What is the nature of Light Quanta ?
In my opinion this question is similar to other one:
How can the SRT be understood ?

More than 100 years have passed when SRT was created
but the discussions about it are still going on .

I suggest my own opinion about SRT (Light Quanta & Vacuum)
=== .

One of the SRT laws says:
The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
equal to : c=1. No other particles can reach such speed.
If all the other particles cannot reach this seed it means
they are absolutely different particles. Their abilities
are absolutely another. And if they absolutely different,
so we cannot compare them. From our school days
we know that to compare two incommensurable quantities
is not possible.
It is the same as to compare the elephant and the whale.
We can see the elephant in the safari and the whale in the
ocean. But we cannot meet them together in the same
reference frame.
Therefore I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.

Once again:
The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
equal to : c=1. In the Vacuum !!!
The conditions of safari created the geometrical form of elephant.
The conditions of ocean created the geometrical form of the whale.
Then we must suppose that the conditions of Vacuum have the
influence on the geometrical form of Light Quanta.

Question: What are the conditions of Vacuum ?
1.
The matter ( and its density) in the Universe is very small.
This small mass cannot roll the Universe into sphere therefore
the Universe must be infinite.
2.
This infinite space is Kingdom of Cold.
Now it is considered that the temperature of this Kingdom
is: T= 2,7K. But this quantity is not constant, it is relative
and decreases, and in the future will reach T= 0K.
and the laws of thermodynamics say: the particles in the
Kingdom of Cold (T= 0K) cannot have volume. It means
they are flat particles. And from all flat geometrical forms
the most symmetrical is circle: c/d= pi = 3,14
3.
According to Quantum Theory the Vacuum is some kind
of energetic space, it means the particles, the Light Quanta
are also some kind of energetic power.

All discussions are tautology without understanding what Vacuum is.

So, in my opinion, the Quantum of Light is some kind of
energetic particle with flat geometrical form of circle.
But if the Quantum of Light always moves only with constant
speed c=1, then, it seems, it is a mad particle. Thinking in such
way it is hard to understand its importance in our life.
But SRT helps us to understand that this view on the Quantum
of Light is wrong. The SRT says: its laws depend on the movement
of the Quantum of Light.
Once again.
The SRT laws (Lorentz transformation ) explain us how the behaviour
( movement ) of the Quantum of Light changes.
The theory says : in the movement
a) the mass and energy of Quantum of Light changes.
b) the geometrical form (circle) of Quantum of Light changes
c) the time of its life changes.
(according to Lorentz transformation )
==== .
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus

http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
===================== . .

Comment by Jim.
==

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, socratus wrote:
>
> What is the nature of Light Quanta ?
> In my opinion this question is similar to other one:
> How can the SRT be understood ?

Thank you for zeroing in of the heart of the issues. Light quanta is
what exhibits relative energy and everything including space time is
exhibited by perception of relative energy.

> More than 100 years have passed when SRT was created
> but the discussions about it are still going on .
>
> I suggest my own opinion about SRT (Light Quanta & Vacuum)
> === .
>
> One of the SRT laws says:
> The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
> equal to : c=1. No other particles can reach such speed.
> If all the other particles cannot reach this seed it means
> they are absolutely different particles. Their abilities
> are absolutely another. And if they absolutely different,
> so we cannot compare them. From our school days
> we know that to compare two incommensurable quantities
> is not possible.

As Feynman proclaimed, nothing in quantum logical electro dynamical
kinetic action is like a particle or a wave.

> It is the same as to compare the elephant and the whale.
> We can see the elephant in the safari and the whale in the
> ocean. But we cannot meet them together in the same
> reference frame.

We can say momentum was exchanged between electrons by the change in
momentum state they exhibit. But our notion that "something"
transferred the momentum, the photon and the anti photon, cannot be
modeled as a particles or a waves.

> Therefore I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.

Equal and opposite quantum logical action, exhiobits kinetic momentum
transfer, experienced as "the electrodynamics of moving bodies", is
the title of Einstein's 1905 paper introducing special relativity..

> Once again:
> The speed of Light Quanta in the Vacuum is constant
> equal to : c=1. In the Vacuum !!!

I must stipulate that this is by local measurement according to your
own ruler and clock. Light appears slower in a relatively denser
vacuum although measurement in the denser quantum logical electro
dynamical kinetic structure are non the wiser and experience no effect
of compaction of their rulers or slowing of their clocks They
measure light speed as constant with respect to their rules no matter
how long others figure their rulers to be relatively. The length of
the ruler never changes locally independent of motion or local
mass/energy density as it is perceived relatively.

> The conditions of safari created the geometrical form of elephant.
> The conditions of ocean created the geometrical form of the whale.
> Then we must suppose that the conditions of Vacuum have the
> influence on the geometrical form of Light Quanta.

The geometrical form of the light quanta is two dimensional, equal and
opposite change in quantum logical electro dynamical kinnetic space
time. A 10 meter antenna receives photons ten meters in size and can
receive half the photons twice that size and so on by increases size
exhibited by delay elements in the curcuit. An electron state changes
by the effective distance of the size of the photon, x=c*h/e, locally
in logical state space and fraction of collective space time.

> Question: What are the conditions of Vacuum ?
> 1.
> The matter ( and its density) in the Universe is very small.

This is a contrested point. The vacuum energy has the effect of 185
Giga Electron Volts per cubic centimeter. As John Wheeler proclaimed,
the vacuum is only marginally less dense than matter. At the same
time, the vacuum is the zero point we measure relative to. We only
measure values directly that are higher than the vacuum energy. We
see energy flow from high energy to low. We can never see them
directly going below the vacuum energy as that is the lowest energy
around. It is not that the vacuum energy is small, it is that it
necessariily appears to be zero independent of how much energy it
contains.

> This small mass cannot roll the Universe into sphere therefore
> the Universe must be infinite.

This does not follow exactly. We cake an error of catagory
considering a photon a rest mass. As the photon has no rest mass it
cannot be considered a small mass. It's mass is determined by its
energy by e=m*c^2. That it does not exhibit a rest mass locally does
not mean the universe is not contained in finite time. At the same
time, photons looping logically do exhibit a rest frame and thus a
rest mass. Photons slowed by mass density or relative motion in their
local space appear slower than light and thus exhibit a rest frame.
Certainly the observable universe is contained in finite time and the
existence of unobservables is dubious. Belief that anything infinite
has been constructed in finite time is contradicted by the necessity
of renormalization of quantum logical system to remove all infinities
to get the answers that agree with experience.

> 2.
> This infinite space is Kingdom of Cold.
> Now it is considered that the temperature of this Kingdom
> is: T= 2,7K. But this quantity is not constant, it is relative
> and decreases, and in the future will reach T= 0K.
> and the laws of thermodynamics say: the particles in the
> Kingdom of Cold (T= 0K) cannot have volume. It means
> they are flat particles. And from all flat geometrical forms
> the most symmetrical is circle: c/d= pi = 3,14

If we believe the second law of thermodynamics we are falsly led to
the conclusion that T goes to zero in finite time. However, this is
impossible by the third law of thermodynamics. When a system achives
motion to the mazimal entropy, T=0, the motion that brings it to that
state cannot be stopped and any motion moves it away from equalibrim.
Absolute zero can never be obtained by a thermodynamic system.

But the issue is much deeper than this. We can achieve extremely low
temperatures and see light slowed down by slow quantum action down to
stopped light. We cannot really stop light due to the no cloning
theorum which can be related to the third law. But the slowed light
is only a relative perpective. Locally the light is always at the
same speed and they do not consider it slow. They would measure
exactly c. While the universe might be cold and slow from our current
perspective, it will not be slow for the inhabitants of the future
world.

> 3.
> According to Quantum Theory the Vacuum is some kind
> of energetic space, it means the particles, the Light Quanta
> are also some kind of energetic power.

No. Equal and opposite kinetic quantum logical action need not
involve any change in energy. Action of change of state to a higher
or lower energy is a matter of relative perspective. The notion of
energy emerges, it is not fundimental. It is true that higher energy
determines the clocking of quantum logical interaction from our
perspective by there is nothing preferred about our perspective.

> All discussions are tautology without understanding what Vacuum is.

We have no call to presume anything exists besides equal and opposite
quantum logical interactions. What we call the vacuum is simply the
space and time exhibited by delays in quantum logical interaction.
What we consider physical distance, is the perceived logical distance
of logic propagating at light speed locally according to our physical
logical perspective and logical action at the speed of light.

