Re: Quantum Flux

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

Yes... they still seem confused about what they are seeing and
I am a little disappointed there isn't a bit more classical analysis
that might link to some coherent matter explanitions.

snip

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.

What would be valuable is if you can describe something better than
Lornenz four space, without going beyond P3 so I'll ingnore P4 and P5.




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.

Ugggh! I have trouble living without it.

I should confess at this point that I hold some hope of a
unification of electromagentism and gravity with a coherernt
matter model in the not too distant future. That creates a significant
difference in what you and I would consider a mass or a monopole.
If my following comments seem overly brief, I don't want to
unnecessarly muddy your water where some ~mainstream~
paradigms are availible to you to build and test with.
Ya don't want both your feet on bananna peels.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'coherent matter model'.
The monopole that I'm considering has no inverse.
It is not the magnetic monopole that Dirac theorized.
That was an attempt at making charge symmetrical with magnetism.
At least this is my understanding of that concept.
Here rather than deny the fundamental dipole we allow it as a
progression from a singular monopole. The next thing up in this
structured progression is a tripole. This model suggests two mistakes,
not one and in that way two banana peels may be better since I am
already under way.


Mass can be regarded as a monopole, just obeying different rules than
electrical charge.

Not when the mass is an e+ or an e- and do we know if they
fall indivudually toward the earth. <rhetorical>

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.

Here you are tying to model something that three people will give
you four points of view on. Including the anti electon, will let you
sweep all that off the table and model with stuff that will fit through
the laboratory door. Nobody wants to clean the work bench after
a planet has been on it either. :o)



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.

It is not worth the download if you want to learn about neutrons.

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.


Neutrons are interesting probe particles.

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.

<< The possible existence of a non-zero electric dipole moment of the
neutron is of great fundamental interest and directly impacts our
understanding of the nature of electro-weak and strong interactions.
The experimental search for this moment has the potential to reveal
new sources of T and CP violation and to challenge calcuations that
propose extensions to the Standard Model. >>
http://www.npl.uiuc.edu/exp/nEDM/index.html

Ugggh!

Electrons don't exist without positrons... somewhere.
We don't take half as a monopole. We take the pair
as a dipole.

Is your third sign of polarity wagging the dog? :o)

I think so, yes. I have an agenda. The polysign numbers derive
spacetime and so everything that I try is through their lens; built
from them or by them.

The antiparticles are part of your agenda, right?
That's a smelly kind of place to go.
I don't know if it smells good or bad though.
The stability problem again.
Here's a possible way to let them in.
We allow for handedness in reality but we can't measure which
handedness it has.
The antiparticles have the opposing handedness.
This helps explain their instability.
This is not very complete but it is symmetrical.
I'm sure someone has already tried this.

But why should we rely on the antiparticle? Should it be central to a
new theory or should it fall out from a consequence that is just a
sidenote? I also want a semi-classical answer. The polysign
construction perhaps wants it too. But it will not be the old answer.
Something has to give. I can see the attraction; antiparticles as the
linkage to an answer.
Their degeneracy is somewhat like the higher signs.




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.

What electon ?
Would you be refering to a fundamental particle pair ? ( e+ e- )

You really want an antielectron in there somewhere.
Well, before I steer that way you'll have to be more convincing.
The antielectron may be a discovery but it is no better than the quark
in its stability right?
I would prefer to be simple-minded rather than narrow-minded.
There is such a thing as too simple.
I would like to keep mindful of the antiparticles.
I'm not sure how much complexity that adds to things.
As I look around at antiparticles I see time reversal and that suggests
to me some basic geometry arguments and I also see no mention of
instability so perhaps I need correction.
This simplistic n-pole does not appear to indicate an inverse yet, but
its dimensionality hasn't been addressed. I can't just plop them into
spacetime. That would not be the polysign approach. They need to derive
spacetime.
I like this flux concept and would be willing to take it up a level to
an older combinatorical space. That involves more quark-like components
as a P1P2P3 (six varieties) combination. But that will lack the
speciated structure that these n-poles have.

I await your enlightenment. ( >:~o )

-Tim


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?

J.D Jackson describes a pair of spherical antenna that if super
conductive would appear to make an E plane only light path.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
Sorry, I haven't gotten to this yet. Keep them coming though.

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.

Your are quite welcome. The other nine victims didn't bother to
thank me. >:-)

Sue...


-Tim

.

Loading