Physics Has Demoted Mass (LK Reply)

Post new topic   Reply to topic

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Physics Has Demoted Mass (LK Reply)

Post by LloydK on Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:52 pm

Physics Has Demoted Mass
http://nautil.us/issue/54/the-unspoken/physics-has-demoted-mass

Here are some excerpts.
_Most of the mass of the proton comes from the energy of the interactions of its constituent quarks and gluons.
_If much of the mass of a proton and neutron comes from the energy of interactions taking place inside these particles, then this is indeed “mass without mass,” meaning that we get the behavior we tend to ascribe to mass without the need for mass as a property.
_Modern physics teaches us something rather different, and deeply counter-intuitive. As we worked our way ever inward—matter into atoms, atoms into sub-atomic particles, sub-atomic particles into quantum fields and forces—we lost sight of matter completely. Matter lost its tangibility. It lost its primacy as mass became a secondary quality, the result of interactions between intangible quantum fields. What we recognize as mass is a behavior of these quantum fields; it is not a property that belongs or is necessarily intrinsic to them.
_Despite the fact that our physical world is filled with hard and heavy things, it is instead the energy of quantum fields that reigns supreme. Mass becomes simply a physical manifestation of that energy, rather than the other way around.
_This is conceptually quite shocking, but at the same time extraordinarily appealing. The great unifying feature of the universe is the energy of quantum fields, not hard, impenetrable atoms.


Miles has demoted mass as well, saying that most of it somehow comes from stacked spins. The most sense I've been able to make of that is that mass is measured as torque, as spin radius times photon mass. I think my own idea that the mass of electrons etc is due to increased number of constituent photons instead of stacked spins has almost as much probability as Miles' stacked spins. I also think it's likely that matter is infinitely divisible, so there are an infinite number of sizes of photons making up the matter of the universe.


Last edited by LloydK on Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Physics Has Demoted Mass (LK Reply)

Post by Nevyn on Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:29 am

Interesting find, Lloyd. I think my idea of mass as velocity is more understandable, more physical and more appealing than 'energy of quantum fields'. Even just writing that sentence makes me question whether I can call it 'my idea'. It seems so logical that it should already be the base assumption. I remember hearing various physicists say that everything is motion, and yet here we are, talking about mass and not a mention of velocity anywhere.

I also wouldn't call mass as velocity a demotion, either. I would call it a promotion. From the fuzzy concept of mass to the direct and mechanical concept of motion seems like a step in the right direction to me. Instead of running into the illogical world of quantum physics, where nothing makes sense and that is touted as a virtue, I am running back into the light where things are functional and out in the open for all to see. Spin still gives us complications but we can work through that with a little perseverance.

You touch on the idea of infinitely divisible particles and even Miles has made a similar statement (just to say that nothing is indestructible, he doesn't really use it in his theory that I am aware of) but I must say that I have problems with it. I find that I want a starting point. A place where things can then grow from. While they aren't exactly physical reasons and are more philosophical, it doesn't seem useful to imagine a long line of divisible entities.

For one thing, if the BPhoton could be broken, then why are they not all broken? Where is the dust of the universe? What does a broken BPhoton look like? It couldn't still be a sphere and if not, then is the BPhoton a sphere? Are BPhotons the primary entity and they are then broken or, alternatively, stack spins to transform into other particles? Why create something in the middle of the size chart and then break it? If BPhotons can withstand collisions with each other, then what is it that could break them? If 2 BPhotons could collide and break apart, then wouldn't that be annihilation, which is outlawed in physics?

For another thing, why is it that everything we experience can be described with just BPhotons and above. We don't seem to have a need for smaller entities. I guess that it could be argued that we find ourselves at a size scale where BPhotons are the smallest entities that matter to us, but even that doesn't really answer any questions, it just gives an arbitrary boundary to place on it.

(note that these are just general questions, open for discussion, not directly aimed at you to answer, Lloyd).
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 853
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Physics Has Demoted Mass (LK Reply)

Post by Ciaolo on Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:41 am

I agree with Nevyn about the BPhoton being probably the basic particle. It has this property of always traveling at c also after collisions which imo we should not underestimate.

I also can see that probably physics is very slowly trying to change direction. They are changing things that will ultimately led them to include the Miles theory.
Somewhere there are admissions that light has mass (of course they can’t ignore the newest engineering technologies), that matter and antimatter are the same thing, etc. and now this article about demoting mass.

Probably new people are starting to get rid of old money hungry dinosaurs and will move main science forwards when they have enough power.

Ciaolo

Posts : 67
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Physics Has Demoted Mass (LK Reply)

Post by LloydK on Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:25 pm

If matter is not infinitely divisible, then you have to explain why all "B-photons" are the same size. And do they have infinite density or infinite cohesive force that they cannot be divided? What gives them such cohesion?

If matter is infinitely divisible, then there are subphotons of all sizes below the size of the B-photon and they can cause B-photons to follow curved paths through space, like the air causes a curve-ball or knuckle-ball to follow curved paths on Earth.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Charge Field Explains Mass

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:15 pm

.
Lloyd. If matter is not infinitely divisible, then you have to explain why all "B-photons" are the same size.

Airman. First off, one should not bandy infinity about so lightly. Is or isn’t infinitely whatever is not rational since there can be no infinity. The 10,000,000 size scale change shown in Nevyn’s 40 radius doublings in Spin Simulator wouldn’t amount to a flea’s itch on infinity’s hide.

Why are all "B-photons" the same size? Miles has deduced the B-photon radius based on the observed electromagnetic (EMF) spectrum and the speed of light. I believe there’s a range to the B-photon’s radius, enough to account for the emf spectrum range. So, why are all B-photons about 1E-24m radius? I must explain why? While Miles has done a great job explaining how the charge field – comprised of real spinning photons – can account for all physical behavior. We might consider that current science holds that quantum fields explains everything; quantum fields may sound sexy but it explains nothing.

According to my understanding of charge field theory, light and matter are one, everything is made of real, spinning, lightspeed photons. At the scale of the B-photon, the B-photon radius varies as the B-photon energy changes. The more energetic the particle, the more massive it becomes. At 1E-24m the particle radius reflects the particle’s energy. I believe particles smaller than 1E-24m will meet the lightspeed boundary without an efficient exchange of energy and mass. Larger particles require greater energies to reach the mass/energy exchange scale. 1E-24m is an energy/mass balance point. That seems like a reasonable layman’s guess given the charge field.

Lloyd. And do they have infinite density or infinite cohesive force that they cannot be divided? What gives them such cohesion?

Airman. E=mc^2, mass and energy are equivalent. Only photons exist, and photons interact through collisions. As I say above, I believe 1E-24m is an energy/mass balance point. We know photons can interact through collisions. As far as I can see, density or cohesion has nothing to do with the photon radius.

Lloyd. If matter is infinitely divisible, then there are subphotons of all sizes below the size of the B-photon and they can cause B-photons to follow curved paths through space, like the air causes a curve-ball or knuckle-ball to follow curved paths on Earth.

Airman. I agree. If particles much smaller than photons existed, we might observe light to bend around the sources of such particles. Since we do not observe light bending in that manner we may conclude particles smaller than photons do not exist.

The charge field doesn't demote mass, the charge field defines mass through the relationship between photons and lightspeed.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 633
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Physics Has Demoted Mass (LK Reply)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum