=Charge
this 2/3 ratios are presented also in the Linked Feynman Lecture.

Now as the Neutron Mass can't be measured directly, because it's chargeless, it is measured together with Proton in mass-spectrometry and thus the measurement includes Proton + Neutron which simply means 4mass+1Charge=2total (I am talking here about massless energy, similar like photon energy) So when we calculate with normal energy (mass included) we make a mistake as we deduce only 1 mass + 1 charge, and so The Neutron mass is defined as 3mass though correct would be only 2mass. This defines Neutron Mass too high by 1charge which is 1/2mass by normal energy definition.

Now the Electron has also 2Masses+Charge=Total ratio, and so has the Proton. This means that n−p/e=e1+p1+n0.5=2.5
Of course the Proton and Neutron has huge amount of mass which is not "Charge-related" and must be left out on these considerations. The mass of electron is the smallest mass able to carry a charge, and only equally small amount of "mass" is needed from Proton to carry a charge.

My opinion is that there is no mass. The physics is completely solid without this fictitious aspect.

The original Question remains Valid;
Has dark matter and energy ratio similar problems in their measurements as is presented above for p, n and e.

Btw. this same 1/3 and 2/3 works also with Quarks etc.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:49 pm

JounoJokela wrote:- It's impossible that a particle emits photons infinitely.
- It's also impossible that a particle absorbs photons infinitely.

The emitting ends to the decay of the particle. At the the end the whole particle has decayed and ceased to exist.
This can be observed as a loss of matter.
Unless particles are simply photon recyclers.

JounoJokela wrote:So either;
1.the Photon has mass
or
2. Energy doesn't have mass.
I'd say, masses have energy.
When we measure energy, it is the energy which some matter has.

The energy of the sun, for example, or of an electron.
When we measure the temperature, and say, "phew, it is hot today",
we are measuring the energy contained in the molecules of the atmosphere, for another example.
And that energy was transferred to the atmosphere from the Sun by photons.
So it stands to reason that photons are little masses.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby Osmosis » Fri Apr 01, 2016 5:27 pm

Wait wait-light is merely radio waves :mrgreen:
Osmosis
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Apr 01, 2016 5:44 pm

Light seems to be the entire EM spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays. I think Jokela says the spectrum even includes waves as much as 1/4th the diameter of the Milky Way. And I think Brant (Upriver) agrees with that. Brant is an expert on sonoluminescence, I think, and Jokela's paper discusses that briefly too.

Jokela, I understand that the Law of Gravitation does not seem to need mass, but it seems that mass must be real nonetheless, though it's not easily defined or understood. I'd like to know your thoughts about the following items.

1. Proof of Photon Mass and Sinewave Motion
http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-7502184_55832.htm#t1

2. This http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html says matter can be formed from photons.

3. PHYSICS WITH PHOTONS OF NON-ZERO REST MASS, C. Marchal
http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf05/ps/c4-2.pdf
"These redshifts require both a non-zero rest mass of photons and the presence of a very large quantity of 'slow photons' with a velocity smaller than 280,000 km/s. ... [T]he anisotropy of Hubble constant is larger in the directions of heavy concentrations of matter."

4. Redefining the Photon by Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf
Last edited by Lloyd on Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Apr 01, 2016 5:52 pm

Osmosis wrote:Wait wait-light is merely radio waves :mrgreen:
Thank you, Osmosis.

Waiting now, for you to describe what radio waves are.
~Paul
Last edited by comingfrom on Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:38 pm

"These redshifts require both a non-zero rest mass of photons and the presence of a very large quantity of “slow photons” with a velocity smaller than 280,000 km/s. ... [T]he anisotropy of Hubble constant is larger in the directions of heavy concentrations of matter."
When is a photon at rest?

They expect us to believe that photons only ever always move at c, and that they have no mass when at rest.

In the paper, they are brave to propose that photons have mass,
but then they propose that the field moves faster than the photons.
If an EM field is not a field of photons, then what is the EM field?
What is moving faster than photons in the EM field?

A field is a field, and fields don't move.
Crops grow up, the field doesn't grow down, leaving the crop standing.
Nor does it move sideways, leaving the crop behind.

Definition of field.
Field:
noun
an area of open land, especially one planted with crops or pasture, typically bounded by hedges or fences.
In physics, the field is a 3d region in space, especially one defined by a region of effective force, such a gravity, or electricity. The word originates from 2d fields on flat land.

If the field is a star's gravity or electric field, for example, it is a spherical region around it's body, and that region is not travelling faster than light. That region is travelling as fast as the star, because it remains a sphere around the star, where ever the star goes.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby kevin » Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:58 pm

Crops don't grow.
They transmute into the ground, and into atmosphere.
They accumulate the available aether.

