Re: self-field theory



On Jan 26, 2:53 am, "tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:30 pm, Kerry.Thur...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Jan 25, 4:05 pm, "tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

I don't like the word "invention". It is a "formulation", much like
quantum field theory. It is based on straightforward mathematics that
has just been published in Physics Essays. You will find an early
version of the paper (including typos and errors) athttp://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_0....

The main differences of this "new" electromagnetics formulation is a
transformation of coordinates to centres of motion (2D) rather than
point-to-point (1D). Effectively what this acheives is an E-field, or
photon, whose motions have two orthogonal rotations associated with it.
THe H-field also becomes similarly based on these 'bispionorial'
photons. Note that the spinors are NOT like Diracs, that are basically
mathematical; in the present case the spinors are 'physical'. Now, the
photon becomes a COMPOSITE, much like the hydrogen atom, that consists
of two sub-particles. Hence there is no uncertainty 'principle'
associated with its fields and we don't get probabilistic solutions,
but eigenvalue solutions to the Maxwell-Lorentz equations. The Maxwell
divergence equations allow us to specify the form of the fields, while
the curl equations taken with the Lorentz equations allow us to solve a
system of differential equations.I like that part. I'm following you very well up to here.

Note the difference to the integral equations of QFT. I like to point
out the analogy between finite element methods and finite difference
methods which is similar to the differences between QFT and SFT. Hence
gauge is a constant of integration in QFT, while it is the div
equations in SFT.

The big difference between this "new" EM and the classical EM is the
form of the field. In classical EM the fields are ubiquitous, while in
SFT the field is in the form of the 'stream of photons, so concept not
unlike string theory emerge.

In brief there is much justification for the new SFT formulation.The beauty of the formulation is a kind of a justification in itself.
But often we look for justification such as a phenomenon that is
unexplained by the old formulation which is explained by the new
formulation. Or even better, a predicated difference which is
experimentally provable or disprovable.

Which leads us to 'photon chemistry'. Take a look athttp://www.unifiedphysics.com/Photon%20chemistry_UP_Mar_2004.pdf

You will see that photon chemistry is another layer of 'chemistry'
below atomic chemistry. IF we look at the hydrogen atom, the binding
energy becomes the exchange of photons between the proton and the
electron many times each cycle of the electron and proton (which rotate
together in order to preserve the balance of forces. What is most
interesting in this physics is that there must be an integral number of
exchanges each cycle. This is governed by Planck's quantum which turns
out to be the energy per cycle for the atom. (seehttp://www.unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%2...)

We find that Planck's number is a constant only for atoms. But it
appears in a similar but variable form across physics.( So black holes
are seen in SFT as 'collations of energy' and appear as an oscillating
series across physics; this gives a unifying principle, an alternating
series of forces of varying fields and particles at the various domains
seen cosmologically and microscopically and beyond.seehttp://www.unifiedphysics.com/universe.htm).

When we come to molecules like H2O, we find that the internal binding
fields can 'leak' outside of the outershell electron of atoms. NOw
there does NOT need to be an integral number of photon exchanges per
cycle. IT WILL be integral in crystals, but not in biologicval
structures, so things become more complex and hence more dynamic inside
biological complexes.

I hope I'm making the point that there IS validation for a 'photon
chemistry' taht sits underneaths atomic chemistry.You certainly have made the point that there is reason to be curious.
If the new formulation yields practical results we go far beyond
validation to absolute necessity. As long as practical results are
unavailable you will be, rightly or wrongly, endlessly challenged.I think there's a wealth of practical results including the theory
behind snow flakes, avalanches, how DNA works, what black holes really
are, etc. There's also a new form of tensor algebra based on a novel
form of metric. This form of tensor algebra has roots unlike the
current algebras. seehttp://www.unifiedphysics.com/



We find that just
like the hydrogen atom, we get another closely related mathematics to
solve for the photon. Hence instead of just having TWO sub-particles
as in the ordinary photon, we could have THREE sub-particles, as long
as we realise that the fields inside SFT as FRACTAL.

So there is a very rich vein of physics inside SFT. And this is WITHOUT
introducing how phonons eneter into teh physics.

3*photon + 3*phonon ===> 4*gluon

What we have on the left side of the equation is that 3 photons each
having 2 sub-photonic particle oriented say in the X-Y plane can
combine combine with 3 phonons each having 2 sub-photonic particle
oriented say in the Z-X
plane. They are moving towards each other,, head on, along the X and
-X axes. After the photon-phonon collision, given certain
prerequisites on temperature and density, they form 4 gluons each
having 3 sub-photonic particle oriented say in the X-Y-Z axes with no
nett velocity.
How can you justify your supposition that these gluons are formed in
this way?Our work at BRI in neurobiology and acoustic therapy indicates that
photons and phonons are very closely related at a fundamental level.
Besides, there is evidence from various directions.

Seehttp://www.unifiedphysics.com/NN2006_Abstract_Fleming.pdf
andhttp://www.unifiedphysics.com/NN2006_Abstract_Fleming2.pdf

Assuming you can justify it, how do you reconcile it with

the fact the gluons are never found in 4s?I'm not quite sure why you are mentioning the 4s orbital here,My carelessness. I'm talking about numbers of gluons. Gluons are
found three by three, never four by four. This is the thing most
troubling to me about what you have presented here. I have no doubt
that phonons and photons are closely related. Further, I would not be
surprised if some formulation of photons and photons under certain
conditions led to gluons.
But I'm not satisfied with the gluon
equation as you have presented it here. I have grossly misunderstood,
or you have made an error, or both.-I posted a reply but it's gone walking into the mists of the ethernet.

I think you mean the equation

3*photon + 3*phonon ===> 4*gluon

This is only a stoicyometric equation like its atomic chemistry
ancestors. The numbers are just to ensure that teh number of
sub-photonic particles are the same on both sides of the equation sign
=====>. But it has nothing to do with the numbers of quarks or gluons
you need to get a stable system which as you rightly say is always 3.

I do have a presentation that illustrates the way the photon and the
phonon interact to form a gluon (according to SFT that is).

If you're inclined to provide that presentation, I would certainly be
interested. Best of luck to you.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: self-field theory
    ... has just been published in Physics Essays. ... methods which is similar to the differences between QFT and SFT. ... SFT the field is in the form of the 'stream of photons, ... they form 4 gluons each ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: self-field theory
    ... has just been published in Physics Essays. ... methods which is similar to the differences between QFT and SFT. ... SFT the field is in the form of the 'stream of photons, ... they form 4 gluons each ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: self-field theory
    ... has just been published in Physics Essays. ... methods which is similar to the differences between QFT and SFT. ... SFT the field is in the form of the 'stream of photons, ... they form 4 gluons each ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Where physics went wrong
    ... version of physics would see no reason to look for anything better. ... field is not a stress in the aether which can propagate in the aether ... Leave photons out of it, you clearly do not understand them. ... If you say that the beryllium target is the source then it has ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: self-field theory
    ... has just been published in Physics Essays. ... methods which is similar to the differences between QFT and SFT. ... SFT the field is in the form of the 'stream of photons, ... introducing how phonons eneter into teh physics. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
Quantcast