Re: Quantum Flux

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

snip


ha hah.
You know to them R^n is the demented one beyond R^2.
They know how to operate on themselves sensibly.
R^n only operates with scalars.
I suppose the two will have to get along with each other.
The conflicts are substantial details.


Keeps coming out not quite the way I wanted it though.
It's tricky in high dimensions because the data becomes too dense.



This n-pole model seems to be somewhat coherent. It fits a little bit
into the polysign theory, but only a little. I'm not really done trying
for a product approach, but the n-pole came along and deserves a bit of
attention. Just getting up to diatomic hydrogen is quite a challenging
problem.
This model makes it look as if the nuclei will be interacting.
But I don't even have an atomic geometry. Instead I just have some
lines of flux that like to join nodes together, joining a 1-pole and a
3-pole, and allowing 2-poles in transparently. They'd like to
conglomerate. But that's about as far as this model gets so far. To try
for a diatomic molecule is just too much. I can't do it.

Atoms don't seem to do much geometry internally so it sounds
like you are vague where you need to be.

I was hoping the diatom might make things less challenging by
locally closing the magnetic loops. If it doesn't help then it is
certainly
not anything you need to include.

The loops are closed happily into an atomic stability. Each 3-pole can
have one self-loop leaving one receptor open for the 1-pole to join to.
In this configuration all donors have receptros. The 3-poles have the
ability to join together if their self-loops break up to join with each
other. The 3-poles evince a stronger joinery since they have more
nodes. The 1-pole having just one node can be seen as less powerfully
joined. With n 3-poles joined together there are still n receptors left
for n 1-poles. This is congruent with proton electron balance.
Losing an electron (1-pole) would leave an atom wanting to fill a
receptor and so ionic type action seems congruent. Getting diatomic
bonding where two atoms are already balanced would seem to require the
3-poles to be involved. But geometry is completely lacking in this
analysis.

I had always assumed that stability had some relaton with
a gasses preference for diatomic molecules.


snip

Neutrons might be able to claim they are almost free.
But they fall and see mirrors so they can't be completly
free.


By 'liberated' I merely meant disconnected from the other n-poles.
How disconnected I suppose is a valid concern.

Yes it is VERY important. So much so there may be a
fundamental principle that prevents the application of
your space to physics.

I take the POV that something has a positve charge only
to the degree that it is more positve than something else.
There may be a more informed POV that says otherwise.
I think you should seek out that kind of support before you
invest too much in an application that may be a square
peg in a round hole.

So I see where you are
at. Total independence means no interaction and so is of no value.

I am not trying to define a boundary or set a threshold of
'independence'.
More, I am countering the misperception the clean edged spheres
of text books can create. At their own scale the particles are
wispy things that sometimes overlap, leap out the walls of a
vacuum chamber or behave more like light than the light we
credit them for launching. If I say an electron is a point, you'll
say I am right. If you say an electron extends to infinity, I'll
say you are right.

So perhaps the concept is 'tightly coupled' versus 'loosely coupled'.
That makes me wonder a little bit about near-field and far-field
distinctions.

Yes, those are vague too but in classical electromagnetism
it is not hard to know when you are using the wrong one because
magnetism diminishes by 1/r^3 .


I don't understand the details of that distinction.
And that's just continuous. I should try to think more quantum right?

If you want to learn physics you need enough classical background
to understand what the quantum formalism is simulating.

If you want an application for your demented general urchin :o)
I'd reccomend you thrash out your notion of what is positive
and negative with a lot more rigour.





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

<< Where is the magnetic moment? >>

It is perpendicular with a line to a significant positive charge
which it is moving wrt.

This adds another dimension to your electron description though right?

No... It is a charge-pair. Didn't you say that promotes the ensemble
to the 3D space.

I picture a generic point particle in spacetime.
I'd say there's distance(universal), angle(P3), and sign(P2).
But that's a polysign interpretation.
I guess that is two dimensions.
Is that what you are getting at?

I don't understand where you get an angle.

I think this might be fairly important.
It is an argument of pure geometry.

Indeed...
Pure as a whore in the last pew at church. :o)

More substantial criticism is welcome.
I understand that it seems like cheating.
Further the link to magnetic moment is not there.
It's just geometry.
But the notion that a point particle taken on the topology:
0D + 1D + 2D ...
could yield these properties inherently is quite a strong position.
So you could be in denial.
Does a charged particle in spacetime experience spacetime with regard
to a single other particle?
Why are standard solutions worked in 1D?
Is the 1D solution at the beginning of the textbook valid?
If a two-body system does not experience spacetime then how many bodies
does it take?
What about the magnetic moment?


It does not require the polysign construction.
Just consider a 2D space (a piece of paper).
Instantiate two point particles in that space.
They are just two dots on that paper.
But since we call them particles they each have their own reference
frame.
This is invoking relativity on pure geometry.

There is nothing 'pure' about the superposition of
multiple spherical sprinkler heads in motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral

...especially when half the heads are un-sprinklers.

...and that multiple integral page hasn't imposed motion
at a signifiacant fraction of 'c'.

Now we're suffering from mixed messages.
This interpretation is not linked to the quantum flux, at least not
yet.
These generic point particles have absolutely no internal qualities.
They are deriving their qualities from the topology
P1 P2 P3 ...
where each point particle is instantiated in each tier (P1, P2, P3,
etc.).
So we can label two points 'a' and 'b'.
So now we see a P1 space with two points a and b,
and a P2 space (real line) with two points a and b,
and a P3 space (complex plane) with two points a and b,
etc.
A singular distance is enforced between them across the entire
topology.
so that
d1(a,b) = d2(a,b) = d3(a,b), ...
where dn is the distance in Pn.
So far there's not much, just a couple of points in a progressive space
topology.
Upon calling these points particles I ask that we invoke them
relatively.
So now in each space they have their own reference system.
This yields the qualities.
In effect this would suggest that particle qualities can be seen as
relative phenomenon and in that way these particles are much like your
statement about which charge is 'more positive' than another. Under
this construction the only quanta are the particle assumption. The
binary qualities are relativity in 1D. The spin axes are relativity in
2D.


The reference in 2D can simply be a little unit vector, since angle and
distance will be sufficient to define each particle from the others
reference frame.

OK ... it is this angle.

Advance 180 deg = Retard 180 deg.

I realise the tendancy to believe that would be representabe
in 2D. The problem is that no two charges can be represented
in 2D because their interaction occurs over a *volume* of space,
not an area of space.

But if you are working on the topology
0D 1D 2D ...
we see spacetime as the progression up through 2D and so 2D is the top
tier of spacetime.
Beneath it there is a 1D tier. Together they will generate a volume.
And furthermore the electromagnetic analogy of this topology as a 3D
basis is strong, there being an inherent normal between a plane(2D) and
a line(1D).


So now each dot has a little unit vector sticking out of it in some
random orientation.
So now we see that each particle measures an angle to the other
particle as well as a distance.
Whether or not they can see the other's angle can be left open for now.
The point is that these angles are inherent properties of point
particles instantiated in 2D.
This is perfectly congruent with the spin axis of the electron.
Thereby I view this as a little bridge between quantum theory and
relativity theory.
Doing this in 1D will get you two-signed charge in a relative system.
All of this from generic point particles.
Pure geometry.

HA! You wish.

Again, more substantial criticism is welcome.
If there is something wrong please dispute it.
I understand the quack factor is pretty high.
But if you follow the quack and find a duck what then?

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html



In this rendition the spacetime won't come back out until the product
is taken.
Even though it was used to instantiate the generic particle a distance
invariance step caused all of the distances in
P1 + P2 + P3 + ...
to match up so that there is one unitary distance across the topology.

A unit Coulomb force ?

Whether the distance invariance is necessary I don't know.
It does make a nice simplification and unification.
Out comes charge and angular moment for generic point particles taken
relatively.

If you mentioned speed of light earlier then I forgot. In any case,
you just did if you are representing some physics.

Do you mean in terms of distance in time being distance in space?
Exactly. When a charge integrates the forces incident from
neighboring charges in motion, it does so with respect to the
speed of light. The magents will fall off of your refrigerator if it
forgets to
allow for that. :o)

It really is astonishing how stable these systems are. That magnetism
is attributed to alignment of electron paths which are whizzing around
in a loosely coupled configuration.
That it is not exhibited generally is surprising. Well, Ok it is, but
the dynamics...


You ask about a unit Coulomb force above.
I don't see that yet. So far the construction is pure geometry.
Rather than considering the Cartesian product of
P1 x P2 x P3 ...
Where we would get many unique distances we simplify the problem and it
makes things topologically more interesting. For two generic points the
distance in P1 is the distance in P2 is the distance in P3, etc.. Since
P1 is time this commensurate construction gives the usual notion of
distance yet allows degrees of freedom in the higher dims. Those
degrees of freedom come out as a binary in P2 and an angle in P3.

The 'purest' this geometry gets is the macro atomic expressions
of time independent Maxwell's equations. Rutherford learned the
hard way ( good pics of what won't work )
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Bohr/atomicstr.html

BTW.. try to remember our real justification to interchange
a temporal and spatial axis is to represent how moving
sprinkler heads superposition. It has nothing to do with
the thunderstorms as seen by rail passengers or any
other philosophical notion of time we'd like to include.
Nature has a tight schedule getting the sprinkler droplets
at the right place at the right time so that is the clock
we have to go by.

Nice point. Superposition is at the heart of all. Integration is
superposition. Summation is superposition. We solve complex problems as
the superposition of smaller problems. Down at the bottom is a two-body
problem, the only one we seem to know how to solve. But the two
electron system as a two body problem including the magnetic moment
hasn't been solved has it? You would know better than I. Has it been
tried?





It's like getting something for nothing, and the something has
surprising congruence with modern particles.
But that's very different than most of what we've been discussing here.
If we could relate the two that might be neat.

You are seeing the congruence. I am seeing the corners
sheared off of my square peg. :o)
snip
<< Maybe one of these times I'll get it.
You are still dodging a defense of time reversal.
But maybe you are leading up to it.>>

I didn't dodge time reversal.
180 deg advance = 180 deg retard

I'm going to argue that angle is a 2D concept and so this is a spatial
symmetry rather than time symmetry. Perhaps a substrate model will
allow this to come out cleanly in that the product space will be a
different entity that the sources which generate it.

I think I covered that above. Sign and radius are 2 dimensions.

Then I have to ask where is the magnetic moment?
The electron needs to have an axis also.
Wouldn't that add a dimension to your description?


Add a second particle that can interact with the first, and
the interaction region requires a volume of space.

Your imagination may be able to conduct a force over
an infinitly thin entity. Nature will ~burn~ the wire up no
matter how small the current (force) if the ~wire~ (interaction
region) is infinitly small.





Well if I get there we will both have a surprise. I don't find
it easy either.

Well, you are well versed on what is supposed to be true. How a
skeptic can move through all of these layers and not throw up ones
hands is a difficulty.

Your stuff is too slippery for a skeptic to get a grip. >:-)

Some of these experiments that theories hinge
upon are far from conclusive. I must confess that I still have a hard
time with Rutherford's gold foil experiment. Whether alpha particles
interact via repulsion or attraction (slingshot orbit) I don't believe
was established.

'Glad you mentioned that. Some of Rutherford's disappointments
are a good guide for when to distrust your intuition about geometry.
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Bohr/atomicstr.html

Nice link; good critique. I bookmarked it.

Now you have it 3 times. I am replying after only a
quick first read. >:-)




Anytime you send something through a slit the results should be triple
scrutinized. Funny things happen with apertures. That covers a lot of
experiments. I can't claim to do any better. I just want something
simpler. With the polysign spacetime support there are some new things
to try.

Young's experiments ? Treat them as waves.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html


snip
I don't know if this model is going anywhere. It certainly has a nice
coherency in terms of the electron and proton. The dipole photon seems
like a desperate stab in the dark. But then it looks good in such a
simple minded way. The electron interacting with the proton via these
2-poles that can chain onto any piece of flux so easily and
transparently. The energy paradigm is congruent. I hope it is at least
worth a chuckle or two. Then the business about wavelength will have to
be addressed.

You mean wave-number ? :o)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavenumber

Thanks. I took a look.

Try to find a better physicsl argument for three signs
than gravity and your whip-stitch magnet. My argument is:
you are not positive unless someone is more negative
than you. I think that reduces to the conservation of
charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Sue...

The sign conception can be quite befuddling. Look at the real numbers.
They have broken symmetry. Squaring values will tell you this. Truly
symmetrical opposites are not found until you go up to P3. Perhaps that
gets back to your e- / e+ pair. If they are in P3 there may be a
neutral e*. There are many ways to look at things under the polysign
system. Your notion of offset (which I guess is just electric field
potential offset) applied in P3 might be interesting.
Just think 2D instead of 1D.

