Re: Quantum Flux

Sue... wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
Sue... wrote:
snip
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'm not sure how to answer that.
The monopole will be a one-signed entity. It has no inverse.
Until the dimensional nature of this n-pole model gets figured out I
don't think I have but this inkling of an answer. Neutrons are not
invisible, but they are pretty simple. The only thing so far that makes
sense about this model is the usage of flux as a universal force of
point particles, those particles displaying unique flux patterns due to
the number of poles that they contain. The particle becomes the n-pole,
and it looks coherent to call a neutron a 1-pole, an electron a 2-pole,
and a proton a 3-pole. The flux is akin to magnetic flux and there is
something called a Dirac string which is consistent with this concept.
I'm still trying to find more out about that. The notion of quantum
flux is in existence already. The notion that it could be used for
gravitation is not as far as I can tell. Both charge and mass would be
consequences of particle interaction via flux. There are two missing
parts to this theory thus far. One is the laws by which this flux
operate, and the other more esoteric is the dimensional aspect that
allows these n-poles to interact with each other topologically.

Already we accept that monopoles exist. They are charge monopoles,
exhibiting two signs and obeying the laws of charge. We also have to
accept that these 'self-repulsive' electrons do some pretty strange
things together like superconduction and FQHE. It is accepted that the
protons do intimate things with each other, like make nuclei. So the
old charge model is already poorly describing these particles. In
effect both charge and mass have become mysterious, yet at a large
scale they are undeniable. So taking the problem as open I think it
makes sense to flip two things on their head at a time, not just one.
Ditch charge and mass and what is left? Magnet.

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.


That's alright but the dipole that I'm talking about is the magnetic
dipole, not a charge dipole. Its a unitary concept. The generalization
becomes n-poles; point particles with inherent orientation. In this
regard the monopole of flux theory is different than the charge
monopole of old. It is directed and the claim that I'm making is that
all forces operate via this principle so that what seems like
gravitation can be confused with what seems like magnetic moment and
even electrical charge. Given this confusion I'm thinking of backing
out of claiming of the electron being the 2-pole. Getting the right
theory may not be an easy thing. If it's a good theory it'll come out
fairly simple and straightforward. I suppose the elasticity that the
atomic dipoles you are describing posess is appropriate for flux. But
the notion of a finite dipole may not be. The flux(magnetic) dipole
probably has no inherent dimension. It's just a point particle.

Sorry; I guess I wrecked your train. I think you are wise to look at
the atomic whole. Step back and take another look.
Here are the best 'tripole' search results I've found thus far (best
first):

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/6f8dc00f273f732c
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tripole.htm
http://www.ericweisstein.com/encyclopedias/life/Tripole.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_frm/thread/bdb80969e4041412
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/939466646a150d75
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TrilinearPole.html

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 ?

Maybe. This would suggest not chaining them as combinatorial but
leaving them independent. That could also leave a singular P1 particle
with no inverse. Then there would be a triverse of P3 particles. No
mixing. In the past I've thought that the proper solution would mix
them all together. It's funny; you wind up with six either way. The
n-pole method gets a strict three. It's all just combinatorics until a
motive is found. All of the patterns look pretty good. The polysign
system want us to have our cake and eat it too. That the structure can
derive spacetime is given mathematically. To get it to do so in one of
these systems is the signal to pursue.


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.

OK. I'm still getting to know handedness. In some regards the 2D
handedness is so bland as to suggest that there is only half of a
plane, or bilateral symmetry. The same can be said of higher sign
spaces as well. But with spacetime as P1P2P3 2D is as high as we go
componentwise.



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.
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)

What's with the ten thing? Are you a closet M-theorist?
I'm a minority of one so I don't really care about major acceptance.
The chances of being wrong are quite high no matter what way you go.
I'm pursuing simplicity, not complexity.
So far this flux thing looks good on the surface, but not so simple as
to be trivial.
I'm not feeling convinced about the antiparticles. Yes, antihydrogen
seems to exist for a few moments. That must be important. But if it is
unstable then should it be part of the basis or some weird offspring of
the basis? It may be latent and recoverable without any artifice when a
good theory is found.

-Tim

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Flux
    ... It is not the magnetic monopole that Dirac theorized. ... That was an attempt at making charge symmetrical with magnetism. ... those particles displaying unique flux patterns due to ... charge, mass, and magnet all together the presumption of the electron ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 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: End-feeding dipoles
    ... The use of dipole to indicate a monopole with the mirrored "pole" being created in the earth seems sparse in the material I have digested--however, technically, you seem to have a argument in the use you indicated ... ... it would have net "magnetic charge". ... A bar magnet, coil or current loop, if their size is small, create a dipole field. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
    ... >> A rotating magnet does NOT radiate. ... > The electric equivalent would be a rotating electric dipole, ... > uniformly accelerated charge radiates. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Flux
    ... progression up from monopole mass to dipole magnet is a tripole. ... That was an attempt at making charge symmetrical with magnetism. ... Electrons don't exist without positrons... ...
    (sci.physics)