Everything in 3d existence is an accumulation of aether in a unique memory field.
That field is a dual vortex, with a heart centre of reversal.

All of this occurs upon a fixed lattice matrix of universe.
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby JouniJokela » Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:14 am

comingfrom wrote:Unless particles are simply photon recyclers.

This is very correct interpretation; if the particles doesn't have photons to absorb, they simple emit their energy away and decay.

comingfrom wrote:I'd say, masses have energy.
When we measure energy, it is the energy which some matter has.

I'am fine with your words. But I have given for "Matter" a different meaning than for "mass"

comingfrom wrote:So it stands to reason that photons are little masses.

I am also fine with this way to use words. We can talk from photons having a mass. (Or that radio waves has mass)
The only thing we need to do is to agree that this mass is 1-dimensional; the photons have a mass only in one dimension/direction. I write more about this as a reply to Lloyd.

Lloyd wrote:Light seems to be the entire EM spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays. I think Jokela says the spectrum even includes waves as much as 1/4th the diameter of the Milky Way. And I think Brant (Upriver) agrees with that.

Yes! BUT this is just a quess, and the main idea is that Photons(/radiowaves/electromagnetic radiation/species/you name it) doesn't only have a maximum velocity (speed of light) but they also have a maximum wave length. This is an issue which is not known. I just asked this question here; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246896/maximum-wavelength-of-a-photon-electromagnetic-radiation

Lloyd wrote:I'd like to know your thoughts about the following items.
1. Proof of Photon Mass and Sinewave Motion
http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-7502184_55832.htm#t1

If accept 1-dimensional definition for mass, then we can "proof that photon has a mass". This is the core problem of physics; it's basically a circular reasoning, which can be made "as you like" as soon as you define your "muu's" & "quu's" in away that makes it work. I mean this presentation of Feynman; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIN_-Flswy0&feature=youtu.be&t=2035

Lloyd wrote:2. This http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html says matter can be formed from photons.

This is absolutely true! I only find it hilarious that the title is here "never-before-seen", cause this was the description of Robert Bacon from year 1267. He just named the light as a model for the motion of species, and he used the word "species" for both photon and for matter. You can get a glimpse for this quite old stuff from here; https://books.google.ch/books?id=eXbDBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=The+Nature+and+Multiplication+of+Light+or+Species&source=bl&ots=70O4k7Qnbo&sig=dgWD5RFaN2NYVHdT1dC9yhNqihg&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi01M7jxu_LAhUCtBQKHbP3BzQQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Nature%20and%20Multiplication%20of%20Light%20or%20Species&f=false


Lloyd wrote:3. PHYSICS WITH PHOTONS OF NON-ZERO REST MASS, C. Marchal
http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf05/ps/c4-2.pdf
"These redshifts require both a non-zero rest mass of photons and the presence of a very large quantity of 'slow photons' with a velocity smaller than 280,000 km/s. ... [T]he anisotropy of Hubble constant is larger in the directions of heavy concentrations of matter."

Yes. The contradiction doesn't just go away. Adding mass for photon, is one way to get the physics to work. But this mass must made one dimensional and variable to the wave-length, and this leads to pretty complicated system. You can get this model to work, I have no doubt for that. But you can't "explain it to the barmeid" The Hubble constant must vary in different direction cause the "photon mass" is one dimensional. But it's pretty problematic to say that photon mass has only effect on the Radiowaves, but not to infrared waves. This would mean that short wave-lengths has no mass, but long wave lenghts has. But what would make the difference? Is photon total energy constant? Or how would it go? The next approach is much better.

Lloyd wrote:4. Redefining the Photon by Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf


This seems to be mathematically correct interpretiert; E = 2r sqrt(c) = mc^2 a and m = 2r / (c^1.5).
I scrambled with similar stuff before I realized through Froude-number that it's aloud to left the mass out also from the matter, which makes the whole really simple. But if you wan't to define mass for the photon, this would be the way to do it. It's just a bit more complicated with mass than without mass. I need to take bit more time to check this paper. But as a concept, it seems very correct. Like Feynman said,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIN_-Flswy0&feature=youtu.be&t=2060
"It's NOT necessary that muu's and quu's can't appear in the quess, that's perfectly all right, you can have as much Junk in your quess as you want, provided you can compare it to the experiment."

,,But that's not fully appreciated,, Cause all this junk adds only complexity. You shouldn't talk about what you can't really measure.

kevin wrote:They accumulate the available aether.

