Gravity & Strong Force

[Siggy_G]

Exciting news about making photons out of Sii.
Experiments at the Chalmers Institute of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden have managed to make photons out of "nothing". The results of the experiments support the speculation that under the right circumstances free floating energy strings can be stimulated into forming stable, cooperative balls of energy, in this case photons.

I read the article (in Swedish! There's also Google Translate for others with some odd translations). I find it plausable that space is filled with a plenum of polarizable particles, like Wal Thornhill has described. However, I'm still not convinced about their method and conclusion in this experiment:

Due to physical constraints, instead of using a fast-moving physical mirror for mirroring (and "pushing") the virtual photons into detectable wavelengths, they use an electric discharge column that is controlled back and forth at 0.25 c with use of an magnetic field. "The discharge then works as a mirror for microwaves".

Then how exactly do they know that they simply aren't initiating the photoelectric effect of the surely not-perfect vacuum in this experiment? I.e. some random particles in the medium are hit by the electric discharge/jet which in turn excites (real) photons. Conventiently, they couldn't use this experiment to initiate other particles (as otherwize according to the theory) due to energy requirements, but that may as well be due to the photoelectric effect not exciting other particles than photons in this scenario.

[Bengt Nyman]

Then how exactly do they know that they simply aren't ...

Agreed. The result of the experiment is interesting but certainly not conclusive. After all, photons are easily liberated by a number of simple physical processes.
Comment: I wish physics would agree on a definition of what constitutes a particle. To me anything with mass is a particle. Energy without mass is energy. A photon is apparently a large enough energy cooperative to near the border between the two.
I would be much more comfortable with Wal Thornhill supporting the idea of polarized energy strings rather than calling them particles.

[Sparky]

From string to particle.
Theoretically it appears that the smallest energy constituent in the universe is a tiny energy string. A thin, invisible atmosphere of tiny energy strings is what we call a cloud of dark energy. When enough energy strings get together to form a ball of intertwined closed loops you may have a particle. Due to the nature and natural frequency of the primary energy strings there are only specific cooperations and formations of strings that create stable particles. This is also how particles by adding or loosing energy strings or clusters of energy strings convert from one type of particle to another.
Being able to observe this integration of primary energy strings into one of the smallest of string cooperatives; the photon, is a great achievement.

...here we go again... ..NIMI forum material...

If you have a vibrating string, you have a particle, at least.

What mechanism collects, constrains, and organizes "energy" into any sort of configuration? ...

Theoretical physicists are magicians who believe their own tricks are real....

[Bengt Nyman]

If you have a vibrating string, you have a particle, at least.

I don't agree:
"In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass."
The whole essence of E=mc^2 is the fact that all mass can be dissolved into mass-less and particle-free pure energy strings.

[webolife]

Or perhaps, E=mc^2 aside, that "energetic" [I prefer "dynamical"] force/pressure vectors [don't care for strings much] centrally directed give rise to the property of those centroids we refer to as mass.

[Sparky]

If you have a vibrating string, you have a particle, at least.

I don't agree:
"In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass."

agreed.....so , we have these so called, small localized objects, which are too small to calculate volume or mass, therefore we make a wild jump in speculation to "pure energy"? come on?!
that is a belief, based on voodoo math! If you had not been indoctrinated in the "quantum cult", would you feel comfortable even saying such a thing? I just watched a PBS program on string theory, and the physicists explaining it said it was strange and unbelievable, but went ahead and followed the "party line", in obvious discomfort. They know it is nonsense...well, some do..

The whole essence of E=mc^2 is the fact that all mass can be dissolved into mass-less and particle-free pure energy strings.

What!!?? energy in a mass is liberated as heat and/or particles!
e=mc^2 only indicates, at best, the amount of energy released when the binding forces of an atom are broken....the equation is questionable, as far as any further translation from that conclusion. And e=mc^2 can probably be most accurately described as nonsense. But it has such a large and powerful cult following, few will expose it's flaws.

"Strings" are a fantasy. Not falsifiable, therefore, not science.

[Bengt Nyman]

Come on?!... belief based on voodoo math ... indoctrinated ... quantum cult ... strange ... unbelievable ... party line ... discomfort ... nonsense ... What!!?? ... the equation is questionable ... e=mc^2 nonsense ... cult following ... "Strings" fantasy ... Not falsifiable ... not science.

Hi Sparky,
I agree that some elements of the standard model can give rise to both disgust and anger.
I my case it was primarily Albert Einsteins circular nonsense about gravity that was rubbing me the wrong way.
Now that I have shown that gravity and strong force are the results of net electrostatic dipole attraction I forgive the old man. I want to move on and try to understand what is going on in the sub-nuclear world.
What is the structure of our smallest known particles like the neutrino and the photon ?
We can not explain these structures with smaller and smaller particles i.e. smaller and smaller grains of sand.
Somewhere we have to take the leap from matter to energy.
We all know energy in many forms; we see light, we sense the radiated heat from a fire. These forms of energy are not little grains of sand, no matter how much we want to stay in the material world.

You tell me Sparky, in your opinion, what is a photon made of ?

[Sparky]

what is a photon made of ?

