Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field. One way of stating this fundamental principle of general relativity is to say that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. One of the implications of the principle of equivalence is that since photons have momentum and therefore must be attributed an inertial mass, they must also have a gravitational mass. Thus photons should be deflected by gravity. They should also be impeded in their escape from a gravity field, leading to the gravitational red shift and the concept of a black hole. It also leads to gravitational lens effects.
I am of the "opinion" that this principle has a non-trivial corollary. This explains the reason why light is affected by Gravity and that it behaves as a wave and is subject to natural spreading... whereas particles with mass are confined to the region of the particle. A thread deals with this concept...What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"?
Space-time curvature and indeed curvature in "higher dimensions" in String Theory (more influential) is the "direct" result of acceleration which is the same as "gravity" and this is a profound (if not subtle) point. The corollary says that the curvature of that "stuff" is not the result of mass but is the result of "pure" acceleration alone. Mass itself is the result of "intrinsic" (internal) acceleration and Gravity is the result of "extrinsic" (external) acceleration. So we can see and "measure" gravity as a "lumped effect" of all curvatures from "mass" and "dynamic accelerations" such as being in an accelerating rocket ship. In the end this is only the sum total acceleration of gravity and the curvature it produces and the acceleration due to the rocket motors. They are indistinguishable.
To this point mass is interpreted as "something which curves space-time". I say space-time is curved by acceleration and mass is what we measure as the "source" in many cases. By pure prejudice we distinguish accelerations from the two sources as different because in the one case we can "see" the accelerations and in the other case we cannot "see" the accelerations. The other point is the accelerations due to mass "remain" through time whereas the accelerations due to a rocket will "disappear" when the rocket motor cuts.
I would like to point out acceleration is "not conserved" but mass is. Once you have mass you have a permanent source of acceleration as a "source".
How does this spin work? If there are "higher spatial dimensions" into which objects may fall, then these are also higher dimensions into which things can accelerate as well. We "see" only three spatial dimensions. We KNOW
particles under our observation are not accelerating in an obvious fashion. So what am I talking about?
Consider a person drops vertically from the top of a skyscraper (to a special mat) in such a way that he maintains an equidistant distance from two adjacent walls at right angles to each other. Continuous measurement would indicate the parameters x and y as constant in time but the parameter z is increasing by the rate of
z = 1/2*a*t
He would be "fixed" in the x,y plane but accelerating in the dimension perpendicular to the other two. Now consider the existence of "higher dimensions"... Uberspace.... not any of those 3 dimensions spoken of in Space-time. Let us accelerate into one or more of them... What you would find is a relative acceleration of the particle without any of the x,y,z distances in our world changing. Still this is acceleration and results in curvature the same as it would for you in a rocket. It is "traveling" nowhere in 3 dimensions but is accelerating. The result will be a self-curvature we call mass which appears that it cannot be simply removed by "extrinsic" accelerations. This curvature contributes to any existing curvature found in your region of space.
Light is massless and does not curve space-time but light will respond to the curvature of space-time. Light is also the carrier of exchange force for our Universe and has infinite range. Light propagates as a wave and thus "spreads".Electromagnetic equipotentials being spawned and propagating at the speed of light.
This picture is an animated cross-section of the tori being spawned as the field lines cross. This is as close to "seeing" what those higher dimensional radiation patterns in the "Uberspace" look like (electromagnetic branes) is this "shadow on the wall" of "space-time". If you plotted the electric potential as a two dimensional function of distance from source you would have the familiar propagating sine wave. That "picture" does not convey it's true relationships in three dimensional space, whereas the image above does convey the true physical "shape" of electromagnetism as a "slice". . It does not show the magnetic field lines running at right angles through these loops as "concentric circles". Photons have about the same dimensional size as a single wavelength of their radiation (initially in all three dimensions). Photons also propagate using Bose-Einstein Statistics... this means billions of them can exist in the same spot at the same time all interfering and crossing each others paths at the same time without any losses or without being "seen". What you see in this picture is the nett result of that process. Though each photon retains the same wavelength in the direction of propagation the individual packets "spread" in the orthogonal spherical "surface" as "individual" spherically curved circular patches a wavelength thick.It is a well known result that only curved surface waves like these are able to carry energy, all talk of "plane waves" in Electromagnetism are a "nonsense".
