Re: Quantum Flux


Sue... wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
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.

Yes ... And thank you for the URL. I have been relying mainly
on 'popular' accounts but have wanted to delve a bit deeper
into the details.
That link is not the original experiment as far as I can tell.

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?
When you assign an axis of symetry, you use use up
one of you three spatial dimensions. That was the
original subjet line of this thread before it was hi-jacked. >:-)

Why the whacky observed differences?
Where is the true symmetry?

Move a manhole cover some distance by alternating its
top and bottom surface. You'll get the hang of this symetry
business as soon as you discover it is easier to roll it.

Uhhhhg!
Cave womam teach cave man new invention. :o)


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.

Good... That is what I tho't you'd say about your space.
(Don't mistake that for any real understanding on my part )

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.

Over my head.


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.

Yes... I could see that in the rotation of that four pronged sea
urchin.
I haven't developed much mental vision for how to move on
the axes and scale dimensions. The nurons for math as a
first language start to go dormant at about 25 years of age
so I am probably over the hill.

That's a unit shell, NOT an urchin !!!
Everyone suffers this problem with the polysign construction. The real
numbers were beaten into us back in the third grade or so. Everything
else has been built on top of them. I can probably teach a third grader
polysign arithmetic faster than a PhD. That's how simple it is.
The simplex coordinate system should not be a problem for you. That
goes a long ways. The product just is what it is. It's weird above P3.
But we only need up to P3 to get spacetime so don't worry too much
about P4 and on. They may be important but the best of the polysign
system is down at low sign (P3-). That's the way I approach it. I can
see someone might choose to work out a P5 (4D) model and that's great
but it probably won't work out to use the P5 product at all.


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.

You have something backward in your electric / magnetic unification.
The blasted photon peddlers have brainwashed you already. ;-)

Electric monopoles (e+ e-) we can separate. Magetic monopoles
are a psuedo_particles that exist only on paper so we can fix the
stuff that quantization breaks at a macro level.

I dodge the anti-electron for now.
Mass can be regarded as a monopole, just obeying different rules than
electrical charge. Probably to you I've got things turned all upside
down and flipped around. Mass as a one-signed monopole does fit nicely.
That is an old thought for me so perhaps I'm jumping to far in one
step. This mass monopole doesn't have an inverse. That's why it is
one-signed. You just have to accept that it is attractive rather than
repulsive. I can show a little product math that makes it consistent
with two-sign affinities but it may not be worthy. Now, if we assume
that monopole to be a pole of flux rather than symmetrically spread we
would see this mass being directed and this effect could be confused
with magnetic moment, especially if a universal flux were beneath them
all. Doing this all in a dimensionally approporiate way is a puzzle. In
the polysign system a one-signed entity is zero dimensional. Not much
to go on if that is a neutron in spacetime.
Still it is thought provoking.


What about the neutron magnetic moment.

AFAIK neutrons have a pronounced magnetic response.
Don't take my word for it tho:

The magneto-electric effect - a neutron scattering perspective [pdf]
Energy levels of the giant Keplerate magnetic molecule [pdf]
http://www.reflec.ameslab.gov/magnet/highlightsM.php#

Sorry. Haven't gotten to the above link yet.
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.

The above papers might shed some light.
I seldom visit cramped spaces like the inside of atoms.


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.

If you say so. <:o)


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.

I wouldn't assume neutrons are cold inert spheres if that is what
you are saying.

If a two-signed object has two poles and a three-signed object has
three poles then a one-signed object should have one pole. In other
words It should have directional properties.
I am approaching this as if these objects are sitting in spacetime as
point particles which may be bastardizing things but is easy to intuit.
So the monopole neutron has something that looks like half of a magnet.
Just picture flux lines entering it at a direction that is it's
magnetic moment. Or if you are thinking of a little sphere then picture
your cold inert one but with a hole in the top where the flux enters.
In the past my thoughts on monopoles led to a little sphere with arrows
pointing either into or out of it omnidirectionally. But taking the
electron as a dipole leads to this interpretation of a monopole, which
really does match much better.



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.

Yes. The unifcation is just the volumetric superposition
of the Coulomb force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
"Time-independent Maxwell equations"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node26.html

That is not to say E and B roles don't swap, to hold some
fundamental particle together. That, of course may be
as much in the eye of the modeler where we can't take
a voltmeter and magnetometer inside of an atom.

Sue...
People learned of magnetism.
Then they learned of electricity.
They were two seperate concepts.
Eventually they realized that they are closely related in fascinating
ways.
But unification requires replacement of two objects by one object.
Maxwell's equations state a tight relationship, but they do not attempt
to erase one of the original concepts, or both of them and replace them
with a singular concept. We continue to see them intertwined even
within an electron, not just external to it.
Field theories tend to stay in the domain of electrical potential and
can dodge the magnetic side of things but they don't do it completely
do they? At some point someone turns on a B field somewhere to take
control of the situation. And even if they don't use a B field those
little magnetic moments will get you to quantum effects eventually.

Perhaps the topology
0D + 1D + 2D ...
will suggest a flux type of interaction law that manages amongst the
dimensions.
The idea is that if a neutron is a one-signed polar and an electron is
a two-signed polar and a proton is a three-signed polar then there is
certainly room for the diverse properties that are observed. These
particles would truly be different species.
A quantum flux model will get them all interacting as we observe and
the laws of the flux will be clean if it works. It looks like the
proton can mimic a neutrons mass. That's a nice starting point for the
flux laws.
Thank you for leading me to this.

-Tim

.

Quantcast