Photon Interactions and Pair Production: A General Perspective, Not an ECM Interpretation.

March 30, 2025

Photon self-interactions are absent in pure Maxwell’s theory. Photon-matter interactions should not be confused with direct photon-photon interactions, as photons do not typically collide within their ordinary energy range of 1–2 eV. For two photons to collide and produce an electron-positron pair, their initial energy must exceed 1 MeV (1,000,000 eV), whereas visible light photons only possess an energy range of 1–2 eV.

However, photon self-interactions can be induced through photon-matter interactions. Effective photon-photon interactions emerge in low-energy Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) frameworks. One such interaction is electron-positron pair production, where a high-energy photon—such as a gamma-ray photon—transforms into an electron (negatively charged) and a positron (positively charged, the electron's antiparticle). For this process to occur, the photon must possess sufficient energy, at least twice the rest mass energy of an electron (approximately 1.022 MeV), to generate both an electron and a positron.

The Measurability Principle and the Inconsistency of Relativistic Gravity:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

March 30, 2025

A fundamental principle in science is that physical entities must be measurable, either directly or indirectly, through empirical evidence. If something is inherently unmeasurable, it falls outside the realm of physical science and into speculation.

If gravity is indeed a force, then Classical Mechanics provides a more appropriate framework for describing gravitational interactions. However, relativity redefines gravity not as a force but as a consequence of spacetime curvature. This fundamental shift raises an important question: How can gravity still be presented as a force within a relativistic framework? Such an approach appears inconsistent, if not opportunistic.

Furthermore, claiming that spacetime possesses physical properties while simultaneously asserting that it cannot be directly measured results in an unfalsifiable premise—one that cannot be tested, verified, or refuted by empirical means. This undermines the scientific validity of the relativistic treatment of gravity, as it relies on theoretical constructs that do not adhere to the fundamental requirement of measurability.

The Flawed Empirical Basis of Relativistic Gravitational Lensing And The Misinterpretation of Gravitational Lensing in Relativity

The claim that "spacetime itself may not be directly measurable, but its effects on observable phenomena can be" is fundamentally flawed and scientifically inconsistent. A rigorous analysis of gravitational lensing reveals a critical contradiction in the relativistic interpretation.  

If light were truly bending due to spacetime curvature, it would be obstructed by the massive body responsible for this curvature, preventing it from reaching an observer positioned beyond the gravitating mass. This contradicts the observational evidence attributed to gravitational lensing. Instead, the bending of light aligns with the classical interpretation, where light follows the curvature of the gravitational field rather than an abstract, unmeasurable warping of spacetime.  

Thus, the empirical claims supporting relativistic gravitational lensing are misleading. The phenomenon is more accurately explained by classical gravitational fields, rendering the relativistic interpretation of spacetime curvature not only unnecessary but fundamentally flawed.

The Misinterpretation of Gravitational Lensing in Relativity

While both the relativistic and classical models predict the bending of light, their underlying mechanisms differ significantly. The classical model attributes this effect to the gravitational field's direct influence on light’s trajectory, a concept that remains scientifically consistent and aligns with fundamental physical principles.

Conversely, the relativistic model claims that light bends due to the curvature of spacetime itself. However, this assertion lacks scientific consistency, as spacetime is an abstract mathematical construct rather than a physically measurable entity. If spacetime curvature were responsible for lensing, light passing near a massive body would be obstructed by that body rather than bending around it.

Thus, observational verifications attributed to relativistic gravitational lensing are based on flawed interpretations. The bending of light is best explained by classical gravitational fields, reaffirming that gravitational lensing is a consequence of classical mechanics rather than an effect of an unmeasurable and physically inconsistent spacetime curvature.

The Abstract Nature of Space and Time

March 29, 2025

Trevor White,

You have disregarded the fundamental premise of this discussion, which presents a scientifically and mathematically consistent interpretation of the abstract nature of space and time. Given this foundation, the concept of spacetime curvature cannot logically arise. No valid mathematical formulation supports the idea that space or time possesses inherent physical properties, whether considered separately or fused into a single entity as spacetime. This fundamental question must be addressed before proposing a distortable nature of spacetime.

Moreover, relativity provides no valid definition of space and time beyond the assumptions made for the formulation of spacetime. It merely constructs a mathematical model that fuses space and time without an independent physical basis. As a result, relativity cannot claim the broader and well-established definitions of space and time found in other disciplines of physical science and mathematics. These fields recognize space and time as abstract frameworks used to describe changes in existence rather than as physical entities subject to modification.