You get a curved "pancake" that gets only bigger with time... this picture shows what is happening to the "swarm" of photons being emitted in it exhibits that toroidal symmetry. The magnetic field lines run "completely" around the "source" connecting all photons together in a perpendicular direction as a "magnetic lines of force", threading the tori. The electric field lines do not "link up" individually... magnetically they are linked... in the direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The individual photons are potentially nearly as big as half of each of these tori and retain the inverse square law relationship. Transverse propagation velocities are "infinite" but "snipping" that magnetic thread "sets" any photon directly linked to it and thus is the reason for Bells relationships - the rationale for this thread in the first place. Entanglement becomes a property of the creation of two oppositely propagating photons linked with that magnetic "thread". A conservative relationship in the "curl" of magnetic fields.
If the "index" of this radiation "field" were more or less than "2" by even the slightest amount, the energy entering one concentric "escribed" spherical shell would not exit through a second larger "escribed" spherical shell. The energy would build up "indefinitely" and the field would become wholly evanescent.... an inductive field unable to propagate away. If this relationship is maintained exactly it is a "radiating" field and energy leaves the source and travels outwards at the speed of light. Affinely connected space-time ensures that small irregularities are "ignored".
What has mass got to do with this? Lets say the "emitted photons" had mass. This picture above would look much the same but because of the influence of the curvature of dimensional space the energy of the photons would be left behind in successive shells because the surface area of the "escribed" sphere is...
A = 4
and (through dimensional deformation) the "volume" exceeds...
This mismatch means the photon could not spread any more since after a certain range almost all the energy is to be found in an "inner" volume closer to the source. This influence is not "compelling" in our three dimensions because of the terrific "tension" in our relatively flat space-time... But in the "Uberspace" of six extra dimensions which are "petal" dimensions and all curled up... the requirements for curvature are much easier. Photons "blow bubbles" in this space with a simple linear relationship E = hf. Where h is a unit of impulse and f is the frequency... a scaling multiplier for the energy.The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?
In six dimensions it is possible to spin in three planes simultaneously without "disruption". In our three spatial dimensions, spin is only in one plane (two dimensional - any plane). There is an extra dimension in which you have that extra degree of freedom for spin. So a particle can have spin in up to three separate planes without being seen in our three dimensions (where there can be only one extra spin). In that sense there is no free choice in this "Uberspace" spin as there is in our space-time with one free dimension... all six dimensions are "used up" (no further degrees of freedom in six dimensions just "combinations", quanta of "spin"). This spin is coming from the intrinsic spin of the brane of our Universe. Everything has it... and it causes "quantum effects". This linking spin in photons can and does lead to quantum entanglement as noted.
This principle confines the quark as well as the force carriers for quarks. That is where the tie in comes from. We see that mass is not a scaler as all of human physics has hitherto suggested but is an "interaction" through acceleration of the three quarks in that proton... brane to brane as they spin near the speed of light. Mass is clearly a four tensor and this could be rotated in the nine dimensions to point out of the "plane" of our three spatial dimensions. In that case without affecting the mass of a particle it could obtain "freedom" to move in our three-dimensional space while anchored in higher dimensional spaces. This acceleration in higher dimensions (interpreted as mass) would be identified with particle spin which is the principal cause of the two most important quantum numbers. Our Universe and any "spawned" branes, would incorporate the spin in those six curled up dimensions. We are not able to notice this spin in our "bulk" 3D + T dimensions because of the incredible size of our universe. Assuming it to be 15 Billion Light years "across" would only need to rotate once every 500 billion years for the periphery to be traveling at near the speed of light. This is a far "too simplistic" view of our "closed" Universe but the maths has some validity. However in a much smaller "brane" attached and having the same internal "spin" would externally spin near the speed of light and exhibit a frequency depending on it's apparent dimensions. This assumes a supersymmetry in all those dimensions and in the "bulk" and Ed Witten's T-Duality of strings.
I now call your attention to an interesting paper on how a topological photon could be a electron (or visa versa).
Did you catch the article on the topological photon that "simulates" an electron. Apeman had this post which really caught my attention... Electron is close-looped photon?
Here is the actual paper...Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology
So this discussion should be in the light of that material. With a little "topological" imagination you will guess where that 1/3 or 2/3 electric charge comes from, and especially where the "3" comes from too.
The paper does not utilize the higher dimensional spin concept and works with "simple" stringless theories, still it is excellent. Be aware that an electron is made up of two quarks and a proton is made up of three. There are differences. It may be that you would like to consider the "quark" as a "representation" of a newly created dimensional entity. We know they spin, and we know they have some mass, but it just does not "add up" unless mass is something a bit more subtle than just a "scaler" quantity. This paper also offers an "excuse" for the origin of charge but it is not complete. If you want to know what I think about the real "essence" of charge may be look here...The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?
There is obviously a lot more to this story but you could hunt it out for your own amusement. All Good Elf's posts
You would need to log in to the forum for this "service".