My Own Contributions
in the field of
Photon Physics

Vernon Brown

It has been over 200 years now that wise men began to suspect that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. I first encountered that statement in an article by Albert Einstein some time around 1966. I had never even heard this mentioned in school, so I began to collect little tidbits of information that might reveal more about that concept.

This writing is an attempt to record my own contributions to that line of thinking. These contributions came as I tried to understand whether a consistant theory could be based upon that idea. Was it really possible that the universe might consist solely of electromagnetic phenomena and nothing else? So far I have found lots of evidence that it is so. I have found no evidence that it is not so.

The first obvious thing is that relativity phenomena is a natural consequence of that construct of matter. The next obvious thing I realized was that space and time must be fixed in order to produce relativity phenomena. As soon as I realized this, I knew why Einstein could not possibly finish his Unified Field Theory. Electromagnetic unification required flat space-time. Einstein was heavily invested in variable space-time and this assured his failure to produce a unification theory.

Relativity phenomena comes about naturally in an electromagnetic universe in which space and time are invariant. The shape and the time-experience of matter must distort to accommodate motion. I saw that the Lorentz transformations can be derived from that postulate alone.
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

My Own Contributions

1. Bending a photon's path produces electric charge that bends the path more in the same direction.

   • This notion came to me somewhere around the year 1986 as I pondered how matter might condense out of electromagnetic fields. There would be some mechanism that trapped the fields into quantum chunks of mass. I thought that the path of a photon might be bent into a complete circle. This would produce electric charge because the photon's fields can not be symmetrical in the bend. The electric charge might bend the photon's path more in the same direction. I knew that there was evidence of positive feedback when photon paths were bent.

   • This positive feedback tends to bend the photon's path more in the same direction. The force of the feedback is equal to the force that is causing the bend in the photon's path. The path is thus bent twice as much as would be caused by the outside force by itself.

   • This positive feedback can be observed in the light from distant stars. The path of this light is bent twice as much as gravity alone can account for when it passes close to a massive object on the way to earth. This was attributed to "warped space" in the past but in an electromagnetic universe space is not warped. Relativity phenomena naturally occurs because of the invariance of light and space-time. Warped space is not needed. Warped space is not even possible because all of relativity phenomena is already accounted for by the invariance of light, space, and time.

   • Everywhere in electromagnetic phenomena the effect of resonant frequencies is very powerful. As I thought about this it came to me that positive feedback and resonance is the mechanism that binds photons in resonant patterns to form particles of matter. Half of the effect is due to positive feedback and the other half to resonance.

2. The shell structure of nuclear particles.

   • I remembered seeing a brief note in one of Isaac Asimov's books about Robert Hofstadter's suggestion that nuclear particles might be made of shells. Although I don't remember it as such, this is probably the beginning of my idea that nuclear particles exist in a shell structure.

   • I knew that hadron spectra suggested that nuclear particles were structured. There seemed to be three of something within a proton and four of something within a neutron. No structure was ever found in an electron.

   • Protons would then be composed of three electron-like shells and neutrons would be composed of four. The inside shells would be more massive and smaller in size. The inner shells would need be exponentially more massive than the outer to get the sums of the masses to equate to observations.

   • I have never seen any of Hofstadter's work except as referenced in "Gauge Theories in Particle Physics", by I. J. R. Aitchison & A. J. G. Hey.

     Nevertheless, a surprisingly simple 'shell model' approach is capable of giving an excellent description of all the known hadronic spectra, in terms of the (qqq) and (qq) picture (Isgur and Karl 1983). The problem, as we shall ultimately see is how to relate this to QCD!

     I had already completed the "Square of the Shells Rule" before I read that quote, but it reinforced my thinking. I had always thought that Quark's were aptly named.

3. Square of the shells rule.

   • The Square Of The Shells Rule is: With the mass and the electric charge of the electron taken as unity, and starting with the mass and the force of electric charge of a neutron's outer shell, the mass and the force of electric charge of the inner particle shells is equal to the square of that of the next shell out.

   • If the nuclear particles were made of resonant electromagnetic shells, the exact mass of two of the shells would already be defined. This would be that of the electron, and the outer shell of the neutron. The neutron's outer shell would have to comprise the mass difference between a proton and a neutron. I knew that this was about 2.5 electron masses.

