Light RINGs

Classically-Derived “Light RING”: A Single-Photon ‘Mass’ Particle With Dual Wave-Particle Nature

By Carol Blaney, Ph.D.

Abstract:

A new model predicts how a photon is transformed into a ‘mass’ particle (termed a “Light RING”), and this particle is described. Its radius is just Planck’s length multiplied by a proportionality constant unique for each Light RING; its mass is the same proportionality constant multiplied by the Planck mass.

This approach is conceptually simple (3D+1) and relies on very few fundamental (classical) physical principles. The model teaches that a photon’s own inertia can, under specific conditions, “warp” spacetime severely enough to trap itself into a self-perpetuating circular (or helical) orbit. This condensed and trapped “pure photonic inertia” gives rise to a gyroscopic entity that displays the properties of inertial ‘mass’ while retaining it’s original wave nature. Various modes of harmonic expression arising out of this model, plus mathematical requirements for chirality, plus said gyroscopic properties, suggest that this “Light RING particle” model might ultimately predict the measurable, macroscopic properties of ‘matter’ - - such as inertia, charge, spin, and dual wave-like and particle-like natures -- with elegant simplicity.

The nontrivial and bold conclusions suggest that ‘mass’ arises solely from a photon’s massless inertia – this inertia being highly concentrated in a localized ring of Planck dimensions. Furthermore, both dark matter and dark energy should arise from the nature of these “Light RINGs” – which is an acronym for “Light Revolving In a Never-ending Gyroscope.”

Introduction:

Like most of us, the author had respectable dreams and aspirations (admittedly bordering on delusional) of somehow figuring out how to get clean, safe, and cheap energy out of matter. But how could that happen if no one seemed to have a clue how light became matter in the first place? Thus, the author set out to try and understand how matter comprises light.

Part A. Accelerating-spaceflux interpretation of the General Theory’s “warped spacetime.”

The phenomenon of gravity was expressed empirically by Newton as:

F_ij = m_im_jG_N/r² (1)

where F_ij is the observed mutual force between any two massive, neutrally-charged objects in otherwise empty space, G_N is Newton’s gravitational constant, and r is the distance between the centers of gravity of the objects who’s inertial masses are m_i and m_j [1].

In 1917, Albert Einstein further clarified the gravitational phenomenon as arising from massive objects having an innate tendancy to warp spacetime, in his now classic General Theory of Relativity (GTOR) [2]. Without altering the mathematics of the GTOR, one can re-interpret the warped spacetime phenomenon attributed to massive objects by returning to Einstein’s original efforts (pre-Minkowski) using simple 3D space plus the time dimension. To illustrate the preferred pre-Minkowskian way of interpreting ‘warped spacetime,’ which is necessary for Parts B & C, a simple example follows.

Returning to Einstein’s cerebral elevator experiment: While you are riding through empty space in an accelerating, windowless “elevator” (being pulled along by a cable attached to a rocket), it is impossible for you to decide if the apple you dropped is falling to the floor due to the Earth’s familiar gravitational field, or due to the rocket pushing you through space at an ever-increasing velocity. Thus, a gravitational field is identical, in our observations, to accelerating yourself through space. It follows that the acceleration of the space through which one travels is the cause of the apple’s ‘free-fall.’ Nothing new since 1917, of course. Keeping this perspicacious observation in mind when you return home to Earth, you drop the same apple and watch it fall to the floor in free fall, and you realize the apple is merely riding along in the space -- as that space is being sucked into the massive planet beneath your feet. And that space isn’t just continually moving downward towards the floor; it is continually accelerating downwards towards the floor. Every point in your Earth room has a vector associated with it -- an acceleration vector which describes the local acceleration of space (hereafter called “accelerating spaceflux” -- whose magnitude is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between that point and the earth’s center.

A key point worth repeating is that this ‘spaceflux’ is not merely moving towards the planet’s center, but this spaceflux is continuously accelerating. Most physicists agree that the velocity of space is an irrelevant term, as was demonstrated when Michelson and Morley failed in every attempt to demonstrate the existence of an ‘ether’ along with its absolute frame of reference [5]. However, to say “spaceflux is accelerating towards massive objects” is not evoking ether; Rather, it is evoking a phenomenon true to all massive bodies – namely, warped spacetime reinterpreted using 3 spatial dimensions plus time. It is the acceleration of local space in the direction of the massive object that is of mathematical interest to us and to the falling apple who has its own passenger – a worm – and this worm finds himself riding along with his apple and not feeling a thing.

