Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

AntiLight

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Excuse me while I do some brainstorming, but I want to explore the possibility of an antilight (antiphoton) existing.


First, this is what comes from the Cern Particle Accelerator People:


" What about antiphotons?
Photons have zero charge and do not contain inside objects that are charged, so a photon can not be distinguished from an antiphoton. Photon and antiphotons are the same thing, i.e. the photon is its own antiparticle."


The problem is, if all types of matter have an antiparticle, the antiparticle of a photon must have some property that is separate from a regular photon. Neutrons have antineutrons, so why not have a counter particle of an antiphoton.

Antilight on a stage/theator is considered where light overlaps to create dark spots. This is actually regular light waves that cancel one another out. Still, we need to ask if antilight would look any different than light, if there is a separate antiphoton particle. I doubt that antilight is darkness, but it is something to explore. Perhaps antilight is the electromagnetic spectrum in reverse. Such as gamma rays existing on a lower frequencies and radio waves existing on very high frequencies.

I don't know where else to go with this, but it is an interesting thought experiment. What do you think?




posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Oh oh there was some of that in Hellraiser 17 or whatever, unshining down from an obelisk. Heheh. I have long theorized about antiphotons, I sound professional... la-de-da!



posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 05:40 PM
link   
i think there is an opposite for everything. so anti-light, heck yeah!



posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 06:05 PM
link   
dude light will always be there. no matter where you go



posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Well, if "antilight" or the cancelling of two light waves is the interference of the wave properties of the two light streams, and is has nothing to do with the photonic characteristics of the light, then I guess the existence of an antiphoton would not make that much difference in this phenomenon.

BUT, are we sure that the cancellation (the creation of the antilight) is, in fact, only dependent on the wave properties? This I do not personally believe we know well enough yet. We have not sufficiently learned and defined the properties of light well enough to answer this.

This is an interesting thought!



posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 09:05 PM
link   
this might have some relevance to the Obscurami...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[Edited on 5-7-2003 by exwunpi]



posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 11:45 PM
link   
"Well, if "antilight" or the cancelling of two light waves is the interference of the wave properties of the two light streams, and is has nothing to do with the photonic characteristics of the light, then I guess the existence of an antiphoton would not make that much difference in this phenomenon."

AntiLight, in the sense I use it, is not the "stage form." Antiphotons is actually what I'm referring to. But the antiphoton may have a separate property for light... which is what I'm exploring. Destructive wave interference uses regular light waves to cancel one another out. Again, I'm trying to explore the possibility of a second form of light existing.

"BUT, are we sure that the cancellation (the creation of the antilight) is, in fact, only dependent on the wave properties? This I do not personally believe we know well enough yet. We have not sufficiently learned and defined the properties of light well enough to answer this."

We have only touched on the surface of antiphotons, so it will be some time before we know for sure. I was hoping you guys would brainstorm with me.

"This is an interesting thought!"

Yes, and maybe we'll become famous for it
.... we'll really put ATS on the map.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Okay, let me ask you this.

Could the existence of an antiphoton be the reason that the photon APPARENTLY has no mass? In other words, what if the proton is the "antimatter" of these two particles while the aniphoton is the "antienergy" of the two???

Could the existence of the antiphoton be the explanation of why a "particle" is able to travel at the speed of light? In other words, the mass of the photon/antiphoton pair is shed via the expelling of the antiphoton allowing the photon to be accelerated without infinite energy requirements to do so???


And if this were the case, what would the photon/antiphoton pair, prior to the shedding of the antiphoton look like?



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The existence of antiprotons might help explain "dark matter," some invisible matter that makes up most of the universe. Most scientists have recently accepted the existence of this phenomenon, but have no real means to explain it. if we crack the anit-proton problem, we may well have the answer. Read up on it in some more places than CERN though, some of the people there can think pretty close-mindedly.(did I just make that word up?) I think that Valhall is on the right track, in terms of the frequency of the energies. Just as light is broken up into different frequencies...(oh, this next part is going to be long.) A few years ago, they realized that you can make lasers in different frequencies, and if stored on a device(ie DVD, CD) you could burn multiple paths over each other, but on different frequencies. A special laser eye would then scan one frequency at a time, keep the data in a buffer of sorts, and you could hold hundreds of CDs on one disc. But they only recently began really trying to make this work. The same thing is happening in the world of particle physics right now. We have been looking at one, and only one energy level, where the most and largest energy particles exist. what about the extreme edge of the spectrum?