> So, in my opinion, the Quantum of Light is some kind of
> energetic particle with flat geometrical form of circle.

Well, it exhibits two half dimensional vectors, one lateral and one
transverse, so if is certainly flat. In that it obeys half spin
networks at any relative frequency we can consider its cycle as a sort
of a circle. That the linear momentum exhibited is a two pi multiple
the angular momentum supports this circular view.

But, is is not actually a particle or a circle. As you have already
said, to define it as such represents a category error.

> But if the Quantum of Light always moves only with constant
> speed c=1, then, it seems, it is a mad particle. Thinking in such
> way it is hard to understand its importance in our life.

It is so mad, the direction of travel is not even necessarily the same
for all observers. The perceived logical ordering depends on both
position and motion.

> But SRT helps us to understand that this view on the Quantum
> of Light is wrong. The SRT says: its laws depend on the movement
> of the Quantum of Light.
> Once again.
> The SRT laws (Lorentz transformation ) explain us how the behaviour
> ( movement ) of the Quantum of Light changes.
> The theory says : in the movement
> a) the mass and energy of Quantum of Light changes.
> b) the geometrical form (circle) of Quantum of Light changes
> c) the time of its life changes.
> (according to Lorentz transformation )

What is constant is our perception of light speed, or the rate of
quantum logical kinetic electro dynamical interaction locally. What
covaries is the perception of space time and energy relatively as far
as everyone else is concerned from other positions and varying
relative motion. Logical interactions are absolute, but their
orderings and size, and thus how much space and time they exhibit is
only relative. What we call space and time is that which is exhibited
locally. There is no global preferred notion of size or time.

Only the direction of time is absolute, as interaction events are
experienced only once by the direct participants and never again
exhibiting only positive time and space in relative degree but in
absolute immutable local orderings all relative participants agree to.

The notion of the moving flat circular twist, right handed to exchange
momentum between electrons, or left handed to exchange momentum
between positrons, may help us comprehend the action of a quanta, but
in characterizing quanta as particles and waves we are embellishing
simple equal and opposite half spin twists with a deeper reality than
they actually posses. Ultimately, doing so, will lead us to the wrong
answers and the false believe that the quantum is strange.

Jim
> ==== .
> Best wishes
> Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
>
>http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
> ===================== . .
>
>

Which Nebula is Real?
Oct 14, 2009
What is a theory? What is science? What is reality?

Doing philosophy is like sculpting fog. The abstractions to be investigated have ambiguous and shifting forms, and their traces are the vortices left by human thought in evening mists. Most scientists most of the time are well-advised to eschew it. It has little relevance for working within the boundaries of accepted theories.

However, the history of science shows that progress involves long stretches of development couched within boundaries that are interrupted by episodes of theory change. During the quiet times, accumulating data and modified ideas, along with new instruments and many other influences, push scientists toward the boundaries. They begin to trespass beyond them.

Outside the boundaries, the fog sculptures come alive and bite. Some theories go extinct; others proliferate and come to dominate the scientific ecosystem. Careers change. Textbooks are replaced. Grants go to other projects.

For the astrophysicist, an electron is a particle of matter with momentum that is described in part by Newtons laws. It goes bump in the night sky and causes shock waves and hot gas in planetary nebulae. The nebulae are explosions of stars that are burning themselves up with internal fusion fires.

For the plasma physicist, an electron is a unit of charge in an electrical current that is described in part by Maxwells equations. It is part of an electrical circuit that causes planetary nebulae to emit synchrotron radiation, to show bipolar symmetry, to have hourglass shapes, to develop toroidal currents around the central star, to display polar jets, and to oscillate in energy output. The nebulae are z-pinches in galactic electrical circuits.

So what is an electron, really? What is a planetary nebula, really? As long as the two physicists stay inside the boundaries of their respective theories, the questions dont arise. The answers are presumed by each theorys axioms of what is real. The criteria of acceptability for each theory (What constitutes evidence? What constitutes an explanation?) dont apply to the other theory. Cross-theory debates can only end in pleonastic proclamations of what is really real: Is not! Is too!

Outside the boundaries, the two theories meet in an evolutionary survival landscape: Its a jungle out there. Criteria of selection are extra-scientific. The question becomes one of market share. How many people are attracted by the promise of a new theory? How many become curious about things that a new theory might enable them to do? How many are bored with the old one and feel that its labyrinthine adjustments to novel data and ideas are a nuisance?

