Re: Gravitomagnetism
From: Oz (oz_at_farmeroz.port995.com)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Google SCHOLAR!"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Google SCHOLAR!"
- In reply to: Danny Ross Lunsford: "Re: Gravitomagnetism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:07:14 +0000 (UTC)
Danny Ross Lunsford <antimatter33@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>Oz <oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote
>
>> I am imagining, at every point in spacetime, the following:
>>
>> 3 spatial dimensions
>> 1 time dimension
>> 2 dimensions configured as one complex number.
>
>This is true in a certain limit, where the world separates into
>spacetime and Matter.
OK, do I take it to mean that one *particular* slice/co-ordinate system
can give you this. There is then an implied statement that we should
observe mixing when viewed from a different frame.
>> You say this formulation specifically embodies the distinction between
>> matter and antimatter. Since your complex dimensions will allow a
>> rotation either clockwise or anticlockwise, is this how you distinguish
>> matter and antimatter?
>
>Exactly - the distinction of matter vs. antimatter is purely
>conventional. One can make a rotation in the 5-6 plane and change one
>to the other. Because the "timespace" is 3D there is no
>"forward-vs.backward in time" issue of order. There is simply Matter
>with a capital M and that encompasses both anti- and koino-matter.
Ok. So in effect a particle is (say) a clockwise spiral, and an
antiparticle an anticlockwise particle. Clearly reversing the time
direction will reverse the rotation so making the particles appear to
reverse direction. That's very neat.
Presumably there will be an energy in that rotation which I hope is
equivalent to the restmass. There should also be something that reflect
angular momentum (same thing, I guess). So producing a particle-
antiparticle pair conserves this momentum, IYSWIM. That's neat too.
As you say, it completely gets around the problem of 'two sorts of
time', that has niggled me for years. A time associated with a particle,
and a 'global time'. The helix sorts out the 'particle time' very neatly
(and obviously, dammit).
Oh, there's stuff that could just fall out in the wash, too....
Relativistic contraction will contract the spiral, presumably making the
particle look more massive. That should mean that the tightness of the
spiral is related to momentum (in the time direction). Er, that's not
quite right, but I expect you have it properly sorted. Anyway, there
should be a relationship between mass and some frequency.. now where
have I heard that before?
NB In the thread "The structure of electrons"
==========================
Alfred Einstead <whopkins@csd.uwm.edu> writes
>At the semi-classical level, the Dirac fermion would be coiling
>in a helical worldline of about this radius (for electrons) at
>light speed.
>
>the picture that emerges is of a worldline with the following
>properties:
>
> (1) It's helical with mean free motion at a velocity
> v = p c^2/E (in a momentum eigenstate), parallel
> to p (opposite to p for negative energy states).
> (2) The velocity, counting the helical motion is just
> light speed.
> (3) The radius of the circular part of the motion is
> r = L (1 - (v/c)^2)
> where L is the Compton wavelength.
=============================
>> I am unclear why the two extra dimensions need to be complex.
>
>x5 and x6 (u and v) are real, but in a certain limit can be thought of
>as a single complex value.
OK. I'm happy to switch two real for one complex.
Of course I am not cognisant with any other implications this may have.
>In that limit and in flat space one has for
>example a 6-d covariant gauge
>
>div A + d/dt phi + d/du psi + d/dv chi = 0
<snip>
>The condition that there be no creation/annihilation becomes
>
>d/du chi - d/dv psi = 0
>
>so (chi + i psi) can be thought of as an analytic funtion of (u + iv).
>If we insist that the potential be bounded, then by Liouville's
>theorem, chi and phi are constants. So the limit mentioned amounts to
>a strict separation of Matter and 4-d spacetime. The 6-d vacuum
>devolves to a 4-d one with light and no Matter.
Obviously someone of my level doesn't follow this as he should. <cough>
However I would like to add two questions:
1) What are the implications of having a bounded potential and is the
size of the bound important?
2) One can rewrite (u + iv) as [n + v(1 + i)].
The implication seems to me that we have a real part and a circularly
rotating part. Does this mean anything?
-- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Use oz@farmeroz.port995.com [ozacoohdb@despammed.com functions]. BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Google SCHOLAR!"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Google SCHOLAR!"
- In reply to: Danny Ross Lunsford: "Re: Gravitomagnetism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
