Quantum Flux

Sue... wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
By fundamental particle do you mean beneath an electron?

No... electrons, positrons and whatever else you
can't build with those two things.

You come up with some pretty interesting topics.
I've just read for my first time about Ewald sums.
The use of 'reciprocal space' for them is a Fourier transform.
I use that phrase to mean just a magnitudinal distance transform of
Y = 1 / ( X + 1 )
which is quite a lot simpler. I'll have to brush up on dimensional
Fourier analysis. I'm used to it in the signal domain where it's
application is very intuitive.

You might want to look at the Lue Langevin falling
neutron experiment in that regard. The observed
'jumps' are a lot like the London attractive/repulsive
cycles.

http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/epjc/abs/2005/12/10052_2005_Article_2135/10052_2005_Article_2135.html


So far the closest to this paper that I can access is

http://www.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/physi/publications/dipl_krantz.pdf
I haven't gotten much feel for the jumpy motions.




So far I see Maxwells equations on the topology
0D + 1D + 2D ...
as being an operator that acts between 1D and 2D.

Time and a 2D isotropy sounds like good characteristics.
for magnets. :-)

I think you've said that before. I don't understand what you are
saying. I'm looking at magnet as sourced from the 1D in this topology.

Maybe I am saying it wrong. A sphere is 3D isotropic.
A magnetic dipole is not.
http://images.google.com/images?q=dipole+pattern&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

But in certain 2D representations the sphere is indistinguishable
from the dipole pattern.

Mathmatically, this dictates what you can take to be an axis
of symmetry to simplify expressions.


The dipole has very real geometry. This dipole is associated with a
monopole electrical charge that has two opposing values ( + and - ) and
a neutral value, including the neutron you have wisely pointed to.
What makes this natural?
Why the whacky observed differences?
Where is the true symmetry?
If electrical charge is a three-signed entity then we would see two
opposing charges and a neutral in terms of the individual signs acting
as operators. In P3 star (*) is neutral. It doesn't do anything. It has
no action. It preserves any value that it operates upon. The minus (-)
and plus (+) signs take a different meaning here than their two-signed
brethren. In P3 they are truly opposite, whereas back in P2 we find a
broken symmetry in P3 they have perfect symmetry. In P3 for a magnitude
a we see that
( - a )( - a ) = + a
( + a )( + a ) = - a
whereas in P2 we would find them to be the same result (+a).
These results are likely not in the same space as their source
operands.
We have to allow that the product is in different units, and that this
modification could be even more radical than going from meters to
square meters, for in the classical force equations the product result
involves the second derivative of the sources. This feedback mechanism
is bizarre but empirically founded. Going from a polysign substrate
basis to a spacetime resultant is different yet.

The polysign workspace has so much symmetry of different forms that it
is easy to see how things can get confusing. Like the sign error that
humans make just doing two-signed math the room for error has
progressed to confusing P2 for P3, etc. The construction itself is
plain and simple. Applying it to observation is a bit like using a
kaleidoscope. Still, this leaves the hope that underlying the
perplexing view is a simplicity that can be easily understood.

The problem with the above is that if the dipole is two-signed and
those signs are inseperable then why should the three-signed domain
allow seperability? It's not right. The next natural object in a
progression up from monopole mass to dipole magnet is a tripole. Using
a flux analogy may be instructive for this, flux being a directed
geometry. Attempting to steal clues from existing theory we could view
the neutron as the massive monopole, the electron as the dipole, and
the proton as the tripole. If nothing else it is healthy mental
gymanstics.

What about the neutron magnetic moment. Must a monopole have an equally
distributed flux emanation? Could the flux which is a directed entity
be sourced from one orientation? Now we have opened up yet another can
of worms. Does the flux interact between a monopole and a dipole and a
tripole? I think under this current model these flux are directed
inward toward the identity sign and outward from the other signs, where
inward implies affinity and hence monopole gravitation. The flux itself
is probably universal so that there is no need to distinguish a path
from P2- to P3* versus one from P2- to P2+. It's all just flux.

Under this model the laws of the flux are all that need to be
understood. As I hunt it on the internet I do see quantum flux and
there it goes back to your QHE. The pretty part would be that the flux
is universally applied to gravitation, electrical, and nuclear
processes and is only differentiated by the nature of those objects and
how they conserve it.

That an electron is different from the neutron and proton under this
model is sensible. The electron (P2) is even-signed and the others
odd-signed. There are some peculiarities around parity and even/odd
sign in the polysign system. That this could come out as a mass effect
via flux laws is pretty exciting.

Are Maxwell's equations unified? We see electricity and magnetism
freely masquerading around as each other rather than one solitary
property. Furthermore we see modern physics taking the approach of the
charge portion being fundamental and entering into paradox and
confusion. So perhaps it is worth tacking over and trying the breeze on
the other side.
Under this approach the photon may be a closed flux loop, or for that
matter an open one. The laws of flux should tell.

