Unifying the Photon
with other quanta

by Miles Mathis
milesmathis.com
email:mm@milesmathis.com Abstract: I said in a previous paper that I might be able to unify the photon with all the other quantum particles, and in this paper I will do that. I will also show the mass of the photon, with simple math. This mass is below the current standard-model limits set by various experiments.

The truth is, it only took a few moments on the calculator to discover that the photon is simply another energy level of the quantum. Notice I said quantum, since we appear to have only one now. I have already unified the electron, positron, proton, anti-proton, neutron, all the neutrinos and all the mesons. I have shown that they are all spin levels or multiples of the same particle.

This unification was made easier since I had already applied G to the radius of the photon. I have shown that the universal gravitational constant in Newton’s equation is actually a scaling constant between the photon and the hydrogen atom or proton. Newton’s equation contains the E/M field, hidden by the un-mechanical variables. G acts as a scaling constant between the gravitational field in the equation and the E/M field in the equation. Which means that the photon is G times smaller than the hydrogen atom. This explains many things, not the least of which is why G seems to vary slightly in experiment: it varies depending on the elements present. G, as a scaling constant, depends on the size of the atoms present: if most of the atoms are bigger than the hydrogen atom, G will have a margin of error.

We know that the nucleon at rest is at an energy level 1821 times above the electron at rest. Using a simple quantum equation, I have shown that this is due to three extra spins, x, y, and z. The electron is spinning axially; the proton is spinning axially plus x, y, and z. Now if we want to find the photon using this spin quantum equation, we look for these same spins, but on a smaller scale. They must be the same spins, since we have no other material dimensions. I am not proposing new directional or material dimensions, understand. I am proposing the same spins in the same dimensions, just on a sub-scale. Spins within spins, if you like.

We know the photon is stable, and so are the electron and proton. So we look for a level beneath the electron that would provide this stability. How should we do that, intuitively? Well, we see that two stable levels are 1821 apart. So we postulate that other stable levels are also 1821 apart, for the same reason. The electron and proton are not accidentally 1821 apart, they are 1821 apart due to the way the spins stack, in a simple manner, as I have shown. So perhaps the photon is at one of these sublevels beneath the electron.

I have proposed that the photon is G times smaller than the hydrogen atom. Are G and 1821 linked in some way, mathematically? Yes, they are. If we cube 1821, we obtain 6.04 x 109. If we want to go smaller, we use the inverse of that number, which is 1.66 x 10-10. So in seeking the photon, we should look for a mass at that level: a mass 1.66 x 10-10 smaller than the proton mass. That would be a mass of 2.77 x 10-37kg.

But first, notice what I just found:
(G)18213 = .4

That is too close to 1 to be a coincidence, though I can't tell you yet why the number is 2/5 and not 1. I suspect it is because G is scaling down to the radius of the photon and we are scaling down to the mass of the photon here. We can't get the radius straight from the mass, 1 to 1. The mass should be proportional to the energy, but the energy is determined by both a and x-spins. The a-spin corresponds to the radius, but the x-spin is twice the a-spin. Even with that correction, we still have a margin of error, though, since that would give us .5, not .4.

Now let us develop the mass of the photon from another direction, and compare that number with the number we found from G and 1821. The energy of a photon is around 10-19 J, which, using the equation E = mc2, gives us a mass equivalence of 1.11 x 10-36 kg. That is within a factor of 4 of the mass we found by the first method, as you see. To make the correction, we just use a slightly less energetic photon. Photons have a range of energies, so this is easy to do. What kind of photon matches our first prediction exactly? A photon with a mass equivalence of 2.77 x 10-37 kg, or an energy of 2.5 x 10-20J, which is a frequency of 3.77 x 1013/s, which is an infrared photon.

An infrared photon has a mass equivalence that is 1.66 x 10-10 smaller than the proton mass. Which means the proton is 18213 more massive than the infrared photon. Is this a coincidence? No. For one thing, the infrared photon is the most common photon, being a large part of the emission from the sun as well as majority of molecular motion. Yes, molecules vibrate in the infrared, for the most part.

