06/10/08
Three new papers! I decided to just release the abstracts, because I want to try and publish these papers to try to involve the scientific establishment in these issues. The diffraction paper I developed around 08/2007 and is not quite complete. I want to add more historical references if possible, but it is basically done. The Lobacevskii paper needs more development and historical references. The distinctness of mass and velocity is a more recent realization, and what an interesting and funny realization.
Here are the equations I am using to calculate the movement of photons. Pnx,Pny,Pnz are the new (or next) photon location, Px,Py,Pz is the current photon location. The summation is for all other photons in the universe model. All the X components of the distance from this 1 photon to the other photons (divided by the square of the distance between the two photons) are summed and normalized against the Y and Z components multiplied by c (the velocity of a photon), and likewise for the Y and Z components. So basically, the velocity of a photon is divided into the x,y,z components depending on the distance of other photons.
update 10/26/05: ok I made a mistake in the model, to normalize the component of a vector, I need to divide by the magnitude of the vector, not simply by the sum of the components. Here is the corrected equation: 9/13/06 I want to make sure this is clear: x/(x^2+y^2+z^2)^.5= the x component of a vector, and so on for y,z. That is one key lesson to this modeling Newton (or constant velocity particles) in 3D.
update 06/13/08: Here is a model that views the universe as made only of photons, all the same mass (=1), with no need for a gravitational constant, and adds in a photon's existing velocity (inertia):
update 09/13/06: Sorry, I forgot to add the square root to the magnitudes in the denominators, so here are the corrected equations. There are still equations I want to write out for photon direction where momentum of direction is preserved, they are very basic and similar to this equation below, although there is a variety of ways to add the existing direction component. One method is to simply multiply the new direction by a constant. I am now exploring the idea of using Newton's equations for photons and seeing if this is a possibility. I am perplexed currently with this phenomenon: Is a better way of expressing Newton's law: Fm1=Gm2/r^2 instead of Fm1=Gm1m2/r^2? Because, if m1=1e10 and m2=1, then the force on m1 and m2 both =~1e10? It seems more likely that the force on m2=~1e10 but that the force exhibited on a giant mass like m2 by a tiny mass such as m1 is only Fm1=~1, barely moving the giant mass. I mean, how were Halley and Newton (and then LaPlace...and many others...it's proof that our history of science...is seriously lacking) modeling this to verify the orbits of the planets? They must have used the Fm1=Gm2/r^2 method. This page explains it well: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html. Fm1=m1a=weight with a=Gm2/r^2 only. So really, the useful equation is simply Accelm1=Gm2/r^2.
Here is an example (since I am always complaining that there are no point examples for a photon, or an electron using the general theory of relativity):
Here are 3 photons at some instant in time. One at (0,0,0), a second at (3,-2,0) and a third and final photon (yes, a universe of 3 photons...very very different from this one) at (-2,-4,0). You may notice that my Y axis is different from the traditional Y axis, but to me it is more logical to have Y up as negative and Y down as positive, this is easier for computer drawing where images are drawn from top to bottom. It seems more logical and intuitive to me to have Y up as negative any way. So what is the direction of photon 1? Using the above equation, the sum of the x components is 3/13 + -2/20 = .131, the sum for the y components is -2/13 + -4/20 = -.354, the sum of all z components is 0. So, photon 1 has an un-normalized direction vector of (.131,-.354,0). Now to normalize this vector with the denomenator shown above, which is simply the distance (or magnitude) of this new vector: the square root of ((.131)^2+(-.354)^2+(0)^2)^.5=(.1425)^.5= .3775. Now we divide the x,y,z components of the photon with this distance to give us a unit vector that will equal 1.0: x=.131/.3775=.347, y=-.354/.3775=-.9377, z=0. Photon 1 now has a vector of (.347,-.9377,0). You will see that the distance of this new vector (.347^2+-.9377^2)^.5=1.0. What this is showing is that photon 1 will be moving mainly up and to the right towards the other two photons. It shows that the x component of photon 2, on the right, is exerting more influence on photon 1 than the x component of photon 3 is. Multiplying this direction vector by the photon velocity which has been measured as .3 nanometers each femtosecond, the new photon 1 location (excluding collision, which is doubtful at the time shown) will be x=.3*.347=.104, y=.3*-.9377=-.281,z=0. The photon will next be at (.104nm,.281nm,0nm) if the time scale is one frame (or measurement) each femtosecond. The new locations of the other photons is measured in the exact same way.
Here is the wrong equation that I was using before:
People constantly point at their watches to tell me that the "time" component is missing from my version of the "photon is matter" theory.
I want to add this "relativity" equation, as an equivalent matter-space-time geometry:
Because this equation equals 0, this is described as the "light-like" equation, that describes the geometry of a space-time for photons. Because, in this theory, all matter is made of photons, geometries of this equation for greater than or less than 0 are of no value. This equation is meant as a starting ground, and I doubt that this is going to be the only way of describing the universe. I think the above equations describe a possible universe, a time variable "t", adds complexity to the equation, that I have not put together yet, but off the top of my head, I think that these above equations represent the movement of a group of photons for 1 time unit. What that time unit is, is unknown, some kind of base unit of time, where no matter moves. That time relates to the speed of photons, at which no photon is moving in space. That time is unknown because it depends on how small space can get (perhaps a photon moves 1e-100m in 1e100/c seconds. In my view, time is a variable like x,y,z but not the same as a spacial dimension. In the view I support, time is independent of x,y,z and does not "dilate". I want the people is science to be recorded as supporting the "photon is massless" and the "15 billion year old universe" theories. The trajedy is that because I have to work a day job in obscurity with a million people staring at me and my thoughts, I do not have the time or money to pursue simulations of "photon is matter" theories. Clearly, the secret of neuron reading and writing has corrupted much of what is reaching the public in terms of science education.
