A gymnastics shell for quantum flux


Sue... snipped some fluff and wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
Sue... wrote:
snip
Conservation of flux ? I missed that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

As I understand it traditional magnetism was perceived as lines of flux
that emanated from a magnet at one end and returned to it at the other.
In that simple way flux lines are conserved. In other words, a line of
flux isn't supposed to just end at some random position. It keeps going
around until it returns. The 1-pole challenges this notion. So does the
3-pole.


The formal expression says that it is charge that is conserved


Alright, but this is an attempt, albeit a feeble one, at replacing
charge and mass in one fell swoop.

If you interchange charge-pairs with mass I think it will work better.
2 dimentional entities can't do much in the real world.

The traditional concepts are
becoming feeble themselves when taken down to low temperature. Gravity
is still a mystery.

I have a swell model if you couple electromagnetism to charge-pairs.
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015

So... your shell can go at least as far as the standard model
without concerning itself with gravity.

Charge and mass are nearly equivalent classically,
particularly when mass is regarded as one-signed charge and the
standard electrical charge is two-signed.

When we speak of charge-pairs why would it be *nearly* equivalent.
I don't see why it would not be completly equivalent.

I know there is little complaint about electrical charge but by
flipping some aspect of it perhaps a more coherent model can be found.
The proton has to be fixed up with strong and weak nuclear forces to
make it empirically accurate. The mass discrepancy between the electron
and proton is huge. So the charge symmetry seems to be all that they
have in common. Other than that they are two different beasts; two
different species in a natural environment. What is so natural about
that? The pretty little classical force equation that I wish was real
is denied by complexity. The current model is far from a natural
progression.

Some study of anti-hydrogen might restore the symmetry
which you feel is missing.

As long as I'm getting into it I'm a bit disappointed that you haven't
caught me on the neutron discrepancy. Neutrons are unstable, with a
half life of 15 minutes. Well, that 's pretty darn stable, but nothing
compared to electrons and protons. Now, since the neutron is so easily
built from the electron (1-pole) and proton (3-pole) it begs the
question of what to do with the 2-pole. It so nicely fits into a
different category as a flux conservator that I am starting to see it
as the photon. Strangely enough we can add arbitrarily many of these
into the system and it holds up nicely. We see this 2-pole chaining
along into interactions with the 1-pole and 3-pole which are certainly
non-neutral in terms of their conservation. So while it seems far
fetched at first and the whole thing like a childish attempt I'd like
to look at the 2-pole as the photon. It's already growing on me though
the idea is just minutes old. Ideas are funny like that.

Hear I think we agreed the e+ and e- individually could be represented
in two dimensions because they have no real existance as individuals.
That is half a response 'till we see a better fit to something nuclear.

You are getting too much done with magnetic monopoles that
don't exist. That might be good. Maybe you need to be mapping
a diatomic molecule so the flux is conserved as you visualise it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomic

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.

I am unsure if this the the same as a scale I use like this:
1/r^1 Below the surface or boundary
1/r^2 All long range effects
1/r^3 Magnetism
1/r^4,5 Near field jumps, Ewald Fourier
1/r^6 London, Van der Waals, Casimir


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

http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

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.

You can call me a numerologist (or even a witch if you like)
but one of things that caught my attention about the unit-shell
was it rotates to show 3 quarks as 0 120 240 degrees.

FQHE has intervals at 1/3 and 1/3*4

I still want to hook two of them together and make
a diatom like this

\_ _/
/ \

(No that isn't a Feynman diagram. )
The two underbars are time.
I have six diagonals to represent 6 quarks

If all the spins flipped on one side would it
be an anti atom 'till its sibling anhillated it?
Would any colors or flavors map into it?

Looks like your urchin spines are drooping. :o)
http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~tfo_sewm/slides/kouvaris/09/

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.



Tim: << 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.

snipped some classic EM stuff here

<< I don't understand where you get an angle. >>
I didn't dodge time reversal.
<< > You are still dodging a defense of time reversal. >>
180 deg advance = 180 deg retard

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

Sue: < Some of this I am still not following but 'spin axis of the
electron'
is going to require a little detour to visit spin-orbit coupling,
Zeeman
and Stern-Gerlach.>

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?
Yes, that is what I meant assuming macro atomic effects.
I steered the thread to micro atomic effect where we can't quantify it
so formally stating it is less important. States instead of times
and positions will include it.


Tim: << 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. >>

Sue: I am still chewing on this. I can't drag any of that from maco
to micro or the other way either.

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

=======================================

Tim: << 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.

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. >>

Below the ==== line we have what I believe are minor issues that
will work out if you learn a bit more electromag and If I learn a bit
more about navigating your shell. Let's try to look at these again in
a few days when they might mean more of be clearer.

Sue...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Flux
    ... As I understand it traditional magnetism was perceived as lines of flux ... The formal expression says that it is charge that is conserved ... The mass discrepancy between the electron ... Instantiate two point particles in that space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
    ... A new theory of gravity. ... The electrostatic attraction force between two particles is given ... distance between them squared, and usually multiplied by a factor ... The electron to the muon, one quark to the next, etc? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
    ... A new theory of gravity. ... The electrostatic attraction force between two particles is given ... distance between them squared, and usually multiplied by a factor ... The electron to the muon, one quark to the next, etc? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
    ... A new theory of gravity. ... The electrostatic attraction force between two particles is given ... distance between them squared, and usually multiplied by a factor ... The electron to the muon, one quark to the next, etc? ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Quantum Flux
    ... But I don't even have an atomic geometry. ... This is congruent with proton electron balance. ... It is perpendicular with a line to a significant positive charge ... Instantiate two point particles in that space. ...
    (sci.physics)