This sound pretty much like the approach of Roger Bacon, it's merely an issue of how translation is done. Funnily enough the low quality translations of bible were a major issue for this Bacon in his book.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby kevin » Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:12 am

Jounijokela,

I would be right at home studying nature with Bacon.
I do so via dowsing, trees are very revealing with their dual spin fields that they reverse at the equinox( softwoods)

Your opening post was about magnetic reversals, and nature does this relative to the inbalance between spin flow rates.
The earth has a dominant northern hemisphere.
So do You.
The reversal is not of the physical, but of field spin.
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:11 pm

Jouni, have you seen this paper? http://www.deg.ee.ufrj.br/docentes/sauer/Testing%20a%20mechanical%20behavior%20of%20light%20reflection.pdf
What do you think of the paper, or these excerpts?
We model photons and atoms as spherical rigid bodies and reproduce numerically the mechanical (Newtonian) interactions between them. Our goal is to analyze how the frequency of the photon varies depending on its interaction with the atoms. In our work, we compare numerical results against experimental results obtained in laboratory. To analyze the frequency variation of each photon, we assume the photon as being a spherical rigid body within nonuniform internal mass distribution, so that the photon describes a cycloid, as can be seen in Figure 1. Thus, once describing cycloids, our rigid body presents mass, amplitude, frequency and phase, as well as the DeBroglie (1924) wave and becomes a mechanical framework for our study case. To simulate this internal non-homogeneous mass distribution, we used a spherical rigid body within holes so that its centroid and its center of mass are not coincident. Thus, while the center of mass describes a straight line, the centroid describes a cycloid.
... To simplify our numerical model, we assume that the atom is stuck into a grid and do not move after the collision. This simplification avoids problems concerning vibration of the grid of atoms. Based on the estimates of photon mass of Rodriguez and Spavieri (2007); Williams et al. (1971); Chernikov et al. (1992); Davis and Nieto (1975); Franken and Ampulski (1971); Accetta et al. (1985); Crandall (1983); Lakes (1998); Fishbach et al. (1994); Schaefer (1999) and Luo et al. (2003), which estimates photon masses among 10^-51kg and on the periodic table, which indicates the atomic mass of gold among 10^-26kg, we assume that the mass of a photon is 10^25 smaller than the mass of the [gold] atom, which means that any movement of atom is negligible when compared with the movement of the photon.
... As can be seen in Figure 11, the time spent between the launch and the return of a spherical rigid body (assumed as representing a photon) presents a similar behavior as the quantum decay measured in the laboratory. We believe that light is ballistic and that its behavior of wave is caused by its non-homogeneous mass distribution, which generates cycloids and, consequently, a wave behavior. In order to test this model, we started to compare different behaviors of light. Recently (Sauerbronn et al., 2010), we tested this mechanical model of light against the single slit diffraction experiment and the numerical results were considered very similar to the experimental results. When testing this mechanical model of light to describe the behavior of colors (Sauerbronn et al., 2013) we found very interesting results. When testing this mechanical model of light against the behavior known as quantum decay, we found once again results that look similar to experimental results. Considering that we do not know the physical properties of a photon, we are trying different values for volume, geometry, mass etc intending to achieve one combination that fits perfectly all experimental results. That is the point where we are now. As a final remark, this work was inspired by the model of light of the atomist Lucretius (1992, 1995). Our contribution is in the proposal of a non-uniform distribution to the photon's internal mass and in the implementation of a numerical model to test this proposal against experimental results achieved by a experiment involving quantum decay.


The photon motion proposed in this paper is similar to that of Miles Mathis.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Jokela Theory of Gravity, Radioactivity & Everything

Unread postby JouniJokela » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:06 am

Lloyd wrote:Jouni, have you seen this paper? http://www.deg.ee.ufrj.br/docentes/saue ... ection.pdf
What do you think of the paper, or these excerpts?


I looked it already a while ago, when I read you message, but now I have been involved in other issues. (unable to comment shortly)
This is an interesting paper and I share the views of it; Ie. Cycloids.

Lloyd wrote:We believe that light is ballistic and that its behavior of wave is caused by its non-homogeneous mass distribution, which generates cycloids and, consequently, a wave behavior. In order to test this model, we started to compare different behaviors of light.


I understand this non-homogeneous mass distribution too, If we want to do our thinking's with some kind of mass included, it will lead us to think photon having only on dimensional mass; means the photon has mass in only in the direction it moves. Of course this will produce a more complicated model, but it would still be correct, means it agrees with the experiment. The Radiation pressure is actually well known aspect of this above;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Lloyd wrote:Our contribution is in the proposal of a non-uniform distribution to the photon's internal mass and in the implementation of a numerical model to test this proposal against experimental results achieved by a experiment involving quantum decay.


So until now I have said nothing about What I think about this paper, only playing with the words.
This paper is really interesting as it combines the quantum decay (figure 10) to the photons. I strongly agree with this aspect too, but I should take more time to get in to this experiment, to be able to think what is really happening here.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest