Re: Quantum Flux


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


Right. I see what you mean. These n-poles have nothing to do with a
polysign product as far as I can see. So this could be a different
theory altogether from a spacetime derivation.

So now let's tenativly forget what you think your space represents
about time. It reveses real easly inside atoms.

Maybe better not to worry about the dimensional stuff, though it could
provide guidance on flux rules. As I look at the concept of confusing
charge, mass, and magnet all together the presumption of the electron
as dipole goes away. It could be the monopole. It would still have an
axis. This would be fairly coherent with the 1-pole as electron, the
2-pole as neutron, and the 3-pole as proton when the flux is regarded
as donors and receptors at each node, there being n nodes in an n-pole.
Suppose that the identity sign be a donor and the other signs be
receptors. In effect this is just a statement of flux directionality.
But then we see neutrons effectively neutral since they have one
receptor (in) and one donor (out) When liberated a neutron would be
self connected so that its flux line returned from its donor side to
its receptor side. The same would be true of a liberated proton, but
with an additional receptor! So this looks like charge, the proton
having one free receptor, the electron having one free donor, and the
neutron having none. Charge and mass of these things can be had. Under
this model each particle has only one flux quantum. We can build a
hydrogen atom with the 1-pole electron donating its flux to a 3-pole
receptor, yielding no free nodes. We can even put a neutron in there.
Junping up to two protons is fairly straight forward and there are
simply two receptors left over for two electrons. This is a simple
construction that makes congruency with observation. I can't really say
how it makes any sense that the self loop would provide for the concept
of mass, but the patterning is certainly there under this construction.

Yes... that sounds pretty sensible. I had some similar tho'ts using a
currency of 'donors' and 'receptors. I know how to make something
that is stingy with its enegy look like mass so dont get discouraged if

find some short arms where you expect long arms.


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.

That may be wise, but the magnetism analogy is pretty strong for this
model.

Ugggg! :o) That 'whip stitch' winding suckered you good so
kindly accept a second opinion. It isn't modeling dipolar stuff well
at all. If everything else fits you can buy an opposite-urchin at a
two-for-one sale... and fix it that way. :o)

Hey, there's antiparticles in this thing too. Just reverse all of the
flux directions.
In effect antiparticles would use antiflux, or some such confusion.
Even the antineutron could be claimed if there is an ability to
distinguish the flux from antiflux.
So the anti-pole would have one receptor at the identity pole and the
rest donors.

That's good. Intuitively we guess things have to turn themselves
inside out, to live with neighbors they would normally repel..

snip

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

Wow. That sounds close in a really cryptic way. It's neat to see the
1D+2D usage out there. I've seen it tried for gravity, but that is the
first time I've seen it for something else.

Tho't you'd like that. :-)



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

Thanks. Nice reference piece. I have difficulty with gauge theory and
avoid it. I once made a point of trying to learn it but it seemed to
boil down to integration and the introduction of constants. Perhaps I
mislearned it. Anyhow I've saved a local copy of this doc.

I am not sure it has much application when you are working
like Gel-Mann and Mendeleve.





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

http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/e+%20annihilation.png

Errrr.....
I don't know Sue. They are transients. But is your point that they are
a part of every photon interaction? So a photon can be replaced by two
particles tightly coupled of inverse nature. Where is wavelength in
that model? Why does one survive and the other vanish? Yes, alright
there is some sort of a local surplus of electrons and other than that
they are just ducky together.

No... not just any photon. The gamma photon, waaaay up at the
top of the frequency range is produced when when e+ e- anhilates.

The photo is not showing some other matter necessary for pair
creation because it isn't moving to leave a track.


Handedness perhaps could play into this. Maxwells equations have built
the handedness into everything that is expressed in E and B.

Yes it does. That is why you see the antiparticle spirialing the
opposite way. There is a magnetic field 'piercing' ( z axis ) the
the bubble chamber

But the
n-pole approach would hopefully be more geometrical; dodging any
duality to the last moment. P3 which is the complex plane has a very
serious symmetry about it. If you don't know which way the imaginary
axis is oriented you'll never find out.

That is why I suggest you ignore time inside the atom. Moving time
to an axis of convience is how we balance the energy budget.
Whether you back up 30 minutes or advance 30 minutes, Mickey's
big hand is pointing to the same place. :o)

Yet this is the source of
rotational phenomena mathematically. Simplicity might ask that rather
than allowing both sides to exist that since they are the same that
they exist identically and so the plane is halved. This is only a
choice so far as I can see but here is source of symmetry with it's
anti-self masquerading as itself. That's really just an abstract
thought. Is it meaningful to assign all particles to antiparticles and
simply admit that we cannot distinguish the two?

Yes it is meaningful. Can we distinguish hydrogen from anti-hyrogen
if all we have is one of each? This is the subject of some
current laboratory experiments:

<< If any difference between hydrogen and antihydrogen were
observed, however small, it would indicate that matter and antimatter
do not behave in exactly the same way. This may help explain why
the observable Universe appears to be made entirely of matter and not
antimatter. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

http://ppd.fnal.gov/experiments/hbar/

They coexist together
and so what we call an electron might as well be an antielectron in
this context. We will never know the difference so like the complex
plane we are plopped into this system with no reference standard. Its
dual allows a full self cancellation. Net zero. That's folding the
plane over to get rid of the symmetry. Open the plane up and you have
to choose a half. It doesn't matter which half you choose. They are
identical in every way, though perfect inverses. There is no driving
need to fold it up and the open plane is more general. Yet the notion
of an edge does seem important. Folding on a line, a line folding on a
point, the point the edge of time.

See... antiparticles aren't nearly the big bad beasts you were making
'em out to be. They are just slipperly in our world.

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
    ... I'm looking at magnet as sourced from the 1D in this topology. ... a flux analogy may be instructive for this, ... That an electron is different from the neutron and proton under this ... charge secondarily produced by it via this operation. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... > What poles of an electron? ... So a magnetic field can exist without a moving charge too. ... I can suspend a human being on a permanent magnet. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Quantum Flux
    ... I'm looking at magnet as sourced from the 1D in this topology. ... If electrical charge is a three-signed entity then we would see two ... a flux analogy may be instructive for this, ... That an electron is different from the neutron and proton under this ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
    ... By fundamental particle do you mean beneath an electron? ... I'm looking at magnet as sourced from the 1D in this topology. ... charge secondarily produced by it via this operation. ... If a particles stability is inherent then we ...
    (sci.physics)