Philosophers worry about how there can be progress toward understanding a hypothetical ultimate reality when the history of science is a succession of contradictory theories, each of which was considered real in its heyday.

Progress can be understood in other than teleological terms: Biologists understand evolution as a bush that grows bigger at each season but has no final form that predetermines each seasons growth. In the same way, the progress of science doesnt need the hypothesis of ultimate reality.

Each theory can have its time to be real, to be a best fit within a larger intellectual ecosystem, without having to live forever. The electron as particle and the nebula as explosion have been useful theories. Eventually, there comes a time when its just time to die.

Mel Acheson

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091014nebula.htm

Socratus
I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.
======== .
Comments:
1.
Sorry, SRT doesn't care about Light Quanta at all.
On the contrary:
SRT is just describing light as a flat wave without any particles at all.
/ Zephir /
2.
SR does not deal with photons.
They pertain to - and initialized - the quantum physics.
Photons are observed by emission and absorption.
What propagates is the other aspect of light - the wave.
Electron waves and field aspects of all particles propagate at C.
/ Georges Metanomski /
3.
Mr. Israel, there is no such thing as quanta of light as it contradicts SR.
The particle wave duality of light fails as this duality of QM works
only for subluminal waves. Photons are not quantum particles
as they violates Uncertainty principle.
/ Dr. Kanda /
===
Socratus:
Why I say the SRT is theory about Light Quanta.

In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper :
On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies. ( SRT).
And the photon is an electrodynamics body particle.
So, the particle - quantum of light is part of SRT.
======== .

Plank came up with the idea of E=hf. This is the minimum energy content of the "photon." In other words the "photon" is not really a thing, or a "noun." It is more of a "verb."

There are four parameters to radiation: speed, frequency, wave length and amplitude, actually only two; if the speed is considered constant, and wave length is the inverse of frequency.

If all there is to energy is "E=hf," then "h," rather bar-h, is the amplitude of the radiation. It is the minimum amplitude of radiation that can affect matter. (frequency without amplitude is not detectable.)

Once the frequency of radiation exceeds the wavelength wherein it interacts with molecules and atoms, it ceases its particulate nature. It is just the particulate nature of matter that makes certain wavelengths of energy seem particulate.

If all there is to energy is "E=hf," then "h," rather bar-h,
is the amplitude of the radiation.
It is the minimum amplitude of radiation that can affect matter.
(frequency without amplitude is not detectable.)
/ First Grader /
== .
Question to First Grader:
What is the border of the minimum amplitude ?
=== .

In my peasant opinion the " photon" is a particle,
or a " noun.", who can act as a " verb."
It means photon ( as a " noun." ) can produce wave length
acting ( as a " verb." ), according to formula E =h*f,
where h* is corpuscular, who has spin h/2pi.
Spin h/2pi means the particle rotates around its axis.

Now I can clearly understand and read the formula E =h*f :
The particle ( h ) rotate around of its axis ( h* = 2pi )
is action of frequency (f) which make up energy (E ).

As result of this action is possible to detect electrical
wave length in surroundings .

Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
==== .

The Photon is only found to have "spin" in the vicinity of matter. It is never detected until it reacts with matter. You can picture light traveling to you, but all you see is the interaction of the radiation with your eyes.

I think the Photon can interact with matter
only using its own electrical de Broglies waves.
=== .
S

Comment by Vern:

I think you stated the answer to your question.
h bar is h divided by 2 PI.
2 PI is the amount of radians it takes to make a circle.
So h bar injects the circle into the argument.
Since the circle is usually in the argument, it is just a short cut.
/ Vern /

Is it a "circle," or a "sphere?"

Is it a "circle," or a "sphere ? "
/First Grader /
=== .

What is the nature of Light Quanta ?
1.
According to the laws of thermodynamics :
the particles in the
Kingdom of Cold / Vacuum(T= 0K) cannot have volume.
It means they are flat particles. And from all flat
geometrical forms the most symmetrical is circle:
c/d= pi = 3,14
The flat particles have potential energy; E=Mc^2.
2.
After spin h* = h/ 2pi the circle changes / rolls into sphere.
The potential energy: E=Mc^2 changes into active energy: E=h*f
=== .
S.

