[Kasim]

The reason why I joined CNPS is because I was dissatisfied with mainstream theories which I thought were trumped up and eventually prove to be false. For example, the strong force was supposed to explain why protons occupy a very tiny nucleus against the humungous repulsive forces.

Another reason is that they have far too many particles in their Standard Model whose equations fail if those particles have intrinsic mass. So, they postulated that they were created massless and invented the Higgs field to give mass to those particles that interact with it; and those that don’t, remain massless.

However, on this side of the fence, I’m learning that there are no photons in your particle mode where my understanding is that all particles are treated as waves. I mean I’m new to this way of thinking which is alien to me because I’m weaning myself off the mainstream indoctrination. My fear is that I maybe jumping from the proverbial frying into the fire.

I sympathise with you about frequency because the mainstream hasn’t adequately explained it to my satisfaction. So, I use the Newtonian definition of light i.e. it’s a stream of particles. You said that Newton tried and failed to equate mass with frequency. Since Einstein has equated mass with energy and Planck equated energy with frequency, there’s a transitive relationship between mass and frequency.

But this is a difficult concept to assimilate as it doesn’t say what frequency is. So, I postulated that frequency is the number of photons passing a particular point per second. This can only apply to a light beam i.e. a stream of corpuscles to use the Newtonian definition. It also means that the light propagation is longitudinal as Nikola Tesla said, and not transverse.

At the moment, I can’t see the photon as a wave because of Carl Anderson’s gamma-ray experiments where he showed that a photon can split into an electron-positron pair which can be separated. Have you ever seen a wave split into an electron-positron pair.

Although I disagree with the mainstream theories, I feel that not everything they say is false and we have to separate the chaff from the wheat. In fact, I define the strong force in terms of the electromagnetic force. Although I don’t believe in the quark theory, let me suspend my belief and consider the quarks. Some are negatively charged and some are positively charged.

You’d think that these charges will arrange themselves at the lowest energy possible where the positive charges are as far away from each other as possible and the same with the negative ones. This would be helped by opposite charges attracting each other. That way the quarks would be bound by EM forces and not an inexplicable strong force which has to have another false theory made up to explain it.

So, the particle model, as you define it, doesn’t sit well with me; but it’s early days for me as a new member. I looked at the article in the link and it introduces 4 concepts. At the moment I’m not comfortable with it as I believe that there’s only one force of nature. For this reason I’m studying Andres Gonzales’s Theory of Everything mainly because he proposes that the EM force, carried by the photon, is the only fundamental force in the universe, which is right up my street.

[Kasim]

Thank God for that because that’s what I feel since I believe that there’s only one fundamental force of nature which is the EM force mediated by the photon. Now you’re suggesting that this particle that represents all phenomena is different from the photon defined by the mainstream. I can go along with that. But can you tell us what you’re calling it, please?

However, your particle doesn’t have charges which sounds strange because an electric field is generated by an electric charge which comes in 2 varieties: positive and negative. The electric field has equipotentials which have perpendicular forces i.e. the electric forces. Am I expected to learn a new paradigm?

[Kasim]

Although I’m not familiar with your model, it has striking resemblances to my own except that I use photons and your model doesn’t. But I’m happy that you’ve adopted the Newtonian corpuscular theory as I did, and concluded that frequency is the number of corpuscles or pulses passing a reference point per second; and the wavelength is the distance between pulses.

Whereas you have access to experiments, as an armchair physicist, I don’t and can only make logical assertions based on established facts that I’m comfortable with. You could say that I start from first principles and don’t adopt more complex ‘facts’ until I’ve exhausted all the alternative ways of combining simple facts like electric and magnetic forces. But all these are done theoretically i.e. in my head.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by  Kasim.

[Kasim]

I have replied to your post at length. The gist of it is that I define frequency of light as the number of pulses passing a reference point per second; and each pulse can have many photons. The wavelength can then be the distance between pulses. It also means that the propagation is longitudinal as Nikola Tesla suggested, and not transverse.

This is a work-in-progress, though.

[Kasim]

I have sympathy with that point of view because the water in water waves doesn’t move; it’s just momentum and energy that moves. Similarly, with sound waves, it’s not the air that moves, just the energy and momentum that does, which gets translated into sound by detectors.

However, you put your finger on the qualities that possibly make it a particle i.e. the photon has some finite width and contains a quantized amount of energy. In that case, light wouldn’t need a medium to propagate in; whereas a wave does.

Adherents of the wave theory of light insist that the aether exists for the light waves to propagate in. My answer is in the form of a question: have you ever seen a wave split into an electron-positron pair?

[Kasim]

Hi Andres, and thank you for taking part in this discussion. I’m glad that your thinking is along the lines of my own thoughts. I too am developing a Theory of Everything but I’d like to know more information about your treatise on Grand Unification Theory, please.

In the meantime, we have to disprove that photons are massless. At the moment I’m using their statements and theories to prove that photons have mass. Sooner or later, we need our own independent proofs.