Others have voiced similar ways to imagine the transient effect that mass has on local space, as well as the acceleration of space in the outward direction, as in Inflation Theory, using phrases like “space moving faster than the speed of light” [3], and “The expanding universe creates new space” [4]. That massive bodies create space follows from the GTOR. An inflating universe would balance the flow of inwardly moving (accelerating) space with an equal and opposite outwardly moving (accelerating) space (see later section on the First Law).

Since the mathematically simple discussion that follows in parts B and C treats space and time as different entities (they are certainly different in everyday experience), the above method for visualizing accelerating spaceflux is now needed. Later, one can easily resort back to his-or-her familiar “warped 4D spacetime.”

Part B: Light creates space (and in fact, causes accelerating spaceflux).

The discussion of Part A focused on ‘massive objects,’ but the phenomenon of accelerating spaceflux applies not just for ‘mass’, but for any object possessing inertia, including a photon of light, whose inertial energy is expressed as:

E = hf (2)

where h is Planck’s constant, and f is the frequency of the photon of light [6].

In light of the preceding statement, we summarize: All inertial entities cause an accelerating spaceflux towards them, which draws other inertial entities towards them. When two inertial bodies coexist in empty space, each causes its own acceleration of spaceflux towards itself, which sucks the other towards it, and the effect is mutual, each drawing the other to itself. The importance of thoroughly grasping this concept of accelerating spaceflux is paramount to the arguments in Part C. It must be stressed that this visual interpretation of accelerating spaceflux is identical to GTOR’s warped spacetime, and it has the advantage of allowing the reader to visualize the “accelerating spaceflux vector space” around all inertial bodies, including the massless photon. Fig. 1 shows a planet floating in otherwise empty space, surrounded by it’s accelerating spaceflux vector space.

Fig. 1. Qualitative illustration of a massive planet’s accelerating spaceflux vector space. A planet of mass M_planet sits in otherwise empty space. Its “personally-generated” accelerating spaceflux vector space is shown in only a single plane. This plane bisects the planet through its center, and is parallel to the surface of this page. Each accelerating spaceflux vector has a magnitude which depends on its distance from the center of the planet, and is given by a_sfx = M_planetG_N/r².

Part C: A model for a particle comprising a single photon, beginning with speculations on the causative circumstances.

Consider a photon colliding with other entities under three extreme conditions:

1. An unfathomably high number of collisions per second,

2. Unfathomably close distances between collisions, and

3. Unfathomably high energies per collision –

maybe, say, shortly after the big bang. One then logically supposes that this photon experiences a very tortuous path – so tortuous, in fact, that the photon would actually bend, reflect, or otherwise deform, so that sooner or later it sees itself crawling across its own tail – something like what the worm in our apple might experience as it attempts a U-turn in a tight tunnel it has eaten out of its apple. The twisted photon should then experience significant effects from its own inertially-induced accelerating spaceflux.

In fact, if conditions and geometry are just right, segment A of the photon will find itself so close to segment B of the same photon that segment A will be sucked towards segment B. If this condition occurs in enough places, it would force the photon into a pulsating orbit of radius r. It appears in this cerebral experiment that the light wave has trapped itself within its own inertially-induced accelerating spaceflux. Said with perhaps more familiar terminology, the photon has found itself traveling along its own self-induced warped spacetime geodesic, causing itself to follow a circular path. Did our worm swallow its tail?

(Unlike our worm, though, the photon thinks it’s going straight because it’s is merely following the accelerating spaceflux presented to it as it travels through space at velocity c. It thus free-falls like any inertial body would do under such conditions. It only appears to be going in a circular path to an onlooker some distance L away, in which L >>> r.)

One can calculate the ‘condensed and trapped’ photon’s radius (which is the radius of the resulting Light RING, r_ring) by noting that this Light RING radius must fulfill the following requirement: The photon’s own (“personally generated”) accelerating spaceflux vector, a_sfx, must at each point match the centripetal acceleration vector, a_{c ,} which is needed to force a traveling photon (or any inertial entity, for that matter) into a circular path of this same radius.

Imagine such a circular entity of radius r_ring, hereafter referred to as the Light RING, and whose apparent mass will later be discovered to be M_ring . We will next prepare to formulate the equation sited above, namely:

a_sfx = a_c (3)

The centripetal acceleration needed to hold an inertial entity in circular orbit is the familiar a_c = v²/r . Noting our photon’s velocity is given by the speed of light c we have:

a_c = c²/r (4)

In formulating an equation for a_sfx, one notes that this is just the magnitude of the spaceflux acceleration vector generated by the Light RING of apparent mass M_ring , at radius r_ring from the Light RING’s center. The direction of this vector points to the Light RING’s center. (Any intertial mass entity acted upon by this vector will be accelerated towards the Light RING’s center via the same phenomenon as an apple is accelerated towards the Earth. The apple follows a spacetime geodesic, and to an outside observer the apple appears to accelerate along that geodesic, but the worm in the apple experiences no such sensation of acceleration -- since it’s in free-fall, immersed in the accelerating spaceflux. Furthermore, the worm-plus-apple entity generates its own accelerating spaceflux vector space which is superimposed upon Earth’s accelerating spaceflux vector space, and the result is that both Earth, and worm+apple, are “competing” for the same local space (each sucking in his-or-her own space). The author claims that this sucked-in space gives life to (e.g., generates -- or even more concisely, co-creates) the photons of which the mass comprises. The result of this “competition” is seen in the superposition of the two personally-generated accelerating spaceflux vector spaces of the Earth, and the worm+apple.

Using Newton’s Eq. (1), and noting that force = mass x acceleration, the magnitude of the photon’s personally generated accelerating spaceflux vector, a_sfx, at a distance r_ring from the center of the entity, is given by:

a_sfx = G_NM_ring/ r_ring² (5)

To reiterate: This entity of apparent mass M_ring will cause (as do all massive objects) an accelerating spaceflux -- e.g. it will warp spacetime. In the above equation, this deformation of spacetime is most straightforwardly quantified using Newton’s empirically-derived universal gravitational constant G_N.

Recalling now Planck’s E=hf [Eq. (2)], and Einstein’s E = Mc², we deduce M_ring=hf/c², and equation (4) becomes:

a_sfx = G_N(hf/c²)/ r_ring ² (6)

where f is the frequency of the originating photon.

Finally, we note that the circumference, 2pr, (where p=3.1416... = pi) of the resultant Light RING, will be some multiple of the originating photon’s wavelength, l = c/n. We are not yet specifying what that multiple is, but let us call it n. Thus, we define n in the following equality:

2p r_ring = nl= n(c/f) (7)

Setting a_sfx equal to a_c [Eq. (3)], and solving for r_ring and f, we execute the following steps:

· Combining (4) and (6) gives: G_N(hf/c²)/ r_ring ² = c²/ r_ring

· Rearranging (7) gives f = nc/(2p r_ring) which, when substituted into (4),(6) gives

· G_N(h (nc/(2p r_ring)) /c²)/ r_ring ² = c²/ r_ring.

Solving for r as an expression of n, we obtain:

r_ring = sqrt [nhG_N /(2pc³)] (8)

Solving for f as an expression of n, we obtain:

f = sqrt [nc⁵/(2phG_N)] (9)

Finally, using E= hf = Mc² we obtain the ‘mass,’ M_ring , of the particle:

M_ring = sqrt[nch/(2pG_N)] (10)

r_ring can also be expressed as a function of f. By solving for for n in eq. (9) and substituting into eq. (8), r_ring is expressed in terms of the frequency of the originating photon, as:

r_ring = hG_Nf/c⁴ (11)

The resultant equations show that the Light RING’s size and mass depend on the originating photons frequency f, and on 3 empirically derived constants: h, G, and c, fundamental constants of our universe.

Also of note is the fact that every unique frequency of radiation f_i has its own unique Light RING radius and its own unique n. This is reasonable because each photon of frequency f would be expected to have a unique radius in which the value of the centripetal acceleration vector matches the value of the photon’s spaceflux acceleration vector – and that radius would determine how many (n) wavelengths would fit into the circumference of the Light RING.

Noting that Planck’s length l_Pl is sqrt [hG_N/(2pc³)], Planck’s time t_Pl is sqrt [hG_N/(2pc³)], and Planck’s mass M_Pl is sqrt[hc/(2pG_N)] equation (8) through (11) become:

r_ring = l_Pl sqrt [n] (12) *

f = sqrt [n]/(2pt_Pl) (13) *

M_ring = M_Pl sqrt[n] (14) *

r_ring = l_Pl t_Pl2pf (15) *

The astounding results -- that the properties of the Light Ring only depend on f (or you could equally say, upon n), and are expressed au naturel in Planck units (which contain the fundamental constants G, c, and h) – force the scientist to take the simplicity of the model seriously and wonder if it is indeed expressing a basic truth about our universe.

The model shows that the Light RING of apparent inertial mass M_ring obtains its inertia directly from the inertia of the original photon, albeit now the photon’s inertia is gyroscopic, and the resultant Light RING will be a gyroscope and will resist acceleration like a gyroscope does.

Equations (12) through (15) are the culmination of this phase of the author’s work. The photonic particles modeled herein are referred to by the author as ‘Light RINGs’ in an effort to clarify that they are photons of Light/radiation Revolving In a Never-ending Gyroscopic configuration.

Fig. 2 is an artist’s illustration of twelve different Light RINGS. The little arrows depict the instantaneous amplitude of the electric field component of the originating photon’s electromagnetic wave amplitude -- as that photon circles around, ‘imbibing’ itself. Discussions follow for selected values of n.

Fig. 2. An illustrated series of Light RINGs. Light RINGS are depicted in 3-dimensional oblique views, corresponding to arbitrarily chosen “interesting” values of n. From left to right and top to bottom, n = 0.1, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 8, and 12 -- viewed in a ‘snapshot’ of time. The sinusoidal peaks and valleys represent the local electric field vector, E, with the understanding that the corresponding and co-created magnetic field vector B is perpendicular to E, as Maxwell’s equations describe.

Note 1: As time progresses, the electric field peaks will move in a circular motion around the ring at velocity c, corresponding to a rotational frequency of c/(2pr) revolutions/sec, and corresponding to an angular velocity of c/r radians/sec.

Note 2: A revised/corrected model (discussed below) may rotate E (and B) 45 degrees, as well as shift the shapes of the electromagnetic peaks.

A Light RING is still pure light in all it’s shimmering Maxwellian beauty -- albeit highly distorted from our “outsider’s” point of view. It’s traveling smoothly through its own warped spacetime, in Planck’s regime. Thus, these Light RINGs would be expected, certainly, to behave with wave-like properties since anyone can see they are waves, albeit trapped in a whirlpool-shaped psuedo-Bose-Einstein-Condensate state. And, naturally, they will have particle-like properties because the photon has been transformed into a Planck-scale gyroscope and will resist acceleration like a gyroscope does.

One might for a moment imagine a simple, three-component-universe with only space, time, and energy, in which energy (whose building blocks are photons) warps spacetime. And when this spacetime-warping radiation is condensed into mass-like rings, it warps spacetime much more strongly -- locally. The Light RINGs predicted by the theory are condensed light, trapped in their own warped spacetime. The timeless photons are taking a break from their timeless linear travel to stagnate a while, allowing the universe around them to go on. Because of this, time is, and we are (-- as concluded by the author after deep thought regarding the nature of our space/time/energy-quantized universe).

(Note that r_ring is larger than the Schwartzchild radius of a particle of mass M_ring. The very distinct Schwartzchild radius is the distance below which no photon traveling in a direction radially outward from the center point, can escape, due to the observed gravitational pull of the mass. In contrast, we are expressing the radius at which a photon, traveling in a direction tangent to that just stated, will be pulled/accelerated “inwardly” so that it remains in a circular procession around the center of the resultant particle.)

Isn’t this just 1980s string theory?

The author approached the problem of “Just how does matter comprise light energy?” independently of any knowledge of string theory -- using classical physics principals, high school algebra, and a creative imagination.