1.
h is Quantum of action.
2.
h exists because angular momentum is quantized..
h is not a particle, either.
3.
h is (h) just a constant of nature.
h has no spin, h is just a constant
( h) isn't the particle. Just one of many characteristics it has.
4.
h-bar is the Maltese representation of the Arabic letter ha.
They also have nouns and verbs in Maltese, but theirs actually make
sense to speakers of at least one more language than you do.
5.
. . . .
the inappropriate units of measurement in which
h-bar is too often expressed, most often
Joule-seconds or Newton-meters.
6.
Planck's " h" is a quantity of action. Despite the ambiguity
beloved by present physicists, a quantity is not a particle.
7
Please excuse me for saying so, dear peasant, but you've
been sadly misled by your professors. The quantity h is
not a particle, and it doesn't rotate on its axis
/ glird /
7
Now you are almost completely illicit.
You certainly haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
/ Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA /
==== .
#
There are many opinions about ( h).
And we can see that (h ) as something has
many characteristics.
Question.
To whom do the characteristics belong :
to wave, to Micky Mouse, to Superman . . . . ?

It is hard to me to understand those people who observe
and see only one parameter of some object/ subject.
It reminds me the old story about three blind Indian men
who studied an elephant. One touched the elephants leg
an said it was a column, another one touching a stomach
told it was a ball, and the last holding the tail said it was
a snake. I think the Plank's constant (h ) is a modern
scientific elephant and many experts try to study it
using the blind method.
=== .

I agree with the First Grader on the action of the photon. I have a model that shows the action of the boson - photon. The model can be read here under Guerami under the list of authors. or athttp://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

The Boson under the standard model is action. All the bosons are actions of baryons. We see this from the results of the Standard Model. PBS NOVA and Fermilab.

The four bits of information needed to create a photon are; frequency, wavelength, Temperature and a counter. The photon expresses the baryon's temperature.

Here we see the separation of the photon by magnetism called the Zeeman Effect. Credit NOAO This shows the photon exists as it travels. It vibrates at the speed of light until it is received by another baryon. That baryon calculates it new temperature and emits a photon to tell the next baryon about its temperature. The number of times a baryon changes based on the original photon's energy is the density of baryons.

Planck shows us that the emitting baryon radiates information about its temperature through the boson photon. By using these equations we can evaluate the temperature of a baryon to a very high degree of accuracy.
Wavelength:

Frequency:


These equations tell us the wavelength or frequency based on temperature. This is a redundancy of information.

Overall each boson requires 4 bits of information to express information of the emitting baryon.

Each of these bosons express information about the baryon. Credit:http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

I am working on an experiment that will show magnetism based on position.

The energy of a baryon can be expressed as

Where is the current density of the baryon.
is the previous density of the baryon as stored in the quarks.
The previous density is
Where b and c are the lengths of the gluons and A is the angle between them.
is the change in the baryon's magnetic field or W+/- Boson.
is the change in the baryon's electric field or Z Boson.
os the change in the baryon's temperature field or photon.

Aaron

Aaron, you cannot "see" a photon from the side view. Your picture above does not show a real photon. A bunch of "photons" made the picture.

Amplitude.

There are four parameters to radiation: speed, frequency,
wave length and amplitude, actually only two; if the speed
is considered constant, and wave length is the inverse
of frequency.

If all there is to energy is "E=hf," then "h," rather bar-h,
is the amplitude of the radiation. It is the minimum amplitude
of radiation that can affect matter. (frequency without amplitude
is not detectable.)

Once the frequency of radiation exceeds the wavelength
wherein it interacts with molecules and atoms, it ceases its
particulate nature. It is just the particulate nature of matter
that makes certain wavelengths of energy seem particulate.
/ First Grader /
=================== .
Other comment about Amplitude.

