LHC portal

I am rather sure none of you have ever heard of me.

I am a frequent commentard on El Reg, and have proposed/spewed:

"Zeke's Yin-Yang model of the universe."

Note that I call it a model, not a theory, and it is intended to help people get their mind around the structure of things.

The basic premise is that ONLY photons exist in the universe.

1. A photon consists of at least two inseperable particles which orbit each other in 10 or 11 dimensions.

http://blog.destination-fun.com/Yin-Yang.jpg

The classic Yin-Yang icon pictures only two particles, each surround by a field, and orbiting each other in two dimensions. Although this is highly simplified, by expanding the orbital motion to more dimensions, and giving names to the fields, we can build a useful model.

For example, by imagining orbits in three dimensions, we can visualize the tenet that a photon has an electric field and a magnetic field at right angles to each other.

2. The speed of light, "C" is actually the speed of time, photons are able to attach themselves to time (and possibly create time and space.)

3. Hadrons are multiple photons that assume defined complex orbits about each other. The specific properties of matter are determined by the nature of photons and the orbits they take. Hadrons have mass because the constituant photons attach themselves to time/space, but cannot move with it because they are bound to all the other photons of the hadron, so a tiny portion of time/space is pulled along with any object, imparting the features we associate with mass such weight and inertia. This is the underlying basis of E=M*C^2.

3a. Hawking seems to get this, there is no higgs boson, just the nature of the photon itself.

4. Photons can be extremely large, and a single photon might be a part of more than one hadron. This gives rise to other forces that bind quarks into large particles like neutrons, and bind atomic nucleii together.

This is the tip of the iceberg, of course, the dream is to build an understandable yet math-free model.

Understandable but math free -> Cannot be calculated -> Cannot be proved/disproved -> Has no value.

If your model has mathematically well defined experimental properties, brilliant
Time to start seeing if it's a potential contender, alongside string theory, supersymmetry , extensions to the standard model

Regardless, welcome to LHCPortal

welcome

tswsl1989 wrote: If your model has mathematically well defined experimental properties [...]
welcome to LHCPortal

Thanks for the welcome.

As a bit of introduction, I got into this model as an aid to designing WI-FI antennae, but it has since gotten out of hand. My current project is SOFC electrolytes.

In truth it is not Math free, but its a math of probability, slot machine pulls. In spite of its simplicity, it can explain stuff like single photon slit experiments without treating our poor photon as a wave.

I do not wish to rival, but only to simplify the model so you "real" physists can project your formulae against its walls, and help me refine it. It is a work in progress, nothing more.

Disco Legend Zeke wrote:Thanks for the welcome.

No problem

Disco Legend Zeke wrote: In truth it is not Math free, but its a math of probability, slot machine pulls. In spite of its simplicity, it can explain stuff like single photon slit experiments without treating our poor photon as a wave.

Sounds similar to existing quantum mechanics.
Apologies for the slightly terse start to my previous, but we have a few residents on here that aren't all that willing to enter into discussion about things

Hope you find some information of interest here

Welcome Zeke,

I like people who try to find modles of visualisation of cosmology which claim to be eayer to handel than the accepted standardmodel, as long as they not claim that theyare only right and gthe ohter scinetist make mistakes or even dangerousmistakes (but I dont think you are).
I don't know how you came to this modle, but also remember having difficulties to think about the functin of antennas. So I am open for your ideas also without math but only uintil someone finds a visible effect of reality (experiment) which contradicts this model or makesit complicated in such a way that it is no advantage compared to the accepted model.
Interesting to me personally is your idea about c being the speed of time, because I personally came to the same Idea when I was playing with the equatons of special relativity and the pytagoras rule of the triangle. Only silgt difference: I say c is not the maximum speed but the only speed every particle always has, as long as it seemsat rest in a certain system of observation c is the speed of time as soon as it seems to move c isthe sum of the speed in space and the speed in time thereby reducing thespeed in time while the spped in space increases. For particles (including photons or neutrinos) moving with the spped of light or close to it time will stand still or almost stand still. That is exactly what the special theory of relativity predicts and can be obtained by simple transformation of the equations of Einsteins theory of relativity. So this point of view doesn't contradict the accepted theories but only sees them from a different angle. I htink and hope that your model also something like this if not even a extension of my idea.

Welcome on board Disco, you seem like an interesting guy. Any thoughts on Otto Rössler's idea that the LHC is going to put out the sun? I thought that article on El Reg was really amusing.