You don't have to go that small to find a mystery..

hell, i just found out that there are twenty some phases of water! could there be more?

have you seen video of a tornado hitting a farm. pieces of things, animals, all sorts of stuff, flying through the air. well, isn't that where particle physics is, looking at pieces of atoms? without a picture of the farm before, how can all of those pieces be assembled into the original? we don't really have a good picture of an atom do we? how can we take all of the pieces that fly out and make real sense of them?

photons? i lean toward particles, but i would accept wave propagation through a particle aether if proven. what's inside? well, what comes out when you smash one? can they be broken open? maybe they contain the particles that mediate the strong force? doesn't discreet energy levels suggest particles?

[Bengt Nyman]

maybe they contain the particles that mediate the strong force

Sparky oh Sparky. You have not done your homework. No gluons required remember:
http://www.dipole.se

P.S. Don't be afraid to think outside your particle.

[webolife]

Bengt,
I am intrigued by your use of the word "material" [in the post before your previous one] as opposed to "energy", and generally agree with this dichotomy. Both are considered "physical" as I see it. I use "force" or "pressure" instead of energy because it seems to more simply describe the effect of "energetic" action. Do you follow my thinking here?

[Bengt Nyman]

Bengt,
I use "force" or "pressure" instead of energy ...

The word "force" makes me think of two bodies interacting, like two bodies colliding and deforming before rebounding and accelerating apart again. Or two dipoles turning their opposite charges toward each other resulting in attraction such as gravity and strong force.
Pressure makes me think of a volume of gas compressed and held in confinement, thereby prevented from escaping into a surrounding of lower pressure. Pressure also makes me think of an explosion creating locally high pressure, dissipating its energy by sending shock waves through its surrounding.
"Energy", besides being the mathematical quantification of work, has for me also taken on a more physical shape:
I have this vision of a tiny energy string. It consists of one wavelength of an incredibly high frequency. It floats around undisturbed while vibrating end to end; as if its two ends reflected its energy back onto itself again. It has the ability to collide with another Sii in such a way that if the momentarily high energy end of one touches the momentarily low energy end of the other, the two can fuse into a longer string. One end of a longer string can also encounter the other end of itself, fusing into a closed loop recirculating standing wave. Stable configurations of closed loop strings running through each others vortex could be the structure of our simplest particles.
The photon, for example, might be a train of Sii which when encountering collisions rolls up into a ball, temporarily behaving like a particle.
The neutrino, showing signs of mass, might be a more complex nest of closed loop recirculating strings where the energy of the strings, denied the ability to live out their potential for speed, manifests itself as mass and inertia.

P.S. I see your fascination for the DNA helix. Maybe it is a picture of how long strings like to organize themselves into little compact packages, like particles.

[Sparky]

I wish physics would agree on a definition of what constitutes a particle. To me anything with mass is a particle. Energy without mass is energy-------I have this vision of a tiny energy string.

may i suggest that any energy that has a "form", is a particle.

energy, outside the confinement of a particle, whatever that is, can not be described as a string, ball, nor even a blob. energy, does not take a shape when it is transfered from one particle to another. it is incorporated.

so, we have these tiny strings that vibrate at different frequencies?

Very high frequencies! well, duh?! the smaller the string, the higher the frequency...look inside a piano...big strings for low notes, thin strings for the high notes....

put enough tension on the smallest string, assuming it never breaks, stretching, snipping, stretching, etc., etc., and you could theoretically have one of your "strings"....and it would vibrate at a very high frequency....and because you can not determine it's mass, you assume that it is energy, forming a confining, defining area of itself. A pseudo-particle??!!

I read somewhere that an electron takes on mass if placed in a charged sphere? If mass in an indication of a particle, then increased mass would be additional particulate matter. a charge is particulate matter.

is charge energy?

[Bengt Nyman]

I read somewhere that an electron takes on mass if placed in a charged sphere?

That fits !
I am suggesting that energy strings held in confinement, locked in place, unable to move, show their energy in form of mass; m=E/c^2.

[phyllotaxis]

I wish physics would agree on a definition of what constitutes a particle. To me anything with mass is a particle. Energy without mass is energy-------I have this vision of a tiny energy string.

energy, outside the confinement of a particle, whatever that is, can not be described as a string, ball, nor even a blob. energy, does not take a shape when it is transfered from one particle to another. it is incorporated.

Some call it aether...

[Sparky]

phyll, "Aether" is even more ambiguous...If you are suggesting that an aether is a field of "energy", then i present the same argument.
Energy is contained within matter, not floating around as a field or blob. energy is not a substance.

Aether, if it exists, is matter/particles, and they contain energy.

If your aether is energy as a field, then that is a subject for metaphysics, quantum theory, etc...


*********************

Bengt, I am suggesting that energy strings held in confinement, locked in place, unable to move, show their energy in form of mass; m=E/c^2.

that may be, but i doubt it.... mass is a quality of matter , is it not? why does matter require it's energy to be in the form of strings? And what confines them to begin with??!!! This would mean that energy transmission would require movement of "strings", between masses.... Is that what you are implying?...

But strings' frequency define the mass/matter that they will produce?
Dissimilar matter, would exchange energy that they did not formally possess??!!

This equation, m=E/c^2 , does not reflect reality. In any what way that it appears to is an illusion, or creates an illusion for some observers.

so, explain what the relationship is of c to mass, mechanically?

could there be any other speed that would work?

could there be an electro-physical constant, unrelated to speed?