Re: Quantum Flux

Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
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.

Here is how you make a neutrally charged attractor with induced
dipoles.

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html

BTW you refrigerator door forms induced dipoles when
you stick your grocery list on it with a permanent magnet so
they aren't terribly mysterious.

You can intuit the notions about stitching that into a long range
London type force to explain gravity and a Machian inertia
with a perusal of these:

http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

What does you space do if monopoles don't exist. Would
you map the 'mono-ness' ?

I better answer that question before you wreck the train.

A dipole may appear a monopole from one location but
not from another. The tricky thing about coherent matter
is it hand-shakes on all radials and orients its dipoles
to appear neutral on that radial.

snip


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.

AFAIK Minkowski space time doesn't use any representation
of monopoles.


The antiparticles are part of your agenda, right?

Not really. I just increase their populatation for conveinence
the way Feynman did. If some one says I can't do that
I tell 'em to 'shut up and calculate'.

But we would hope a space like your might give some
insight why we see protons instead of positrons.

That's a smelly kind of place to go.
I don't know if it smells good or bad though.
The stability problem again.

Can e+ e- be unstable at your 2 dimensional scale and
find stabilty at the 3 dimensional scale where they would
be nuclei and electrons ?

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.

It seems all that handedness has to model (or maybe it becomes
ambiguous)
at the 2 dimensional scale then forms at the 3 dimensional scale.


But why should we rely on the antiparticle?

Only so we can walk before we run.
Maxwell doesn't know a proton from a positron.

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.

Over my head.





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.

Yeah... but I am not asking how it works It just attracts electrons
and anhilates them when too close. That is all you need to make
light move throught space.

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?

We have anti hyrogen and the prospects look promising for heavier
elements... that sound pretty stable to me.

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.

That is an imaginary (sqrt -1) time reversal. Not anything you have
to warn your grandfather about. :o)

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 )

I only offer the dark consderation you may have no place to ply your
monopole. OTOH... mine is still the view of a very small minority.

Is it the simplist thing to model electrons in 2 dimensional space.
And perhaps positrons look identical in that view ?

Or is it the other way around? Excuse me while I turn
by shoe inside-out so I can count above 10. :o)


Sue...


-Tim

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Flux
    ... It is not the magnetic monopole that Dirac theorized. ... Here rather than deny the fundamental dipole we allow it as a ... you stick your grocery list on it with a permanent magnet so ... those particles displaying unique flux patterns due to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Flux
    ... It is not the magnetic monopole that Dirac theorized. ... That was an attempt at making charge symmetrical with magnetism. ... Here rather than deny the fundamental dipole we allow it as a ... you stick your grocery list on it with a permanent magnet so ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Radiation Resistance
    ... Richard Harrison wrote: ... you overlooked the fact that "L" is gifferent for the dipole ... and monopole." ... As a test case, let's suppose that L is 8 meters, and lambda is 80 meters. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?
    ... >> massless EM wave) and an alternating monopole. ... In a conventional EM plane wave, the electric field (assume plane ... This in turn means that the electrons in the metal all flow in one ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Call for global magnetic monopole test help
    ... I understand your comparison with the hollow line, however, I am damn ... closedloops. ... us 'visualize' magnetism. ... tensor does not permit a magnetic monopole to exist. ...
    (sci.physics)