Are Photons and Electrons Really 'Real'?

Post Reply New Topic

In my theory, electromagnetic energy has to be bent unto itself before it can form a particle that contains mass. It still retains the net momentum vector in this process, as that is the key to understanding if the particle forms matter or anti-matter. Electromagnetic energy is really 3-D, as in a spinal of two vectors. One vector is the electro portion while the other is the magnetic portion. They are offset by ninety degrees.

This model of “light” energy naturally spirals towards a direction as it moves in physical space. If one looks at this spiral from the side, it would appear as the familiar 2-D wave that most textbooks talk about. Now, if the electro vector is bent with the natural curvature and meets up with itself, it will form a particle of matter. This is the most likely result in interactions and leads to a great abundance of matter over anti-matter. Going against the natural curvature is much harder to do, but can lead to the formation of a particle of anti-matter.

Photons are a bit tricky to explain, as the spiral becomes internally tangled, it will gain some properties. Yet it does not gain mass because the electro vector does not form a complete loop with ends touching. This temporary internal loop is easy to reverse, so you can think of them forming and reforming constantly. Neutrinos are incomplete loops, so they do not have full properties of matter and do not interact with matter because of this .

Electromagnetic energy is what most people refer to as light. I look at it as the thread that makes up everything else that we consider particles. Time does not exist without the movement of this energy. The length of the “light” vectors (electro and magnetic) is greatly dependent upon the amount of energy that it contains. Radio waves are very short pieces, while cosmic gammas are extremely long in comparison. The pieces have to be of the right length to be absorbed by other particles, leading to the quantum excitation/emission processes of electrons. If the piece is too long or short, it will not match up with the particle’s vector ends and cannot be absorbed as a whole part. Properties of particles are created by the bending of these energy vectors to create particles.

Yes. It is an odd usage of the word "vector".

A vector is usually a direction something is moving, not a thing. What angle, what speed. Like that.

Though the medical profession talks about "vectors for disease" (ie fleas on rats are a vector for bubonic plague), but even that usage means "a direction from which a disease comes at the human race". So its still means "an angle" or "a direction".

As strange as it sounds, the vector of electromagnetic energy in my theory is both a direction of movement and the object moving itself. I wish I could define it better, but that is the best explanation that I can come up with yet. We have no way currently to be able to directly measure the electromagnetic energy substructure if it exists. So, I am sticking with vectors until this can be done.

Planck's constant and length could very well be tied with the width of electromagnetic vectors. Nothing can be made smaller than that length because everything is made from electromagnetic energy. This leads to further questions that I have been working on: is the coiling radius the same with each type of electromagnetic energy or does it depend upon the amount of energy? How can this be measured? What is the smallest vector length of energy that can still exist? If one uses NLOP materials to convert many smaller energies to larger ones, what is the limit to how large it can go? How can we ever accurately measure quantum entanglement of particles when we do not know how many particles can be entangled (and their placement) in the universe? Those questions are ones that I do not have an answer for yet.

Hello All. Reviewed the thread a bit for what has already been said. I get the impression that the conversation so far has mostly been at an elementary level, which is a shame, since the OP has such an interesting question.

Public Service Announcement:

@naturalplastic: I think your comments, and most likely your "theories", are quackish in the extreme. Photons have spin-1, spin being a non-vector quantity. They have zero charge. Charge is a scalar, which is not vector. Photons also have energy and momenta, which are 4-vectors, since you didn't define what type of vector photons are supposed to be mistaken for, and also just the general boastfullness of your claims, how can anyone really take your ideas seriously?

I say this for other people to know who may be less well informed and gullible of such claims. Not interested in debating you in any way either, because, why debate crazy? OK. Sorry for that unpleasantness everyone, but Quack behavior bothers me having had some formal education in the subject (I have an Undergrad Physics Degree).

@QuantumChemist: First define real?

In answer to the particle versus wave question, it is a wave of particles. Experimentally measuring quantum wave properties requires more than one particle. In fact, the more particles measured, the better.

Measuring particle properties requires using setups that cause particles to initiate cascades of similarly prepared detector particles to be excited in such a way that classical EM theory can be used (usually). This is touched upon in this Feynmann video. For more general information on particle detectors check here.

Perhaps another thing will help, if that helps. There are three types of "thing", as based on nouns used in human languages. There are Experiential Things. The what is it like to experience something directly with the five senses type of thing, like experiencing the color red, hot, cold, noises, etc. There are Concrete Things such as cars, clouds, and other such things that can be manipulated physically. There are Abstract Things such as scientific models, math, art criticism, etc.

By being clear on what you mean by real relative to the above types of things it may help in resolving, or at least being very clear about, what you find mysterious in Quantum Mechanics. Not that I am saying there is nothing mysterious to QM. It is just that the way everyone talks about QM is not very productive. The discussions are so often full of mystic pretensions given in the form of half-understood physics tropes.

If one can not rigorously break an idea down to some combination of things abstract / concrete / experiential, then frankly such an idea is errant nonsense.

Death to all such ideas.

Sorry @naturalplastic, it was @QuantumChemist that has the quack notion, misread. My bad. Ughgh. What is the point? Have fun everyone. If anyone wants to discuss / debate this further I hope you thoroughly enjoy the banter, but I am out somewhere else.

Sorry tensordyne, but we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic. Call me what you will, I have faced worse from those who cannot understand my theory. Part of why Physics has stalled in this area is because it has become too reliant upon mathematical equations trying to model the universe at both big and small sizes. Too much of what I read in the literature has absolutely no real world aspects. One way to overcome this issue is to have a new approach to solving the unknown. That is where my theory comes in.

I may not be right in parts of my theory, time will tell. I can explain some things your knowledge cannot.

Sorry for the harshness of the tone QuantumChemistry. I guess we probably _will_ have to agree to disagree. If you are against the use of Math, most especially. I don't know your theory, or even if it is "not even wrong". Honestly, I have discoursed with too many people in the past to be too worried that I am missing out.

I could learn it, but then I figure I probably would figure out quite quickly that it is not even wrong and try to get you to understand that, which is a fail. So I am just cutting to the chase and leaving it at that.

By the way, Quantum Chemistry is a fascinating topic that has had a major discovery relatively recently. The discovery Quantum Darwinism explains is how the interface between classical and quantum worlds works. Using the idea of Quantum State information that cascades quanta information using Darwinian selection, the information that gets copied the most wins out and becomes "real".

Electrons are urreal. Let's define urreal as more real than real as based on the following ideas. We say an object is real if in waking common experience (no altered states of consciousness allowed) the object can be manipulated and sensed by all. Urreal objects are objects that can not be directly manipulated or sensed, but whose existence is imputed to exist as based upon solid experimental results.

Grist for you thoughts.