   • I wrote a little graphics program to simulate an electromagnetic field trapped in a resonant circle. It must complete a circle in a multiple of its wave length to satisfy resonance. I was interested to see how many wave lengths would complete one circle.

   • The program showed me that the same electrical polarity of the field remained on the outside of the circle when one wave length completed the circle.

   • Then I started experimenting to find the masses of the inner shells. The sum of the masses of all the shells would be that of the parent particle. Since there were four shells, the sum of the inside three would equate to the mass of the proton. The sum of all four would equate to the mass of the neutron. This relationship formed a criteria that I would use for my computer programs.

   • Nature seems to always provide a mathematical key to its makeup so there must be a key to the relationship of the shells, one to another. The first key I tried was that each inner shell's mass would be the square of the mass of the next shell out when taken in terms of electron masses.

   • I saw right away that starting with the neutron's outer shell mass as 2.5499146 electron masses the criteria was met. I knew the criteria need not be exact to the extended decimal because of the dynamics of the binding structure. There would be a slight difference between the theoretical and the measured mass. This was well known in the workings of chemical compounds and so should come as no surprise here.

   • The effective force of the electric charge of each of the inner shells is much greater than that of the electron because of their smaller radius. When the force of charge of the inner shells are sensed at the radius of the larger electron, they are exactly that of the electron.

     More Here

   

   Source Code || Function Library for the graphics program.
   
   Source Code for the calculator.
   

4. Howcome the Quantum. Electromagnetic saturation.
   • This notion came to me early in the 1980's. I knew that a photon must saturate if consisted of electromagnetic fields. Planck's constant shows up in equations at exactly the place where you would expect to see amplitude. Amplitude is strangely absent from the equations. If the fields exist, they must exist at some amplitude. If that amplitude is a variable, it must be in equations that calculate photon action. Since amplitude is not there, it must be a constant.

   • Then I realized a fact immediately obvious but strangely absent from teachings. Planck's constant derives from the electromagnetic saturation amplitude of free space.

   • All of the quantum effects in the universe result from the way that light propagates through space. It exists in a spacial area with a central point. This central point always exists at a constant electromagnetic amplitude. The constant amplitude of this point causes all quantum phenomena.

     More Here

5. Electromagnetic gravity.
   • Gravity was the greatest problem and was the last of my realizations. At first I thought of a jumble of electromagnetic remnants as the diminished fields from all photons mingled in space. Then when I saw that electromagnetic saturation was the natural form of photon central points, I knew the answer. It was solid. It was mathematically predictable.
   • The answer is this: The saturation amplitude of the central point in photons must be reached within the remnant fields of all other photons in the universe. These fields contribute toward saturation. Electromagnetic saturation amplitude is a property of space itself. Saturation must therefore occur at an offset toward increasing field strength of the remnant fields. That is gravity.

6. Fine Structure Constant
   • In the later part of 2008 I examined the Fine Structure Constant to see if I could find what it might actually be if the universe was really an electromagnetic entity. When I realized that this constant was tied strongly to the value of the amplitude of the electric charge of the electron, I knew how it would fit in. For a long time I had known that the bend radius of the path of the electron's comprising photon determined the amplitude of the electric charge of the electron. The Fine Structure Constant therefore had to be the ratio of the bend radius of the electron's comprising photn to the charge amplitude of the electron. Said another way; It is the ratio of electrical charge amplitude of an electron to the bend radius of the path of the photon that comprises the electron.
   • More Here

7. Strong Interaction Dynamics
   • I became aware of a strange dynamic of the strong nuclear interaction in the later part of 2008 while examining the Fine Structure Constant. The dynamic is that the field strength of the force actually strengthens with distance when protons separate. This strengthening happens over a very short distance and when a certain distance is exceeded, the force disappears.
   • I saw that this dynamic was consistent with the notion that protons consisted of photon shells as in the Square-Of-The-Shells rule. When bound together, proton shells one and two nestled inside the outside shells of the protons. The strong negative electric charge from the outside of shells 2 would find equilibrium with the negative charge of the inside of shells three. Any separation away form this equilibrium would bring opposing forces closer together and so increase the strength of the overall force.
   • More Here