I suspect that the Planck action h derives from
two properties of space. These are electric permittivity
and magnetic permeability. These limit the amplitude
of the electric and magnetic components of photons.
The electric and magnetic amplitude limit of empty space is a constant.
If it were variable it would be part of Planck's equation.
We include only the rate of change of the field in the equation,
E = hv. If the amplitude of v were allowed to vary,
that amplitude would be in the equation.
/ Vern /
==================== .
What is conclusion ?
a)
The electric and magnetic amplitude ( of particle, I hope)
limit of empty space is a constant. / / Vern
b)
If it were variable it would be part of Planck's equation.
/ Vern /
c)
It is the minimum amplitude of radiation that can affect matter.
(frequency without amplitude is not detectable.)
/ First Grader /
==== .
Questions .
1.
What is the border of the minimum amplitude ?
2.
We have formula: E=h*f
h is corpuscular,
f is frequency (wave length , amplitude )
these two qualities unit in one formula.
How to explain the unity of this strange DUALISM ?
======= .
S.

Socratus, I am thinking about your questions and comments. I will respond later today.

Thanks
Aaron

Amplitude.

There are four parameters to radiation: speed, frequency,
wave length and amplitude, actually only two; if the speed
is considered constant, and wave length is the inverse
of frequency.
---
I suggest that there are 4 variables needed to create a photon. The emitting atom must provide Temperature, Frequency, Wavelength and a counter. This is similar to your 4 parameters. But there is a difference.

The counter counts the number of spins that occurred from emission. From this information the absorbing atom can calculate the radiation impact upon itself from the emitting atom's photon.

Yes, the wavelength and frequency are redundant data. But redundancy is needed since magnetism can affect the photon during transit.
************

If all there is to energy is "E=hf," then "h," rather bar-h,
is the amplitude of the radiation. It is the minimum amplitude
of radiation that can affect matter. (frequency without amplitude
is not detectable.)
---
The energy of the atom radiating the photon is what we need to evaluate. The energy of the atom is not E=hf nor does E=mc^2. The reason E does not equal hf is because h is a 1 dimensional variable. These equations are close enough to resolve some ideas but not to get the whole energy system.

The energy of an atom is equal to the previous density + the changes in the atom's fields.

where the previous density =


I know this is not what is published in books. This is something I came up with when evaluating gravity and energy.

The nice part about those two general equations is we can insert Plank's Black body spectral equations into the temperature field. We can insert other equations into the magnetic field and electric field variables. from there we can calculate the energy of the atom. When we are done, our equations should have no constants.

It is not possible for 19th or early 20th century scientists to have solved this problem. We did not have enough data. We just got data back from IBEX. IBEX shows that magnetism from the sun ~'carves a bubble in the interstellar medium'. That may not be the exact quote. But it confirms what I have been saying about Dark Matter and Magnetism.
**********

Once the frequency of radiation exceeds the wavelength
wherein it interacts with molecules and atoms, it ceases its
particulate nature. It is just the particulate nature of matter
that makes certain wavelengths of energy seem particulate.
/ First Grader /
---
I wish first grader would put his/her name to its comments. When I examine these bosons I cannot find any particulate nature. Everything oscillates. Thus all bosons are vibrations not particles. The vibrations can be measured with an oscilloscope.The reason bosons are vibrations is because the atom oscillates.

Particles require stasis.
***********
=================== .
Other comment about Amplitude.

I suspect that the Planck action h derives from
two properties of space. These are electric permittivity
and magnetic permeability. These limit the amplitude
of the electric and magnetic components of photons.
The electric and magnetic amplitude limit of empty space is a constant.
If it were variable it would be part of Planck's equation.
We include only the rate of change of the field in the equation,
E = hv. If the amplitude of v were allowed to vary,
that amplitude would be in the equation.
/ Vern /
---
Energy is a 4 dimensional field, h and v are only 2 of those dimensions.
==================== .
What is conclusion ?
a)
The electric and magnetic amplitude ( of particle, I hope)
limit of empty space is a constant. / / Vern
---
I don't understand this. I describe empty space as filled with Dark Matter. I describe the mechanics and structure of dark matter in my blog.http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

b)
If it were variable it would be part of Planck's equation.
/ Vern /
This is not necessarily true. Planck uses 8pi to describe the shape of an atom/object. I have shown that 8pi or perfect spheres cannot exist in nature. Again 8pi is a constant.

c)
It is the minimum amplitude of radiation that can affect matter.
(frequency without amplitude is not detectable.)
/ First Grader /
We don't know what the minimum amplitude of radiation that can affect a baryon. Anyone who says they do is lying. We don't have enough information to answer this question.
********

Questions .
1.
What is the border of the minimum amplitude ?
2.
We have formula: E=h*f
h is corpuscular,
f is frequency (wave length , amplitude )
these two qualities unit in one formula.
How to explain the unity of this strange DUALISM ?
---
I will think some more on these questions, but I think I have already answered them.

