AntiLight

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


The speed of darkness is my ultimate goal here. Antiphotons is where I have decided to begin my search.
However, since I am a 100 level student I cannot go get the apparatus I might need, should I know what that is. Therefore I rely on theories only; and this theory is most plausible to me.




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
This is a difficult concept, for several reasons.

First, is darkness simply where light is not, or are we suggesting that darkness is an entity unto itself?

Next, the phase of a waveform of a photon would not be likely to create a (+) or (-) form of a photon, but would simply be part of the path through space traveled by the photon.

Mainly, however, I would ask how we can yet understand an anti-photon when we still cannot really understand a photon?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Perhaps your Antilight is driving the expansion of the universe and possibly the cause of gravity.

Or maybe all the infinite number of photons moving through the universe is really dark energy.

Now we need a way to detect your antiphotons.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


I have had the thought that perhaps it is the elimination of matter by antimatter that has caused the force of quintesscence, the anti gravity.
This may be similar to the forming of a blackhole.
Maybe.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I have tried to find the mechanics of a solar panel on google. My results have either been marketing or an explanation involving complex equations I have yet to come across it the path of my course. So if someone has spare time, I would grateful if you could post a link to a site with a simple enough explantion (as low as 100 level education at uni) so that I could expand on my theory with the detection of antiphotons.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
It is probably sort of silly, but i like the sound of

'heavy light'

not even sure what it would be. A photon with mass? Slow heavy light that trailed slightly behind/arrived-later-than regular light?

Another odd idea from today,

A prospective reality.

Where one sort of constructed like an inflatable reality, that one could choose [or choose not to] inflate & actually impose upon regular reality.
In a weird sort of way imagination might kind of work that way.
We start by imagining something & then someone arguably obsessed with that notion works out the details/technology that brings it into being,
& perhaps prior to it becoming an actual reality, other ancillary/disassociated people might have dreams or fantasies about it in a kind of pre-cognitive way because it would be there in some sub-strata.

Not that i take it real seriously, but sort of intriguing notions.

I was thinking about all the Grey[other] alien abductions. They may not actually be a full blow reality, but something that is in consideration as a part of 'reality' by some empowered mind(s).
A partial or potential reality.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I like your thinking Slank.
I am partial to what I call the second dimension of time (5D),which is fully my idea of course.
Have you ever wondered about what was before the big bang?
Would it be the previous universe that had collapsed upon itself and reformed into ours?
This keeps going until a point where even that began. I believe that perhaps there are 'God beings' that exist on a higher dimension of time (5D).
These beings have observed our universe, and so we were created. We however, are unable to traverse the 4D/5D membreane and so are basically a freeze frame of thier universe.

Also, the term 'heavy light' maybe when a photon and antiphoton anihilate each other, creating twice the mass of a photon, but stuck in time as it travels both ways across a linear timeline.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Protector
 

Explanation: Here is your problem...


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.


[Note all bolds, underlines and italics are my edits for emphasis ok]

Photons are NOT Fermions, they are Bosons!

Fermions are matter and Bosons are the force carriers and there is a huge difference!!!


You are totally correct that a photons properties when acting as an antiphoton it is simply one of frequency phase being in or out of synch with its opposite! [i.e. the other photon it is nullifying!]

Its called Interference [wave propagation].

So that leaves just Fermions as being the opposite of Bosons... which means that antilight, being heavy in nature of its own semantics, would be matter in general!


Personal Disclsoure: I'm sure members will weigh up my evidence and assess whether it has any gravita at all or not!



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
neutrinos were thought to have zero mass until they found they couldn't account for the number they were finding in experimental results.

[Part of?] the reason neutrinos change through the three 'flavors' [electron, muon, tau] is because they have mass.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Momentum: product of mass & velocity

Photon momentum is necessary for the enablement of light sails.

If photons have ZERO mass, they clearly, mathematically can have only ZERO momentum,
therefore they CAN NOT transfer momentum to light sails because they have no momentum.

odd thought: can you have a 'probability of mass' the way an electron(s) are a probability wave?

Sort of like the mass is distributed/dispersed, not immediately coherent/cogent?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Ok let's say photons are just a wave, without mass,

does that mean that space-time itself has some inherent mass?

So the momentum of a photon is caused by its movement along some/the distributed [ethereal?] mass of space-time?
Or like a captureable smoky medium of massiness [in the immediate vicinity of the space-time surface] that builds up as the wave of space-time moves along [like a pressure wavefront] & that bit of eccentrified [densified?] mass is/can-be interactive with other mass bodies?

Or perhaps a photon/wave is a warp of space-time that is discretely insufficient [below the threshold] to interact with a 'graviton',
but it can contribute part [all?] of its space-time warp to some other mass body, which increases the 'graviton' accessibility [and momentum/inertia] to/of that body?

Is the space-time geometry warping implicitly the same thing as 'mass' or are they ever dissociatively found independently of the other?
ie. warp without mass or mass without space-time warping

Is mass a measure of the gravitons [flow] that pass perpendicular to space-time?
Which might imply that you could artificially create a graviton perpendicular flow without a warp or perhaps a space-time warping with somekind of shielding from graviton flow.

Can you have mass without matter, or matter without mass?

The depth of my ignorance is astounding & arguably drowningly deep.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
there is no antiparticle to a photon because a photon is the particle that forms the structure of other particles.

A photon forms the structure of the electron and the positron, the only difference between them is the direction the photon is travelling.

so the photon is the key to the difference between matter and antimatter.
when a positron meets and electron the two constituent photons are released.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
A photon forms the structure of the electron and the positron, the only difference between them is the direction the photon is travelling.

so the photon is the key to the difference between matter and antimatter.
when a positron meets and electron the two constituent photons are released.


To me this statement reads that electrons/positrons are photons. Please explain then, how an electron has mass.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
Can you have mass without matter, or matter without mass?


Isn't that dark matter?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Phx Lord, since you are a 100 level student I will give you a personal advice:

Any thesis you ever make will have to show no known laws are violated, one of the most important ones is conservation of energy. An antiparticle is usually known to anihilate its opposite particle, however do take note that energy is always conserved.

When a positron and an electron collide, they annihilate each other, however energy is not lost. The moment they annihilate two or more photons are formed, and all energy goes into those photons (energy is not negative in antiparticles - is why you assumed antilight moved back in time?)

I have my own theory: For something to be considered as antiphoton, it must be able to annihilate light but form something else in order to conserve energy. There are 3 known ways in which photons are annihilated:

1- Photoelectric effect
2- Compton Scattering
3- Pair production

This leads me to believe the antiphoton particle is hidden in the physics of those interactions.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by daniel_g]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel_g
(energy is not negative in antiparticles - is why you assumed antilight moved back in time?)


That's pretty much correct.
However, I assume that since antiparticles appear to be travelling back in time, that they would react as such. Therefore I stated energy as a time vector.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Phx Lord]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Also, upon revising the texts at my immediate dissposal, I have discovered the fermion, boson flaw in my argument. I do think however, that there is a hole in that argument that I can expand on. But without a level of reading above glanving at the text, I cannot be certain.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
@Phx Lord

rest mass is the energy that belongs to the photon that creates the particle.
It means that mass (of an electron) is entirely electromagnetic in origin.
Which is why they will never detect a Higgs Boson.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join