Re: Quantum Flux

Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
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.


Hmmm... If you want to categorise that way, suppose you
tenativly withdraw your claim to model a ?Lorentz? space-time
or any electro magnetic effects and instead say you are
mapping QCD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics

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.

No... ya have to ditch magnet too. That is just superpositioned
charge or you can just glob them all together and deal with
spins.


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):

There is no train wreck... Yet. But we are verbally hopping between
space-times and gauges in a undiciplined manner. I am partly to
blame for assuming a Maxwell friendly space would be easy to
understand. That may not be where you need to go with the
space.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/6f8dc00f273f732c
<< http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tripole.htm >>

That is just a CW coil on one end and a CCW coil on the other end.
'Whip stitches' are for sewing rooms not EM labs. LOL

No science there if the author doesn't know that.



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

Some that maths might find some application in the neucleus.
I really don't know.


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.

Yeah... maybe you need to focus on baryons and bound electrons
and forget the Lorenz part and antimatter.
You might get skewer some FQHE's and quarks on your
'urchin spines' ;-)

In this piece, Ye gives a fair narritave of dodging the
train wrecks if you can follow the notation.

Subj-class: Strongly Correlated Electrons
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0206158

Don't ask me to translate it tho. I recognize
Lorentz and QED. All the rest looks Greek to me.

Personal Flotation Device
"Transformations"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034



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.

I can describe electrons and positrons in two dimensions.
Sign and radius.

snip


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?
No... I just run out of fingers at eleven and have to employ
some high tech solutions now and again.

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.

Yes... Einstein went overboard banishing all the matter from
the theatre. You have to assume a flux of something because
a flux of nothing does nothing. Call it fairy dust if you like.
Maybe is is just a flux of e+ e- and we don't know enough
of their properties but I doubt it is that simple.

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.

So ya think this picture is from the same Hollywood studio that
faked the manned moon missions? >:o)
http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/e+%20annihilation.png

Sue...


-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
    ... progression up from monopole mass to dipole magnet is a tripole. ... a flux analogy may be instructive for this, ... That an electron is different from the neutron and proton under this ... So the monopole neutron has something that looks like half of a magnet. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Flux
    ... progression up from monopole mass to dipole magnet is a tripole. ... a flux analogy may be instructive for this, ... That an electron is different from the neutron and proton under this ... So the monopole neutron has something that looks like half of a magnet. ...
    (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: Quantum Flux
    ... progression up from monopole mass to dipole magnet is a tripole. ... a flux analogy may be instructive for this, ... That was an attempt at making charge symmetrical with magnetism. ... That an electron is different from the neutron and proton under this ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast