*Reference: The Quantum Phenomenon*

The physical phenomena encountered in this universe are extremely varied. But there is a single aspect that characterizes all of them. That aspect is motion. Motion seems to underlie all physical phenomena. It is important to come up with a measure for motion that is consistent across the boards.

At cosmic levels, speed has served well as a measure of motion. It is a very basic notion of Classical mechanics. Even the theory of Relativity starts with the speed of light as a postulate. However, an interesting switch takes place at this point.

Speed is a notion derived from classical mechanics that assumes space and time to be absolute. The theory of relativity then demonstrates that neither space nor time is absolute. When one is traveling along a beam of light, the sense of space and time is very different. The units of space and time are no longer the “standard” units assumed when one is traveling along earth. We lose consistency in the measure of motion when we think about speed.

As long as one is viewing from a frame of reference that is “matter-centric” there is consistency in using speed as a measure of motion. But the moment one views from a frame of reference that is “light-centric” one loses that consistency. The inconsistency also shows up when viewing motion at atomic levels as studied in quantum mechanics.

**The consistency of using speed as a measure of motion is limited to the classical “matter-centric” frame of reference.**

Einstein leaned on Newton when he based his theory of relativity on a speed of light that was taken to be constant in all frames of reference. This postulate is exact enough when all the frames of reference being considered are matter-centric. There is a lot of validity to the theory of relativity as long as we make our observations in a matter-centric frame of reference.

The theory of relativity, however, leads to the conclusion that space and time are not absolute. Therefore, it cannot assume that the speed of light is absolute and independent of frames of references that are not matter-centric. Einstein’s postulate is also subject to the classical assumptions underlying the Maxwell’s equations. Quantum mechanics is now examining those assumptions as it tries to explain the wave-particle duality. One needs to reformulate Einstein’s postulate about speed of light for all frames of references.

However, this does not decrease, in any sense, the genius of Newton and Einstein. Their theories are extremely workable in their respective domains. And it is the understanding derived from those theories, which is now guiding us to properly address the inconsistencies noticed between the cosmic and atomic scale observations.

We can use Einstein’s equation to show that the frequency of a photon may act as a source of inertia (resistance to change in motion) just as the mass of an electron does. This inertia may impart the property of discreteness as well.

From energy relationships,

**E = hf = mc ^{2}
Or, f = [c^{2}/h] m = [constant] m **

In other words, frequency comes out proportional to mass equivalence, and it may play the same role as mass, within the electromagnetic spectrum. We may assume frequency to be a source of inertia where a wave is concerned, the same way that mass is a source of inertia for a particle.

Inertia is resistance to change in motion. Thus, as the frequency of electromagnetic radiation increases, it may act to slow its speed. However, from a matter-centric frame of reference, it may be difficult to detect the slowing down of the electromagnetic radiation. But a difference might be detectable between the speeds of gamma rays and radio waves because there is a large difference between their frequencies. The following news item seems to suggest that this may be the case.

** High Energy Gamma Rays Go Slower than the Speed of Light?**

The article on **Markarian 501** from Wikipedia states,

*“The gamma rays from Mrk 501 are extremely variable, undergoing violent outbursts. The gamma ray spectrum of Mrk 501 shows two humps. One is below 1 keV and can be considered to be X rays and the other is above 1 Tev. During flares and outbursts the peaks increase in power and frequency. Flares lasting 20 minutes long with rise times of 1 minute have been measured by MAGIC. In these flares the higher energy gamma rays (of 1.2 Tev) were delayed 4 minutes over the 0.25 TeV gamma rays.”*

When we carefully look at this situation, we see that frequency could be used as a more exact measure of motion than speed. Frequency is a repeating change that is observable with consistency despite the relativistic nature of space and time. Frequency may also suffer less than speed from a matter-centric bias.

**The frequency of electromagnetic radiation could prove to be a better measure of motion than its speed.**

Frequency as a measure of motion seems to open new avenues of investigation. For example, the de Broglie frequency of electron is in the same ballpark as the frequency of gamma rays. Therefore, a transition of inertia from frequency to mass seems to occur in gamma ray/electron region.

Of course, this is simply a hunch at this stage.

.

## Comments

“E = hf = mc2

Or, f = [c2/h] m = [constant] m”

You’re building an interesting case for relating mass to frequency but this is mix of equations that won’t get much traction.

f has a proportionality to angular momentum, p, not rest mass, m.

If you look around you’ll find a complete equation for energy that takes it all into account as:

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2

Thus Energy is the Pythagorean sum of orthonormal components of mass-based energy and photonic or wave-based energy.

Some interesting questions do come out of this, such as “Considering this orthonormal relationship, is wave – particle duality simply a reorientation of the quantum thingy wrt 3-space? If the thingy was viewed as a sort of rippling pancake moving through space, would a frisbee-like motion get less resistance from the space (allowing higher speed) than an orthonormal (pie-in-the-face) orientation?”

If space is a medium for waves and particles in a similar manner to air and water being media for birds and fish, then it would make sense that different wave orientations (a sort of “streamlined” or “not streamlined” difference) would have a different relationships with space.

The Pythagorean triangle relationship might indicate this.

How is the momentum of an electromagnetic wave defined?

As angular momentum. The simplest way to get this concept is to consider a circularly polarized wave. If you had a fan running in a smoke filled room and had a cover over the fan so that just the tips were exposed then you would probably see a corkscrewing flow of smoke off the blade tips. That corkscrewing flow would transfer angular momentum.

This is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#History_of_the_concept

.

The concept of momentum came about as a response to the question, “What keeps a projectile moving?”

Newton refers to momentum as “quantity of motion” and describes it as mass times velocity.

Momentum is a precursor to the concept of INERTIA. Inertia is the fundamental mystery underlying matter. It has been described as the property of mass.

Now we are extending the idea of inertia being the inherent property of frequency..

One thing that comes to mind that might have a bearing on the mechanism of inertia is the property of a tuned circuit in electronics.

The tuned circuit is comprised of components which are energy storage devices like inductors – magnetic [M field] storage, and capacitors – electron [E field] storage.

In a tuned circuit consisting of a parallel inductor and capacitor, once the circuit is energized it will thereafter remain in a state of continuous oscillation where energy is transferred back and forth between the energy storage devices.

This transfer is from E-field to M-field and back to E-field and so on, continuously.

To start the oscillation, energy must be introduced into the circuit.

To stop the oscillation, energy must be removed from the circuit.

This begins to look a lot like the mechanism of mass inertia: energy is provided to get the object moving and energy must be absorbed to stop the object. In between start and stop something is happening that is conserving that energy and that may be an action between space and the quantum level charges that creates a similar effect to the tuned circuit as the charged particles plow through space.

In this model, if we looked at space as the surface of a calm lake and a boat on that surface as a charged particle, then the disturbance in the water created by getting the boat into motion would be like magnetic waves being created in space by the motion of the charges particle.

The distortion in the surface of the lake / space as the “boat” moves forward creates a wave phenomena at the rear of the boat which will continue to push the boat when the front of the boat is stopped.

It is quite possible that space has the property of being able to be set into localized resonant circuits that require external energy to energize them and then require external energy absorbers to stop them. This would be consistent with the first law of thermodynamics, maintaining the energy within the system.

Mass equivalent would be “p/c” for a photon. This again points toward the proportionality of frequency to the “mass equivalent.” There seems to be some inertia associated with frequency. The inertia seems to increase with increasing frequency

Per the two instances of actual observations quoted, the speed of EM radiation seems to be a function of frequency, where speed is decreasing with increasing frequency.

If you got the idea of angular momentum occurring from a circular polarization that I described above, then try to now get the idea of torque generated by the cross product of the photonic E an M fields. This product will be proportional to frequency, so the higher the frequency, the higher the cross-product value of E an M and the higher the angular momentum.

One thing I am curious about is whether there is any condition (such as frequency) that will cause a phase shifting of the E and M fields (normally they are in-phase, just pi/2 in angle).

Here is something to consider:

– the E field can exist in a static condition without an M field (like a charged capacitor),

– the M field can exist in a static condition without an E field (like a permanent magnet)

– creating a changing E field will cause an accompanying changing M field at pi/2 angular separation (orthonormal)

– to my knowledge, creating an oscillating M field (such as by waving a magnet) does not create, in space, an oscillating E field (though it will if coupled to a tuned, conductive electrical circuit)

– this lack of commutativity between E and M (in space – they are commutative in an electrically conductive circuit) suggests to me that a cross product of a changing E field and space may be the source of the M field.

We know, for instance, that electron spin is responsible for the magnetic moment accompanying the electron and that a permanent magnet is just a material with a greater number of aligned spins than non-aligned spins.

So my hypothesis is that a magnetic field line results from the action of an E field cutting space lines. Space “lines” may really be space “layers” just like layers of an onion going out from an oscillating point source. The apparency would be that when an E field cuts these layers it creates a local distortion (just like a boat going through calm water) that propagates orthonormally to the E field. I haven’t checked this idea for full consistency but it would explain the non-commutativity between E and M.

To get back to my curiosity about a phase shift in the E and M fields as frequency increases, such a phenomena, if any, might explain the mass phenomena that you feel relates to frequency.

We know we can consider space to have electrical properties as these have been measured. I don’t know that these properties have been put to the mathematical test of change as lambda goes to Planck length. It may well be that noticeable change wouldn’t appear until 100x to 10x of lambda min, or it may be that even the relatively long wavelengths of TeV gamma may start showing a relation that translates into a mass component that slows them down in the manner observed.

As I wrote above:

Inertia is the fundamental mystery underlying matter. It has been described as the property of mass.

Now we are extending the idea of inertia being the inherent property of frequency.

.

V: “Inertia is resistance to motion.”

It’s more of a resistance to acceleration, or change in motion.

Given that, and de Broglie wave phenomena, I wonder if there is a phase shifting of the E and M fields that could contribute to the emergence of mass phenomena.

I have long considered the mass phenomena to be a dimension of its own but there are some possibilities to explore:

1) Given that gamma appears as an E – M wave (simple photon, no rest mass, no charge) at some energies and,

2) Gamma-gamma collisions (a higher energy state) can result in the formation of electron-positron pairs (both mass and charge now appear)

and

3) electron, positron annihilation produces gamma (losing charge and mass),

it appears that photons either have a set of unfilled dimensions (for mass and charge) that can get “filled” changing the bosonic photon into a lepton, or there is a geometry change to a simpler EM wave so that it looks and behaves differently.

This is very easy to visualize if it were a simple matter of dimension and various math solutions to behavior do suggest a dimensional phenomena.

In trying to visualize this from the perspective of your approach of change of behavior being due to changes related to frequency, what I might proffer would be a E – M structure is lumpy rather than uniform.

If a uniform EM structure looked like the surface of water when a single pebble was dropped into it, then a “lumpy” structure would look like the effect of multiple pebbles of different size being dropped in different locations, creating essentially a standing wave structure with multiple independent nodes of different amplitudes. Perhaps “strongly peaking” nodes could be positive charge and “strongly valleying” nodes could be negative charge. This is just an example of how wave geometry could contribute to observed behavior or phenomena.

On Inertia from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion, including changes to its speed and direction. It is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics that are used to describe the motion of objects and how they are affected by applied forces. Inertia comes from the Latin word, iners, meaning idle, sluggish. Inertia is one of the primary manifestations of mass, which is a quantitative property of physical systems. Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states:

In common usage, the term “inertia” may refer to an object’s “amount of resistance to change in velocity” (which is quantified by its mass), or sometimes to its momentum, depending on the context. The term “inertia” is more properly understood as shorthand for “the principle of inertia” as described by Newton in his First Law of Motion: that an object not subject to any net external force moves at a constant velocity. Thus, an object will continue moving at its current velocity until some force causes its speed or direction to change.

On the surface of the Earth, inertia is often masked by the effects of friction and air resistance, both of which tend to decrease the speed of moving objects (commonly to the point of rest), and gravity. This misled classical theorists such as Aristotle, who believed that objects would move only as long as force was applied to them.

Can we also say,

“Inertia is the resistance of any physical?disturbanceto any change in its state of motion, including changes to its speed and direction”The frequency of EM radiation will resist any change in its state of motion.

.

The larger is the mass, the more effort it requires to move it.

Similarly, the higher is the frequency, the more effort it may require to increase the velocity of EM radiation.

It seems that frequency not only exhibits inertia, but it also controls the natural velocity (state of motion) of photon. Therefore, possibly

v = K f

^{n}Where,

vis the speed of the EM radiation.Kis a constantfis frequencynis a positive number much less than 1.

Actually, frequency seems to define the state of motion itself..

INERTIA is best defined as the natural state of motion of a phenomenon.

To maintain its identity, the phenomenon must resist change from that natural state of motion.

The question in my mind is what happens to the frequency of a gamma ray photon when it turns into an electron or positron?Concentrated inertia seems to appear as MASS. It dilutes into FREQUENCY. Then it evaporates when there is no frequency at all.

I have no idea what the state of “no inertia” would be like.

.

As long as there is frequency, there is a state of motion. As frequency increases the particle appears to slow down. As frequency transforms into mass, the particles seems to acquire a stillness. That stillness seems to increase as mass increases because it becomes harder to move the mass.

The more is the mass, the more is the motion, even when the particle appears to be more still.The most still that a particle can get is the black hole.

V: “The question in my mind is what happens to the frequency of a gamma ray photon when it turns into an electron or positron?”

The energy is divided equally between the lepton pair so, as a start, the frequency must go down by 1/2.

This phenomena is already seen in Compton scattering.

This would imply an inconsistency to your idea that mass would be in a direct relation to frequency.

The bigger question, then, is “How does this energy re-arrange itself to produce charge and mass?”

I have never understood the nature of charge in terms of other fundamentals.

We understand an EM wave to be a sine wave of voltage potential changing between normalized values of +1 and -1.

If you take the function (sin^2 x) you will have a function that looks like a sine wave with a normalized value going between 0 and 1. Thus you have created the equivalent of positive charge.

If you take the function -(sin^2 x) you will similarly create a sine wave with normalized values between 0 and -1. Thus a negative charge.

I can think of other geometries that could produce similar results i.e. creating a phenomena that we could interpret as voltage potential, or charge but these examples are more self explanatory

That sounds interesting, but it is just mathematics. How does it fit with all the concepts of frequency, mass and inertia?.

V: “That sounds interesting, but it is just mathematics. How does it fit with all the concepts of frequency, mass and inertia?.”

You are right that the sin^2 function is limited in perspective. It takes at least one more dimension to make it representative of a mass or charge phenomena.

That is why I prefer a multi-dimensional model over trying to fit all phenomena into a simple EM wave.

If you’re not familiar with Lisajous patterns, check out Youtube for some vids.

These graphics show the effect of orthonormally intersecting functions and the effect of phase and frequency differences..

2ndxmr, you definitely have something here. Inertia has to do with some kind of rigidity (setting of patterns) imparted by the oscillatory motion in waves, and the spinning motion in particles. The Lisajous curves may help explain this further