So, we have found a mass of the photon of 2.77 x 10-37kg. From a previous paper, we know that the radius of the photon must be G times the proton radius, which gives us 2.74 x 10-24m. Does that tell us anything? Sit down and hold onto your chair before you calculate. Because if we use my simple equation from my first paper on G (relating mass and radius to surface acceleration), we get

a = 4mG /r2 = 9.8m/s2

The photon, like the proton and the Earth, has a local acceleration at its surface of 9.8!

I have shown that the photon is two full levels below the electron and three levels below the proton. The first question begged is, “Why isn’t there a stable particle one level below the electron?” Good question. Why don’t we find a stable particle with a mass 1/1821 that of the electron mass, which would be 5 x 10-34 kg? If that were a photon, it would have an energy of 4.5 x 10-17 J, and a frequency of 6.8 x 1016/s. So the answer is, we do have a stable particle at that mass equivalence: it is just an ultraviolet photon. Which means we need a further question: “Why are photons stable over a wide range of energies, while electrons and protons are not?” Well, electrons and protons are stable over a wide range of energies. They gain energy as we accelerate them, and they are stable at all these velocities, as long as they avoid collision. And, like the photons, they show an increase in wavelength as they accelerate.

Which brings up the third question begged: if that is true, then how is it that photons can vary their wavelength without changing speed? An electron has to accelerate to show a different wavelength: electrons going the same speed cannot be different “colors.” But photons can. The answer to this question is a paper in itself, but the short answer is that photons have two wavelengths. The individual photons have a wavelength that is determined by local spins, just as with the electron. These wavelengths are exceedingly short, being multiples of the photon radius. These are the wavelengths that show themselves in photon traps, and that have caused the mysteries of superposition. But the photon also shows another wavelength at the macrolevel: this wavelength is the wavelength that we see and measure in more common optical devices. The stretched wavelengths we see give us a large variation in energy and color, but the local (real) wavelengths vary by only a tiny amount. This tiny amount is insignificant as measured from our level, so it does not affect the relative energy of the photon, which is its speed.

Another question: why don’t photons ever go less than c? Electrons and protons never go c, but photons always do. If they are all the same particle, at different energy levels, why the fundamental difference? A very difficult and complex question, one that I will address more fully elsewhere; but, in short, the larger particles (like baryons) are slowed and destabilized by gravity. They are also slowed by the charge field, which is like a sea of charge photons. Larger particles are bombarded by all smaller particles, and can accelerate only with difficulty. The smaller particles like photons do not have this problem. Their radii are so small they can dodge most of the charge field. They do not feel the drag of the charge field, and their velocity is mostly unimpeded.

I realize that all this contradicts the standard model, so I will pause a moment to look at their objections. Let us go to a University of California website that glosses the standard model on this question:*

If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalizable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass.... It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.

Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10-16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10-17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10-27 eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.

I have to laugh at the first sentence here, since "because we want to save our math" is not a physical argument. I have shown in dozens of papers that QED is in serious trouble, and I have no concern for the safety or continuance of gauge math or renormalization. Gauge invariance was lost long ago: that is what all the symmetry breaking was about in the 70's, remember? In my paper on the weak force, I show that both gauge math and its so-called invariance is a farce. The symmetry is strictly mathematical: it was part of the equations before anyone applied them to reality, so the invariance is all manufactured. Whether we can save it is therefore not a physical or mechanical question. As for renormalization, I have shown that physicists should be embarrassed to continue that trick: they should be glad to get rid of it. Even Feynman, who invented the largest part of it, said it was hocus-pocus. As for charge conservation, I have shown that there is no such thing, since the charge field isn't even a real dipole. As a question of mechanics, all charge is positive, so there is no way to conserve it. As for these upper limits, I will first point out that my mass is below the first two limits. 7 × 10-17eV is equal to 1.25 × 10-36kg, and I just found a mass for the photon of 2.77 × 10-37kg. This is not to say that I accept any of these limits, or the experiments they come from. The planetary magnetic field number is possibly correct, and I would have to study the experiments more carefully to criticize it, but the Cavendish number is highly suspect. I have shown in my paper on Cavendish that the experiment has been misunderstood from the beginning, so any tinkering with a modern Cavendish device must be taken with a grain of salt. Finally, even this quote admits that the galactic field number is in doubt, as it should be. We still can't measure distances to galaxies with confidence**, so field measurements must likewise be very imprecise. This limit is meaningless.