I don't disagree with your remarks but they seem to apply to
the numbering system we use to describe phenomena, not
to any specific phenomena. I think I made the case above
why e+ e- pair requires 3D. (interaction volume)

Does that clear it up ?

I'm just pointing out the true antiparticle may not be a two-signed
(real number) concept.
The best antiparticle platform is 2D. This involves some borrowing from
complex mathematics. The trouble with this borrowing is that the
geometrical product seems to have no relevance to physical reality. But
by doing a distance transform (1/(X+1))something more physical is
happening. Then the classical equations map to the product directly.
Now the question becomes whether the axis that we generated in 2D will
behave appropriately via this product. The product results are
differentials that feed back into the particle velocities(F=ma). In 2D
this includes rotational effects as well.


You are juggling an extra sign with a region in an extra dimension.
The utility in a macroatomic realm may become a liability
in a subatomic realm (Rutherford) so it is a difficult balance
to strike. When the water droplets are larger than the
sprinklers Alice has to swap ruby slippers with the Red
Queen... er ahhh something like that. I fetgit the exact equation.

Maybe that slippery transform is what I am attempting as a substrate
versus the product space that we live in (spacetime). Atomic structures
might be viewed as an interface between the two. But the product space
notion is divergent to the sprinkler/flux concept so far. Whether we
should instantiate particles in each domain as n-poles at each n-signed
tier is a new concept. That seems to be where you are going. The
conflict between simplicity and complexity would hopefully wash away
somehow. But so far these two concepts are very different so the
joinery is not so easy. Probably best to chuck it all and see what
resurfaces.


Droplets larger than the sprinkler head that squirts them
may not be the best model to use but it gives some insight
why the the world (our equations) turns inside out as
we move from the macro to the sub atomic domain.

Now.. after my sermon about considering the interaction volumes,
one of the features of QM is that those volumes can often be
unitised inside an atomic entity. 10 pages of field equations
might be hiding inside a simple expression of spin.

And wouldn't that be a strong sign of a misleading concept?
Ten pages to describe an inherent property of a fundamental particle
does not sound like nature. It's more likely a description of human
behavior.
When we crack something open we should see smaller and simpler
concepts.
Otherwise we probably have cracked it open the wrong way.
This thinking allows the problem to remain open.
As humans judging other's work we are forced to choose what is 'good
enough'; especially the experimental results. Any theory built on top
of such experimental results can only be as 'good enough' as was the
experiment. The ultimate skeptic rejects all. That is a fine position
but when one wants to endeavor a description the compromising skeptic
will be forced to choose what is 'good enough' to even bother
describing. This should lead to the fundamental aspects, fundamental
being a code word for simple or natural.
This approach could fail if nature is not simple, but it is worth a
try.




Your other reply- I've looked at all of the links. It's of interest
that the traditional formulation uses
F = q ( E + v X B ) .
Since q also has a magnetic moment according to the quantum physics
model this equation is challenged right? There is a worm in the apple
of electromagnetic theory.

Yes... and for another reason too.
That is a reducton or short-cut or rule-of-thumb. We can make volumes
of space vanish 'mathematically' to simplify an expression for utility.

This is why I recommend Fitzpatrick's pages for theorists. As a
plasma physicists, he discusses the interactions down to the level
of fundamental particles or at least warns you when he takes a
short cut.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/

That's quite a gift from Fitzpatrick.
I should probably download the whole site before the DOD shuts down the
internet.
I'll try to spend some more time reading this site.

-Tim

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
    ... By studying the effect of thermodynamics, physicists came to the ... began to study one individual particle. ... There is no mass in Planck's radiation formula or Einstein's description of the photoelectric effect. ... physicists used Euclidian geometry ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> theory can't then obey the principle of relativity in its most extreme ... Ever heard of a high-energy particle physics experiment where they ... experiment therefore proves that lightbeam geometry in the core of a ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: gravity is a fictious force...
    ... account for gravity being a fictitious force. ... Newton's first law says that when there is no force on a particle, ... According to the normal rules of geometry, it is not possible, but we can ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> theory can't then obey the principle of relativity in its most extreme ... Ever heard of a high-energy particle physics experiment where they ... experiment therefore proves that lightbeam geometry in the core of a ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: $50US prize for first clean isometric isomorphism between polysign P4 and RxC
    ... I attempt to promote the polysign numbers ... emergent spacetime geometry from arithmetic. ... This is why we need a transform! ... to prove your CxC claim for P5 ...
    (sci.math)
Loading