After beholding her equations and their wondrous implications, she spent considerable months searching the literature for similar work, and it was then that she came across string theory, intrigued at the visual and harmonic similarities between “strings” and Light RINGS. In fact, according to Lee Smolin [12], the expression for the mass of a string is identical to the mass of a Light Ring in Eq. (14), except for the description of the proportionality factor, discussed in more depth in subsequent sections. And Eq. (14) herein presents the same challenges string theory had – namely, the masses (for n near 1) are just too large to explain the Standard Theory particles.

However, this doesn’t mean string theory is the same as Light RING theory. Photons are not strings, nor are they rubber bands (as is eluded to in string theory). Two photons don’t join heads and tails to form a bigger photon, as the strings appear to do in string theory. According to the literature, strings are standing waves. In contrast, Light RINGS are traveling waves. And thus far the author has only utilized 3D space plus time, which is encouraging to simple minds. Sheldon Glashow has poignantly stated that “Superstring theory does not follow from a natural hypothesis about nature,” [11] – and as we have seen, the approach used herein clearly and indisputably does follow from a natural hypothesis about nature (if you and Glashow consider the general theory and the concept of light to be “natural”).

The author believes her approach and reasoning differ so fundamentally from that of string theory and it’s offshoots, that such a new, refreshing and simple approach might offer an alternate, and more useful, way of viewing the universe – and string theory. That light can form a harmonic entity by trapping itself in its own spacetime warpage is in and of itself a new concept (as far as is known by the author), and the fact that Eq. (14) resembles the predictions of string theory is testimony to the relevance and depth of the approach employed herein.

Simplified model awaits corrections:

So far the model is a first step in understanding how matter comprises light energy. The simplified analysis presented here has one main objective: to introduce the concept of Light RINGs. In a more rigorous application of Maxwell’s equations, coupled with an accelerating spaceflux vector space at very close proximity to the Light RING, the author has reason to believe that E and B may be tilted and/or warped. In fact, might the originating photon be forced to twist as it makes its rounds? (see below) These issues are not the main thrust of this paper, but are mentioned to clarify the simplifications of the model thus far.

Can the model predict chirality?

The model thus far has assumed that the superposition principle of electromagnetic fields holds. Thus, the originating photon occupies the same space of itself as it follows its circular path. There are at least two possible problems with this.

The first problem is that the model in its current state can not predict chirality (i.e. as observed in Standard Model particles). However, a revised model with an originating photon that ‘twists’ as it revolves, as mentioned above, may. Alternatively, Light RINGS might assemble into chiral structures via linked loops (a chain of Light RINGS) or other ‘interwoven’ configurations.

The second problem arises in considering that, at very close distances, two “inertial” photons will generate singularities in the sum of their “personal” accelerating spaceflux vectors (that is, there will be an infinite, or at least unacceptably large, acceleration of spaceflux if the photons encroach upon each other’s “personal space” too much). This, the author claims, is unacceptable both mathematically and in our universe. Said another way, the author is boldly (but with all due respects) challenging the superposition principle by noting that a photon attempting to imbibe itself as it is formed into a Light RING will at some point compete for “available” accelerating spaceflux with another segment of itself. The result will be for the photon to align with itself as much as it can, but still allow for enough accelerating spaceflux to slip in between adjacent segments of itself. Thus, it will form, not a perfect ring, but will coil slightly with each revolution and form a tightly spaced helix. The drawings in Fig. 2 could just as well be these ‘helixes’, which may appear at first glance to be rings, but in fact there will be a slight displacement from one gyration to the next. Such a helical gyroscope will of course also have a permanent precession which can be determined as follows: Map out the accelerating spaceflux vector space for the Revolving photon, segment by segment. Find the distance between segments, Dx, at which a_sfx singularities (or limitations) occur. The author claims that this is the limit of ‘closeness’ allowed between adjacent Light RING segments -- and also by free photons.

This said gyroscope-with-procession, described in a “corrected” model as outlined above, will straightforwardly give rise to chirality, or handed-ness, in Light RINGs.

In addition, a gyroscopic Light RING can also have a rotation in space similar to the flipping of a coin, and this mode of spinning (which would also contribute to its expression of measurable properties) would have quantized values of angular momentum vectors consistent with the laws of quantum mechanics.

Harmonic theory and a discussion of the significance of n.

Recalling equation (8), when n = 1 the circumference of the Light RING is exactly one wavelength of the original photon. This Light RING is illustrated in Figure 2. In this case, every revolution of the photon results in additive E and B fields, making the photon express it’s electrical and magnetic properties as a concentrated and localized phenomenon. This reinforcing effect on E and B would in fact manifest for all integer values of n.

For n=1.5, as illustrated in Fig. 1, there are 1.5 sinusoidal photon wavelengths in one circumference of the Light RING, so that every other revolution of the photon (in its procession about the center point) would result in perfect cancellation of the electromagnetic fields (or slightly imperfect cancellation for the corrected helical model discussed in the section on chirality). Such a particle would not be expected to express magnetic or electric properties, but would still express inertial properties. This is expected to hold in general for n = m +/- ½, where m is an integer. (Note: If the reader wonders whether these modes would cause the originating photon to annihilate itself, recall that 2 oncoming waves in water, one positive in amplitude and one negative, may momentarily cancel one another out as they overlap, but the ‘invisible’ tension still exists in the system of water molecules, and the waves quickly pass through one another and continue along their way, with their original amplitudes intact.)

For n<1,>1. (That is, an originating photon with a lower hf requires a smaller n, a smaller r_ring, and a smaller M_ring) . For example if n = 0.1, the originating photon makes 10 full revolutions per wavelength, as seen in Fig. 2.

The limit of how large n can be and still form a stable Light RING would depend, it would seem, on the length of the photon itself (as opposed to its wavelength). There must be enough of the photon existing 180 degrees opposite itself on any point along the circumference of the Light RING in order to give enough acceleration of spaceflux to produce the required centripetal acceleration. As an example, imagine a short photon the length of our worm trying to travel in a large circle the size of our apple. It would fly away (the photon, not the worm).

This paragraph is a work-in-progress and begs discussion.

The author expects that the most stable Light RINGs will be the ones that have stronger harmonics (especially, i.e., n = an integer). However, the n is not an integer Light Halo could still be formed during big-bang/post-big-bang conditions, where gravitational attraction between photon segments would manifest, the result being that E and B would be expected to be virtually cancelled, leaving only inertia without electric/magnetic properties.

Table 1 presents the calculated values of selected Light RINGS according to the simplified theory presented herein. The first interesting finding is the large mass predicted for a Light RING with n near 1 (much larger than the mass of a proton). For these massive particles, the originating photons appear to possess enormous never-before-observed energies: ultra-high-energy gamma rays with frequencies of 10⁴²/sec. On the other hand, a particle with the mass of an electron appears to comprise an originating photon that’s just a run-of-the-mill gamma ray of 10²⁰/sec, a very satisfying result. It has an n value on the order of 10^-45, which means that the photon circles around itself around 10⁴⁵ times per wavelength. No wonder it’s radius is calculated to be (disappointingly) so much smaller than Planck’s length. Could the proposed refinements/revisions to the model, mentioned earlier, make the calculated properties of these Light RINGS perhaps more digestible? Time will tell.

With the plethora of conceivable values for n, along with the discussed contributions to chirality and spin, every property of matter could conceivably be predicted, including inertia, spin and charge, if the details in the model are worked out. However, let us now only say a few words about the observed property of mass we call inertia (resistance to acceleration) as it is predicted in the present model.

Inertial mass’s fundamental cause.

The model shows that a single Light RING is a gyroscope that directionally resists forces (more resistance in some directions than others). However, an ensemble of these gyroscopes -- whose angular momentum vectors are not aligned with one another but rather are pointing in random directions and thus cancel one another by summing to virtually zero -- would result in a massive object with no directionality associated with its net inertia. Much like objects seen in our day to day life. From a non-particle-physicist’s hopeful point of view, might this get around the need for a Higgs Boson to explain how particles get their mass?

Speculations on dark matter:

The author suggests that what has been observed and referred to as ‘dark matter’ is made predominantly of Light RINGs which are extremely stable with very long half-lives, requiring so much energy to unwind them (e.g. free them) that they remain virtually dead. This is contrasted to Light RINGs that either have shorter half-lives, or that have lower activation energies (for unwinding/freeing), and thus are more reactive (more apt to convert to free photons) when interacting with other nearby inertial entities (that is, matter and/or radiation).

Does The First Law of Thermodynamics require an expanding universe?

All of the inertial entities in the universe, including matter of all kinds (dark, regular, neutral, charged, anti-matter, etc.) as well as light/radiation, cause a net acceleration of (vacuum) spaceflux -- in the direction of their locations in space. Highly respected cosmologists claim that the vacuum of space has an energy density associated with it, termed “dark energy,” which is quantified in Einstein’s cosmological constant [9]. Thus, matter and radiation (which occupy the center of the universe, so it seems) create a net (accelerating) flow of this vacuum-energy towards the ‘center of gravity’ of the universe. The First Law would require an equal and opposite flow of energy in the opposite direction – in the direction of “out there.” So space needs to (1) be created, and (2) be provided equally to the hungry space-sucking radiation and matter -- and to the outer reaches of space. This results in the phenomenon that George Musser describes in his latest book as “The expanding universe creates new space” [8].

The above explanation does not attribute the expansion directly and exclusively to the presence of dark energy; rather, it attributes the expansion of our universe to the mass-induced inward flow of the energy density of the vacuum of space (dark energy), and dictates that an equal flow of this dark energy must flow outward.

The above-mentioned vacuum-space-creation is initiated first and foremost by light (radiation); without light, space isn’t created, and if space isn’t created (e.g. flowing towards the matter/radiation) then the universe doesn’t reciprocate by expanding as a function of time [--]. [Author assumes this has been said before and needs a reference]

Oservations by the Hubble Telescope confirm that our universe is indeed expanding.

Mass isn’t mass, and gravity isn’t gravity.

The author’s ultimate challenge (and goal herein) is to completely do away with the concepts of gravity and mass, and replace them with acceleration of spaceflux and Light RINGS. According to the teachings herein, mass is actually not mass at all, but a massless inertial photon concentrated in a ring , and thus concentrating all of it’s personally-generated accelerating spaceflux into one tiny region of space. And gravity isn’t gravity at all, but it is rather that same accelerating spaceflux arising from the originating photon, of which the mass (-which-isn’t-mass-at-all) comprises.

String theory’s handwaving vs. Light RING theory’s handwaving:

String theory’s “string mass” is derived using a completely different approach than the author’s Light RING “apparent mass” (according to the books and college course on string theory she has reviewed) – and yet the two give the same result (at least for M) – but with different explanation for the meaning of the proportionality constant.

String theory’s result for the mass of a “string” is:

M² = m_pl² x b

where b is some number Lee Smolin describes as a probability that a string will find the tail of another string or it’s own tail [12]. In contrast, the author’s similar equation for the “Light Ring’s apparent mass, M_ring” is independently derived using classical physics principals, and the result is:

M_ring² = m_pl² x n

where n is simply the fraction of the originating photon’s wavelengths that fits into the circle.

Considering the probable conditions under which Light RINGS are made, during the early moments following the big bang, it would make logical sense that low-n Light RINGS would have a much lower probability of being formed from a stereochemical, or rather, “stereosubatomic” point of view, IF the originating photon would have to be deformed into many, many circles superimposed upon itself to pop into a stable Light Ring state. In contrast, an n=1 or higher Light Ring needs fewer stereochemical superpositions to complete its transformation into a Light RING -- since it doesn’t have as many revolutions in it’s Light RING structure.

Note in the preceding paragraph the word IF. The author proposes that once an originating photon’s head locates it’s body (by traveling through appropriately warped spacetime, say right after the big bang), its head should just continue following its body, almost as if someone were zipping it up into its destined ring (or coiled) structure.

