This article is based on a concept; "During the conversion of energy into mass, the interaction properties between the Sub Quantum Energies (SQEs) are transferred from photon to fermions and bosons". We have accepted that nature of gravity is quantized, but according to the behavior of photons in the gravitational field, we provide a new definition of gravitons. Then we explain the relationship between gravity and electromagnetic energy. According to the experimental observations, we generalize the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism to the gravitational field. We use the pair production and decay to show that a charged particle acts like a generator, the generator input and output are gravitons and virtual photon. The negative charged particle produces positive virtual photon and positive charged particle produces negative virtual photon. A negative and a positive virtual photon combine with each other in the vicinity of a charged particle and cause the charged particle to accelerate. Although this approach to Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is presented, it has some differences. The mechanism of negative and positive virtual photons interaction is easier and more realistic than exchange particles of QFT, and it also has no ambiguities of QFT. After all, we explain the real photon and its structure by using the virtual photons. Regarding the equivalence of mass-energy and the photon structure, structure of matter was explained. Then we will explain the relationship between speed and spontaneous symmetry breaking, when the particles linear speed is reduced, physical symmetry, one after the other is broken spontaneously.

http://sjournals.com/index.php/SJPAS/article/view/678

1. In GR there is a gravitational field, however in its usual form it is not expressed as the electromagnetic field. In the modern presentation of GR, using fiber bundles, there is no problem to introduce the gravitational field, in a way similar to the other "forces". However the problem stays with the integration of the gravitational field in one hand, and the other fields in another hand, which requieres a Great Unification Theory combining the Lorentz group and the group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1).

2. To explain how these fields work there is no need to rely on virtual particles, the mechanism can be fully represented, including the basic axioms of QM, using the principle of least action (as for the standard model). See my paper on particles and fields for more.

Dear Donald,

Actually this is a bit more complicated.

Let us start in euclidean, classic, space. To represent the motion of a solid body (the paradigm of motion) a mathematician will use the relative displacement between the frame of an observer and a frame attached to the body, and gets (for an instantaneous motion) an element of the Lie algebra of the group of displacement, that is 2 three dimensional vectors. This is mathematically correct but not physical. Take a ball ; by definition it is impossible to measure its rotation, however there is an inertial momentum, which can be perceived. So the physicist is more pragmatic and defines the motion as the speed of the center of mass and the axis of inertia. It happens that the two definitions are linked (because the Lie algebra of SO(3) is also 3 dimensional).

In the relativist picture this does not work any longer : an element of the group of displacement is characterized by 10 parameters, and the 4 dimensional speed is linked to the "boost".. So the traditional Wingner's solution to base everything on the group of displacement is wrong, moreover it does not work in GR.

We have to consider the inertial characteristics of the body as a distinctive feature (which is linked to gravity by the equivalence principle). Some basic considerations lead to represent these characteristics by an element of a vector bundle, in a representation of the spin group, and we get a spinor. This spinor is a localized vector, and it has an intrinsic value for a body (whatever its size) which can be seen as the value of the vector if it was measured in a frame attached to the body. Then the motion (with respect to anobserver), is defined by the transformation to go from this intrinsic spinor to the vector measured by the observer. This is the true meaning of the spinor, as used in QTF, andit works in the same terms in GR.

With some more considerations involving QM one found that any spinor (intrinsic) belongs to a 10 dimensional real manifold, and the motion itself is defined by two 3 dimensional vectors, with a meaning very similar to the usual one.

Dear jean claude Dutailly

As we know electromagnetic waves are formed by the vibrations of electric and magnetic fields. And light is made of discrete packets of energy called photons. Photons carry momentum, have no mass, and travel at the speed of light. (Let us leave that all light has both particle-like and wave-like properties in present discussion). Also, in pair decay, two fermions convert to photon.

I think there is results more than mass-energy equivalence in relation E=mc2. I hope my thought be considerable for you and other friends in group. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A photon becomes energy-laden by revolving. We know this because the electromagnetic fields around a "ray of light" are electromagnetic waves not static fields. Zoom on an electromagnetic wave. There are two electric field and magnetic field. These fields move with linear speed of c. But they have other motion that the paths of these motions are changeable.

In during the vibrations of electric and magnetic fields that a photon would form, properties of electric and magnetism fields transfer to structure of photon. And when photon converts to electron and positron, properties of photon transfers to electron and positron too.

If we will be ready to think beyond the QED concepts, maybe according to photon properties we could develop the QED concepts and resolve quantum field theory problems.

Dear Donald Hamilton

If we can remove any concept (or quantity) from physics, we cannot be denied speed and movement. As we know in pair production and decay, photon (energy) converts to two fermions and fermions converts to photons. My question is "why and how photon is born at speed of light, but fermions are not?"

Dear Hossein, dear Donald,

1. In the Yang Mills picture particles and fields interact and from these interactions one can compute Noether currents, linked on one hand to the particles (they are similar to the usual currents of electromagnetism) and on the fields on the other hand. The latter carry also partof energy-momentum tensor, and can be assimilated to bosons. It is similar to a Bremstrahlung effect :a particle emits a radiation when it is submitted to an acceleration, and in a curved space time accelerations are continuous so the spectrum is continuous. However when there is a discontinuity (either of the fields or the distribution of particles) this emission is discontinuous and we have a "boson", a change of the fields with a compact support, which propagates.

2. The definition of the speed of propagation of a field (a force field) is, in curve space time, a muddled matter. Which is strange, as it is a major tenet of relativity. It is difficult to state how the speed of propagation should be expressed in the usual differential equations ruling the fields. What is clear is that this "speed" of propagation is different from the "speed" of a particle. I do not know of any clear formulation in GR expressing that the electromagnetic field "propagates" at a constant speed.

Dear jean claude Dutailly

How you do explain the blueshift in special relativity and general relativity?

Good remark Hossein !

Actually the readshift / blue shift in GR is computed simply using the assumption that a photon travels on a geodesic (see Wald General Relativity) and using some basic simplification. The point that I made is that, starting from a field equation, there is no simple, to my knowledge, formula to express the propagation phenomenon. In SR the speed of propagation is easily integrated in the wave equation, but in GR one needs to define what propagation means. Even from the wave equation the meaning of propagation is not easy to express. I have given some temptative answerin my paper on Particle and Fields, but this is only a lead.

Dear Prof. Jean claude Dutailly

Thank you for your kindly respond. I have looked on blueshift by different view.

Please see following articles. I hope see your opinion.

With best Regards

Definition of Singularity due to Newton's Second Law Counteracting Gravity

http://www.sjournals.com/index.php/SJPAS/article/view/602/pdf