But to move on. Another question begged: why is there not a stable particle 1821 times the proton mass, and so on up? This first level above the proton would be a particle with a mass of 3 x 10-24 kg. There would also be a particle at about 3 x 10-11kg and at about .2 kg. The answer to this question is “gravity.” At the mass and size of a proton and below, the variance in energy caused by gravity is a very small part of the total. I have shown that it is much larger than QED thinks, but it is still small enough that it does not cause instability. According to the standard model, gravity is negligible, being at least 1038 times weaker than E/M. In my unified field equations, it is large enough to enter the calculations, even at the size of the atom. When we get 2000 times larger than the atom, it has already begun to cause instability in the spin equations. I will also have much more to say about this in subsequent papers, but in my unified field papers you can already see that gravity must be a measurable fraction of the total field long before we reach the size of visible particles. You can see this very clearly in the math of my Cavendish paper, where I calculate the relative sizes of the gravity and E/M fields at various levels of size.

Now for the toughest question begged: “How can an electron be composed of a photon, with two levels of stacked spins, plus its own axial spin, and then emit photons in order to create the charge field? In this scenario, you have photons emitting themselves!” Good question, and it is made even more difficult if you add this one: “If a photon can dodge the charge wind, made up of other photons, how does it ever get the seven extra spins to become an electron?”

This is also difficult enough to merit another paper, but I will go ahead and use it to finish off this paper. I will answer the second question first, since it is a bit easier. Once again it is simply a matter of size. Photons do collide all the time, but because they are the same size, they normally don’t cause much slowing. The odds of a direct hit are very small. Indirect hits cause spin, not slowing. So collisions do cause all the spins, without much slowing. Of course direct hits do happen, but these hits do not cause annihilation. They cause temporary stoppage of both photons. Stopped photons are sitting ducks: their odds of direct collision go way up. So they get re-boosted by other photons and eventually reach c again. The small fraction of photons that get stopped simply lowers the average speed of all the photons. This would mean that c is the average speed, not the maximum speed. So it is possible, according to this theory of collision, that newly emitted photons may be going slightly over c for a short time, until they suffer a number of collisions.

Electrons and protons and all larger particles feel a photon wind, and this photon wind slows them. Larger particles get spin from each other, but they get slowed mainly by photons. Photons don’t impart spin to larger particles because spin requires a small size differential. A small particle and a large particle can’t often hit “edge to edge”: the odds show us that it is much more likely the small particle will impact away from any edge of the large particle. Just think of taking random shots at a large globe with a BB gun. Almost all the shots that hit it will be absorbed, or will knock it back. The odds of hitting the globe with a BB right on an edge, so that it imparts spin, are very very low. But if two BB’s meet in flight, the opposite is true. The odds of a direct hit are very very low. Spin is the most likely outcome of any hit. This explains some of the main differences between photons and hadrons.

Still, how can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons? The short answer is that it is not emitting them, it is re-emitting them. As the photon gather spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine. The spins allow it to trap other photons. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons. It is now an electron. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

This is the basic mechanism of charge. Of course I have only outlined a barebones theory here, and I have much work to do. But you can see that requiring a strictly mechanical explanation has continued to lead me into fertile fields. For a century it has been thought that mechanics was a necessary limitation or hindrance at the quantum level. It has been thought that the sort of explaining I am doing is impossible. But it is not impossible. Asking and attempting to answer the sorts of material and kinematic questions I am asking and answering here is the only possible way to progress at any level, quantum or cosmic.

Addendum, Feb 2012: Some in the mainstream are already moving in the direction of this paper. A reader just sent me to a 1997 paper by Williamson and van der Mark, and they are proposing a similar electron construction to mine. Unfortunately, they have kept a lot of mainstream dogma which I have shown is incorrect. These quantum problems require an entire array of simultaneous corrections, and they have only spotted some of them. They are also keeping the difficult math and complex wording, to impress their colleagues, which is understandable. If you find my papers way too breezy, you may prefer theirs. But if you want a barebones explanation, my quantum spin equation is much simpler than their toroidal construction.

*http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
**http://www.universetoday.com/2006/08/07/the-universe-could-be-larger-than-previously-thought/

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction. 