If this zipper phenomenon isn’t occurring, then our discussion is back to suggesting that low-n Light RINGS are less probable than hi-n Light RINGS. On the other hand, it would take a lot more total energy to deform a high-energy gamma ray photon into an n=1 Light Ring than it would take to deform a low-energy gamma ray light photon into a very-very-high-n Light Ring. So the stereosubatomic-induced probabilities and the energetic probabilities will compete, giving as-yet-unanalized final probabilities for forming Light RINGS with various n. If the steriochemical limitation overrides the energetic limitations, this would imply n is a measure (or an indicator) of the probability that the string is formed. This would agree qualitatively with string theory’s claim that its corresponding proportionality constant b is a probability that the string will find it’s own tail.

String Theory (it appears to the author) assumes b can only be an integer. Light RING theory makes no such assumption (at least not yet). Rather, it raises the question “What should n be?” Given that for n near unity, Light RINGS are condensed and trapped super-duper high frequency gamma rays never before observed, with masses much too large to explain Standard Theory particles, we are forced to consider Light RINGS created for n<<<1. In this case we see that for lower energy photons, the light must spiral or circle around itself many, many times before even one wavelength is accounted for. (Is there any agreement on the length of a photon? – on the number of ups-and-downs of the electromagnetic wave that make the photon up? Or is the number of ups-and-downs different for each frequency of photon? If this question has an answer, please share it with the author.) And in further considering our low-n-Light RING, whose originating photon superimposes itself upon itself many, many times per wavelength, we next ask: Won’t that make the E and B fields pretty much cancel one another out? That would leave you with a blurry particle with virtually zero electrical or magnetic properties, yet it would still have inertia.

Summary and Conclusions

A series of fundamental particles, hereforeto called Light RINGs, has been predicted using a Light RING model. These Light RINGs are made of “light” (photons of radiation) and their properties as well as their causal formation have been postulated, assuming (unlike loop quantum gravity) a background of spacetime, that is, 3D (space) + 1 (time), plus the presence of light (e.g. photonic perturbations) in said spacetime.

The results raise many questions, however. What elementary particles will arise if the Light Rings are looped – say… 2, 3, or more in a linked chain? If the simplified equations herein are revised to incorporate Maxwell’s Equations in the vicinity of the warped spacetime of the Light RING, how will this effect the predicted particle masses and sizes? Considering the fundamental equations of Light RING theory: if double special relativity [12] correctly predicts that high-energy photons travel faster than the speed of light c, while insuring Planck’s length remains constant for all observers, then how would this, if applied to the model, effect the apparent mass of our Light RINGS comprising, say, gamma rays?

The theory of Light RINGs, if embraced, provides us hope for access to what goes on in the regime of the Planck scale. On a practical level, such an understanding should lead us closer to figuring out how to extract cheap, clean, endless energy from matter. The indisputable fact that such an elegantly simple mathematical approach leads to Light RINGs with (reasonable and expected) size dimensions of Planck scale (at least for n near 1) provides a breath of fresh air to the whole search for a unification of theories by providing hope that in the end, the nature of our little universe will be graspable by our feeble human minds.

Acknowledgements

(to be determined)

Nomenclature:

p=pi=3.1416...

l = wavelength (usually the greek 'lambda')

f = frequency (usually the greek 'nu')

sqrt[x] = square root of x

References
[1] Newton proposed his universal law of gravity in 1687.

[2] Einstein, A., 1917 The General Theory of Relativity

[3] BloggingHeads.tv host John Horgan (in conversation with Sean Carroll, March 14, 2008, “Cosmic Bull Session”) has attributed this phrase to some of the earliest advocates for the Inflation Theory, including Alan Guth, Andre Linde, and Paul Steinhart.

[4] Musser, George, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory, Alpha Books, New York, NY.

[5] Michelson and Morley, numerous experiments failing to measure effects of Ether, early 20^th century.

[6] Max Planck’s original paper reporting measured values of Planck’s constant and teaching the energy E of a photon is equal to hf.

[7] Greene, Brian, The Fabric of the Cosmos, page 528, Vintage Books.

[8] Musser, George, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory.

[9] Carroll, Sean, stated in “diavlog” of reference [3].

[10] same as [8].

[11] Smolin, Lee, quotes Sheldon Glashow on page 125, The Trouble With Physics, Mariner Books, New York, NY. 2007

[12] Smolin, Lee, describing Double Special Relativity in Chapter 14, The Trouble With Physics, Mariner Books, New York, NY. 2007