Boy that WAS long.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 12:30 PM
link   
"Could the existence of an antiphoton be the reason that the photon APPARENTLY has no mass? In other words, what if the proton is the "antimatter" of these two particles while the aniphoton is the "antienergy" of the two???"

Hmm... antienergy is a new one for me. Or would it be a reversed energy field or sorts. I'm not sure. I did get an idea while reading that:

If you the photon is considered to also be the antiphoton, are the photon and antiphoton particles already joined? This means that the reason they have no mass is because the particle and antiparticle are already together (cancelling mass) and only the energy freqency remains. That is a very interesting thought. If light is a specific type of energy that already contains its matter and antimatter qualities within itself. I'm not sure.


"Could the existence of the antiphoton be the explanation of why a "particle" is able to travel at the speed of light?"

Do you mean that the antiparticle is creating a vacuum effect on the particle aspect, moving it the speed of light.

. _______ bond _______ .
(particle)--------(antiparticle/pull/negative pressure)
--------------------------> vacuum effect

I suppose that's another possibility.


"In other words, the mass of the photon/antiphoton pair is shed via the expelling of the antiphoton allowing the photon to be accelerated without infinite energy requirements to do so???"

Mass is not shed... it simply changes into energy. Remember, Energy = Mass * Lightspeed squared. The antiphoton is either the annihilation paritcle of the photon, or the photon is both the photon and antiphoton combined/connected. Photon may just be our name for the energy packet, but I'm hoping their is another quality to it.

Remember that the photon is an energy, so if we are talking about acceleration, we need a reason why instanteous acceration occurs. My logical guess is that the EM wave changes frequencies as soon as it exists the restrictive medium and thus lengthening instanteously the lightwave.

One question that I had in the past was whether the lengthening of the wave would create a gap or thin out the wave itself. If one part of a lightwave (inside of a medium) is going 3/4 the speed of light and the other part is going the speed of light (in a vacuum), then that seems like we'd have a problem where the velocity is different on two different parts of the wave. I should ask about that, because I haven't been able to find the answer in books/websites, thus far.

"And if this were the case, what would the photon/antiphoton pair, prior to the shedding of the antiphoton look like?"

A photon and antiphoton pair would be pure energy, which is what a photon is. Maybe the question is, "what would they look like separated?"

[Edited on 5-7-2003 by Protector]

[Edited on 5-7-2003 by Protector]



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Maybe when they are separated they look like aether...entropy


I aint givin' up that easy.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 12:56 PM
link   
When they separate they would probably have mass. They might look like quarks or neutrinos. Who knows.

Entropy is disorder... disorder needs physicality to look like anything.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 02:07 PM
link   
"The existence of antiprotons might help explain "dark matter," some invisible matter that makes up most of the universe."

This is true.. that is something I thought of, but we need to narrow down the possibilities before we can know for sure. Some of the dark matter is made up of neutrinos, which we now know (pretty much) for sure.

"Most scientists have recently accepted the existence of this phenomenon, but have no real means to explain it. if we crack the anit-proton problem, we may well have the answer."

Even if antiphotons do add to dark matter... it will actually add to dark energy, most likely. There are two separate "dark" categories. Since light is an energy, despite the so-called particle qualities, it would fall under the dark energy category. Then we'd be famous for such a discovery and they'd give us a year supply of cookies for our efforts. Wow.

"Read up on it in some more places than CERN though, some of the people there can think pretty close-mindedly."

Professional physicists lose their jobs if they don't have a mainstream viewpoint. It has to do with intolerance, incompetance, and tradition. Even Stephen Hawking claims to be a traditionalist now-a-days, even though he became famous by proving the (then outrageous) claim of blackholes.

"(did I just make that word up?)"

No, I don't believe so... I've heard it before.

"I think that Valhall is on the right track, in terms of the frequency of the energies. Just as light is broken up into different frequencies...(oh, this next part is going to be long.)"

You might want to take a look at one of my arguments against frequencies on the other topics. Light is an energy and does have frequencies, which are just different wavelengths for the most part.