-Tim




Going from 1D to 2D (simplest first) it should be like an inverse cross
product, where the 1D is effectively yielding a 2D entity. The 2D form
may be just a simple loop so its not necessarily informationally any
greater, its just a geometric progression.

<< This way of looking at the electron puts magnet first, and
charge secondarily produced by it via this operation. >>

I boil folks in oil for that in the macro atomic world. But
subatomically we hope to find something holding electrons
together so have to allow for anything and be thankful if
it is recognisable.

Is that to say that stability ought to be a property of the particle? I
puzzle over that one some. If a particles stability is inherent then we
have to explain instability of some particles. Whether the cart is
ahead of the horse here I don't know. It's like it's going in a circle
and they are both ahead of each other. Is there a principle on this?

If your machine has some fractal knobs I would guess it squirts
out different kinds of particles depending on their settings.
I would bet your toothbrush on it... but not my own. :o)

Simpler particles are more stable but also the most volitile
in the case of e+ e- anhilation. My hunch is that the
cart is before the horse. if you try to consider a wider range
of decay processes. I am way out of school on that tho.
There are all kinds of more complex process that provide
glimplses of something fundamental... like FQHE.


This is the inverse of the traditional approach of
putting the charge first and viewing its magnetic moment as a spin of
the charge, though Maxwell's equations agree that either way the
problem is the same. But where is the charge? Well this is the same as
asking where the magnet is in the standard space.

Exactly the same. The magnet in 'free space' is virtual where
no matter exist to integreate the force.

The best answer so
far is that it is inherent, or (standard space) that the spin of the
electron is inherent and hence its magnet. The interchangeability of
all of these seem to be what Maxwell's equations are about, but they
are taken and stay in a flat 3D topology.

If we consider a proton as a slow reversed version of the electron then
we could see the slow magnets joining up into a nucleus. Their lack of
speed could diminish their 2D strength via the operator that takes them
upward in dimension. The hope would be that this operator is a general
one that applies in any dimension. So going from 0D to 1D would have to
be included, and that would hopefully be where mass is exhibited, mass
being a one-signed charge whereas magnet is a two-signed charge
(dipole) would lead one to consider the next thing up to be literally a
three-signed tripole object.

Ouch! Put a crick in my neck. But are you familiar with the fractional
quantum hall effect?
"Electrons in New Guises" Horst L. Störmer and Daniel C. Tsui
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/press.html

The first fraction is 1/3.

Thanks for the link. I wasn't familiar with the fractional version and
really not up on the Hall effect with the exception of its use for
compasses. I'll try to learn the circular path theory. I wonder how
many accept 'quantum fluid' as a reality. To bastardize the whole thing
I'm seeing little bar magnets chaining up together to defeat the B
field by cancelling so that they can move about in the plane. Boil me
in oil.

I can't boil you in oil. I am too exhausted from taking FrediFizzix
out behind the woodshed for the same offence. :o)


There are so many options. But I do think that the simple minded
approach of coming up from 0D rather than coming down from highD is
worth sticking to. An argument could arise against this basic step
even. So my view of the problem is completely open, or as open as I can
be. How we can come out with charge perfectly equal and mass not at
all is probably the nicest puzzle. Perhaps we are measuring things
upon an invalid assumption. I suppose it suggests that the equality of
charge is false and that what we are getting is a balance of the entire
chain of effects that we are calling charge placed atop the others.
It's quantization and balance lead us to believe that these opposites
are identical in one regard yet nonidentical in another.

Don't fret over the gravitational/inertial mass. QM and coherent matter
seems to get by without it. The things that fly out of composite
particles are another matter. (pun intended) They have to be
accounted for.


Is this approach flawed by imposing symmetry on different species?

It probably is but we can't build an atom with a nice symetrical
collection of electrons and positrons so we have to improvise
till you get the quarks modeled. Feynman invented virtual particles
which come an go as you please. No protons required.


Particles. I think I'll just try to stick to my generic point particle
for now and see where it goes. But you bring up some good points about
keeping open to what is fundamental. I could see it going either way.
Usually I see the electron being ultimately fundamental just being
smashed up into broken parts. I don't see how you can say it is OK to
dodge the heavy proton, or is it really doging the light electron? As a
Shakespearian monkey I'll try to not see it any way at all.

We can do an experiment without the proton. e+ e- makes gamma
radiation so the dodging seems justified except whrere it can
illuminate something fundamental. For example, I think we still need
some baryon mass to revese the anhilation and get our e+ e- back.


Sue...


-Tim



The paradigm of the invalid assumption has a lot of power. The invalid
assumption occurs often enough at an individual level. It even seems to
happen en masse as we see through the course of history and even today.
A skeptical approach will find the invalid assumption eventually. By
breaking things we can make them better. Find the weak spot and the
strong pieces will fall nicely to be reused.

I knew if I read your post all the way through I'd find something I
could understand. Next time could you put the easy paragraph
at the top?. :o)

Sue...


-Tim

.

Quantcast