Aaron Guerami
http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

Aaron said: It is not possible for 19th or early 20th century scientists to have solved this problem. We did not have enough data. We just got data back from IBEX. IBEX shows that magnetism from the sun ~'carves a bubble in the interstellar medium'. That may not be the exact quote. But it confirms what I have been saying about Dark Matter and Magnetism.

Anonymous says: It's not "about Dark Matter and Magnetism." It's about "Electric Current and Magnetism." You can't have one without the other without a big old piece of Alnico* or something.

Dark Matter is on the same plane as "Virtual Particles."

*alnico
/ælnko/
noun
a permanent-magnet alloy having aluminum, nickel, and cobalt as its principal ingredients.

Dark Matter is starting to be shown in mainstream physics in its reaction to baryonic matter. The IBEX pictures are just the beginning. People are starting to see the reaction to magnetism that dark matter properties show. My theory shows that dark matter reacts to magnetism. This pressurization of dark matter creates a bubble/area of baryonic matter that is based on density. The stronger the pressurization of dark matter the more dense the baryonic matter bubble.

In this theory I have shown the structure and properties of dark matter and their interactions with baryonic matter.

I describe this athttp://aaronsreality.blogspot.com or under author Guerami at GSJ's published papers.

Thanks
Aaron

http://www.unquantum.net/

http://www.wbabin.net/erdmann/erdmann.htm http://www.wbabin.net/erdmann/erdmann2.pdf

In §VI of the paper "Gravitation and electromagnetism - Introduction to the theory of informatons", published in THE GSJ (nov 05), an alternative idea is evolved for a better understanding of the duality of light.

I am going to read your papers. I think the evaluation of information in physics will change how we look at the interactions or fields of the forces(Bosons).

I see major differences in the theories. We have very different concepts. I must read your papers several times before I discuss them. If your read my papers at GSJ Author: Aaron Guerami. You will see that these are vastly different concepts.

Aaron

Antoine Acke,

The main concept of your paper is mass.

This comes from my paper Disproof of Gravity

2) Commutitive
The mathematics of gravity is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume.
This is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional
densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be
returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but
another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition.

Lets look at some of the equations and how gravity fails at a fundamental level.
F=ma : Force equals mass times acceleration.
We have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that does not equal a 3
dimensional field. So the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test.

This alone should disprove gravity.

Aaron

Antoine Acke,

The main concept of your paper is mass.

This comes from my paper Disproof of Gravity

2) Commutitive
The mathematics of gravity is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume.
This is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional
densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be
returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but
another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition.

Lets look at some of the equations and how gravity fails at a fundamental level.
F=ma : Force equals mass times acceleration.
We have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that does not equal a 3
dimensional field. So the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test.

This alone should disprove gravity.

Aaron

From the same paper

F = G(M1*M2)/r^2 : Force = The constant of Gravity * (The zero dimensional mass 1 * The zero
dimensional mass 2)/ The 3 dimensional length between them squared. So every object pulls
every other object. The dimensional problem occurs again.

A constant is what is used to fill in the gaps. When things do not work the way we want them to,
we just add a constant to fix the problem. When the equation no longer works, we change the
constants value.

Physicists know about this problem. They created gravity waves and shell modeling to
compensate for the dimensionless mass. But gravity is still dimensionless. The dimensionless
mass cannot create a 3 dimensional shape.

We all know that gravity collapses under the scrutiny of the tiny. Quantum level objects do not
show any signs of gravity. The particle accelerators prove this. They have yet to find any force
that works as gravity is described.

Aaron

In the context of my paper, the concept POINT MASS is introduced to describe the limit situation if the REAL MASS is concentrated in an infinitesimal (three dimensional) volume. A "real" mass can be substituted by a "point" mass if its dimensions are negligible compared to the distances to other masses in space. Gauss's theorem (conservation of g-information in my paper) allows to expand certain conclusions in relation to point masses to solid bodies.