"A few years ago, they realized that you can make lasers in different frequencies, and if stored on a device(ie DVD, CD) you could burn multiple paths over each other, but on different frequencies."

Frequencies for CDs and DVDs relate to how thin the information can be added to the surface of the disk. At a lower frequencies (such as the new blue lasers that will be coming out), the information can be more tightly packed. As far as digitizing information on a wave, that is supposedly a fairly complex process that I'm not even sure of. Yes, it is suppose to be possible, but I do not know what is involved.

"A special laser eye would then scan one frequency at a time, keep the data in a buffer of sorts, and you could hold hundreds of CDs on one disc."

You are talking about overwriting information on different frequencies. I have not heard of that being possible thus far. It is a good idea, but hardly the key to a Grand Unified Theory, if you ask me.

"But they only recently began really trying to make this work. The same thing is happening in the world of particle physics right now. We have been looking at one, and only one energy level, where the most and largest energy particles exist. what about the extreme edge of the spectrum?"

We use larger particles because they are easier to collide and have more pronounced effects. This benefits us. I believe the larger particles explain how the smaller ones interact as well. Of course, things like antimatter are done at low energy levels because they are so hard to create. That is a technicality. Either way, we are still collecting the information, which is what is important.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I have a few links that you can stare at for a bit. They explain the properties of photons and why they are considering the photon the antiphoton. I did, however find a couple sites that state a difference may exist, but not so much in how they interact.

First, the sites that explain much of the science involved:

Antiphotons and Experimentation

Slighty shorter and simpler explanation

Understanding particle collisions forces me to assume the holographic theories of the universe are more valid, but there is always a counter argument.


Now a couple sites that refute they are exactly the same:

A short explanation that topology might be the difference (advanced calc)

A Wild Look at Physics that's probably completely wrong

This assumes that antiphotons cancel out photon EM waves


Here is a new definition for the antiphoton:
Antiphotons are the corresponding particle like electromagnetic force produced by positrons.


This is one site for the road:
Yes, that's right, we are now talking about antiphotons and anti-spacetime



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Protector,

Might want to tread this. I found quite interesting.
www.cintronics.com...

regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The website seems to propose what ether is and not really whether ether has been properly dealt with.

He states, "And so who is to say that, given sufficient energy, matter itself could not reach any speed at all? The problem becomes not one of outwitting Einstein's theories, but one of energy production and electromagnetic 'aerodynamics'."

That sounds like a nice way of saying, "I have no clue as to what is going on, but I'd like to know." Energy production is either the creation of energy (supposedly impossible) or the specific energy that is associated with light. Secondly, EM aerodynamics are already known, thus the 90 degree angle between the electric field and the magnetic field. Maybe he was trying to get at a different point altogether and couldn't explain his question. Oh well.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Protector
The website seems to propose what ether is and not really whether ether has been properly dealt with.

He states, "And so who is to say that, given sufficient energy, matter itself could not reach any speed at all? The problem becomes not one of outwitting Einstein's theories, but one of energy production and electromagnetic 'aerodynamics'."

That sounds like a nice way of saying, "I have no clue as to what is going on, but I'd like to know." Energy production is either the creation of energy (supposedly impossible) or the specific energy that is associated with light. Secondly, EM aerodynamics are already known, thus the 90 degree angle between the electric field and the magnetic field. Maybe he was trying to get at a different point altogether and couldn't explain his question. Oh well.



I felt the same way, one reason I posted the article.
Thanks for reading it.


regards
seekerof



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Protector
 


What if The antiphotons absorb or dampen electromagnetic radiation?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Protector
 


With all due respect, I think you are wrong on this topic.
This is going to be the main topic of my thesis paper, I won't go into details because I am paranoid someone will steal it.

I belive darkness IS anti light. Anti photons move backward in time, yes?
Being the same as photons, only backwards, would mean they operate similarly.
If these 'packets' of backward energy (not negative mind you) move backwards in time, they must therefore take energy from the present. This results in darkness; light without energy in the present.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Phx Lord]

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Phx Lord]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Phx Lord
 


Are you proposing darkness is a tachyon (just curious if that's the case)?
Wouldn't that make a photon moving away from me have a greater velocity (speed of darkness if it can be called that) than one approaching me? Also, wouldn't this break causality since I could send messages to the past by turning off, say, a flashlight?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join