General Relativity does not provide empirical evidence for a physically distortable spacetime. However, you have presented a narrative that contradicts this fact. Experimental claims that supposedly confirm the relativistic view of space and time are often biased and scientifically inconsistent. These flawed results have been misrepresented as confirmations of relativistic spacetime, making such experiments unreliable and misleading. Space and time, as abstract constructs, cannot be treated as physically modifiable entities for the reasons outlined in the original discussion.

Furthermore, your assertion that Einstein's understanding of gravity is based on empirical measurements is un-founded. Space and time are not empirically measurable in themselves—unless one first assumes, without justification, that spacetime is a physical entity capable of distortion. In reality, space and time are not physically distortable, as reasoned in this discussion.

Material objects and electromagnetic fields can be influenced and distorted by external factors, but space and time cannot. According to relevant cosmological models, space and time emerge from existential changes in the universe. Rather than being distorted, these dimensions are used to describe and account for changes in existence—not the other way around.

Regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

A Clock Does Not Determine Time:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 
March 29, 2025

A clock does not determine time; it merely represents cosmic time in a physical manifestation. While relativity defines time as what a clock reads, a universal perspective suggests that time emerges from existential events—I describe this as "existential events invoke time."

Time is cosmic in nature. Cosmic time is fundamentally defined as the continuous, irreversible progression of existence and events—from the past, through the present, into the future—advancing independently of measurement devices. It is not bound by the constraints of relativistic interpretations.

I maintain that the classical understanding of time is superior to the flawed relativistic concept. Time itself does not dilate; rather, discrepancies in clock measurements arise due to external influences.

Furthermore, space possesses no intrinsic physical properties—there is no scientific basis for asserting otherwise unless guided by bias or preconceived notions. Space consists of the extensions of length, height, and depth, which are abstract mathematical constructs. Special relativity, by stripping time of its independence, redefines it within its own framework, making relativistic time a constrained derivative rather than a natural, universal progression. This interpretation is inconsistent with other disciplines of physical science.

That is all for now.

Distinguishing Light Propagation from Clock Mechanics: A Fundamental Clarification.

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

March 29, 2925

The assertion that "the process of light passing through a medium and the process of a clock running in the same medium are similar processes" presents a conceptual misalignment with established principles in both classical and relativistic physics. This comparison overlooks the intrinsic differences between light and massive objects, leading to a misinterpretation of their fundamental behaviors.

Fundamental Distinction Between Light and Clocks:

Light, characterized by negative apparent mass (-Mᵃᵖᵖ) and negative effective mass (-Mᵉᶠᶠ) in ECM, exhibits anti-gravitational properties and always propagates at the speed of light (c).

Conversely, a clock, as a massive object with positive matter mass (Mᴍ), is subject to gravitational resistance, inherently limiting its ability to exhibit light-like motion. The presence of mass imposes resistance to acceleration, ensuring that a massive object's velocity remains below c.

Lorentz Factor and the Infeasibility of Similarity:

Relativistic mechanics prevents massive objects from reaching the speed of light due to the Lorentz factor, which increases exponentially as velocity approaches c.

For a clock to attain c, it would require infinite energy, leading to structural instability—an impossibility under known physical laws. Light, however, remains unaffected by time dilation or length contraction, whereas a massive clock undergoes such relativistic effects as it accelerates.

Inconsistencies Even in a Relativistic Framework:

Time dilation and Lorentz transformations further establish that light and clocks do not share the same motion process. While light undergoes redshift (gravitational or cosmological) as it loses energy, a moving clock instead experiences time dilation, a distinctly different phenomenon.

ECM Explanation for the Speed of Light:

In ECM, the constancy of the speed of light is attributed to the nature of photons, which possess negative apparent mass (-Mᵃᵖᵖ) and follow anti-gravitational principles. This differentiates them fundamentally from objects with positive mass.

Furthermore, the dominance of negative apparent mass in the measurement system ensures that an observer's motion remains negligible compared to that of photons.

Given these distinctions, equating the propagation of light with the mechanics of a clock in a medium is scientifically incorrect and misrepresentative of fundamental physical laws. A refined understanding of both classical mechanics and ECM is essential for a more accurate interpretation of why light's speed remains independent of an observer’s motion.