"In the context of my paper, the concept POINT MASS is introduced to describe the limit situation if the REAL MASS is concentrated in an infinitesimal (three dimensional) volume. A "real" mass can be substituted by a "point" mass if its dimensions are negligible compared to the distances to other masses in space. Gauss's theorem (conservation of g-information in my paper) allows to expand certain conclusions in relation to point masses to solid bodies."
-------

Real objects are densities. Masses are not real objects. Masses represent real objects, but are not real.

All masses do NOT have length, width, or depth. All masses are specifically missing their physical dimensions. This is a requirement for being a mass described by Newton. All masses are dimensionless. A mass only represents a weight. The Earth and a coin occupy the same space as a mass. It is not possible for a mass to exist in nature.

The differences between mass and density are tremendous. Besides the obvious dimensional problems. Real objects have length, width, depth, and a weight. Real objects occupy a location in the physical universe. Real objects have a temperature; hot or cold. Real objects have a magnetic field; strong or less strong. Real objects have an electric field, measured in amps, volts and watts. This is described, in detail, in Structure of a Baryon - revised

Real objects do NOT necessarily pull on each other. This is not inline with Newton's model of gravity.

It does not matter if you changes the words from variables to 'informaton'. Conceptually you are describing Classical Newtonian Mechanics. And you understand the model well. The problem is with Classical Mechanics.

There are questions every scientist should ask. Is the solution valid? Does it pass validity existence constraints? Does the predictive solution take into consideration all the variables required to prove existence. Real objects are not represented by mass. Real objects are not described by mass. Thus...

Gravity does not exist.

Aaron Guerami
http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

I accept the existence of mass as an ATTRIBUTE OF A MATERIAL OBJECT: the rest mass is the quantity that determines the rate at which an object emits g-information. This is expressed in rule A of the "postulate of the emission of informatons". (The relativistic mass is the quantity that determines the rate at which a moving object emits g-information if the time is defined by a clock anchored at the moving object - § IV.2 of the paper)

The gravitational field is identified with the cloud of g-information created and maintained by the emission of informatons (§I of the paper).

Gravitational interaction between bodies is explained as the reaction on the disturbance of het summetry of the gravitational field around a body (the cloud of g-information) by the g-field generated by the other bodies (the flow of g-information generated by the other bodies (§II of the paper)).

The model you have described is based in zero physical dimensions. Two masses the Earth and the Sun occupy the same space in this model. They have different distances but the space they occupy has no volume. Mass can not hold any more information then weight at a point in space.

Mass is a data construct. Newton's construct of mass is brilliant. We put people on the moon with this construct. It is close for large objects, but it lacks precision. It is a 400+ year old construct. It is not the correct model for baryonic motion. We are just now getting data from GOCE, IBEX and other spacecraft that show us that this model is incorrect.

Mass holds the information on different objects. It is a data structure.
ID
Name
position in x, y, z
weight of object.

That is the only information that mass can hold.

1.In Newtonian physics, the interaction between earth and sun is studied AS IF these celestial bodies WERE POINT MASSES. This is justified by the theorem of Gauss (law of conservation of g-information in my paper): the external field of an homogeneous spherical body with mass m is the same as the field created and maintained by an (imaginary) point mass m located in the centre of the sphere.

2.The "theory of informatons" describes a gravitational field with TWO COMPONENTS: the g-field (§I and II in my paper)and the beta-field (§III and IV in my paper). The g-field corresponds to the "classical" gravitational field of a material object; the beta-field appears when the object is moving (translating and/or rotating). So, the "theory of informatons" INCLUDES AND EXTENDS the Newtonian mechanics. In daily circumstances (on earth), the effects of the beta-field are masked by the effects of the g-field.

3.The "theory of informatons" is - just like all theories - a CONSTRUCT OF THE REASON, a mathematically supported logical "language game" devised to understand certain phenomena in the world. It is TRUE within the framework of its assumptions.

I will think about your above points.

Here is another issue. The Graviton. The Standard Model does not describe a graviton. They have given up looking for a graviton. More recent studies at CERN and other labs is to find the Higgs Boson. The Higgs is suppose to tie mass into matter. The Higgs is suppose to convert the zero dimensional mass to three dimensional matter. They have already found all the parts. The graviton is not one of them.

Gravity does not exist. Because of that Zero Dimensional problem.

Aaron Guerami
http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

If the model causes there to be no physical dimensions, then the model does not match nature. This should be the question every physicist ask. Does my model or what I am professing match nature?

a