Re: REALITY and a model to represent it.
- From: Sam Wormley <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 01:14:22 GMT
globarr@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
REALITY and a model to represent it.
By: Gerald L. O'Barr
*********************************
OUTLINE
A. INTRODUCTION (with appropriate limitations.)
Definition of ultimate reality.
B. REALITY (on its lowest, simplest level.)
Reality is only mass and space.
C. REALITY'S COMPLICATIONS AND SIMPLICITIES (spalls!)
This presents to us the complete
kinetic theory of gases.
D. DISTRIBUTION OF SIZES.
Three general ranges required: The smallest
for the ether background, and two ranges to have
one to act, and the other to be acted upon.
E. THE Math MODEL (of the above reality.)
F. PHYSICAL GRADIENTS (as modeled in the math.)
G. FORCES.
H. CONCLUSIONS.
***********************************
A. INTRODUCTION (with appropriate limitations.)
Our ultimate reality - the reality down on the
lowest possible level that exists - is assumed to be
simple. The reality we presently know, the level
that we think we exist on (many layers above the
lowest level), does not appear to be simple. The
reality we think exists appears to be so complicated
that we cannot even make a connection between various
branches of our reality. We cannot connect the ultra
small with the large. We can not fully explain
forces. We have the math that seems correct, but to
make our knowledge more perfect, we must eventually
have a physical concept that will explain the math.
Most people will not see any good in what is
presented in this paper. But I believe that some
good will be seen by a few. This paper is not
scientific, in that it does not start from the known
and work its way into the unknown. It starts in the
unknown, and tries to work its way back to the known.
It is not yet successful, in that it does not fully
get back to the known. And until it is successful in
this, it cannot be fully accepted as science.
But no matter what its failures might yet be, it
is very interesting how close it gets, if you study
it close enough. We will be able to provide a
physical explanation for forces in general, and we
will see many relationships that are presently known
to exist in our present physics.
To be as specific as possible, we will understand
the LeSage problem. We will know how to take ultra
mundane particles and obtain gravity like forces
without sacrificing any conservation requirements,
either for mass, or energy, or momentum. We will
understand why all matter is equal (E = mc^2 no
matter what particle is being used.) We will
understand why many particles can be unstable, and
why all properties of matter seem to be so
statistical (QM effects.) We might even be able to
understand how particles move, and why and how they
spin and translate through space.
As said, we do not get completely back to our
known reality, but we do see many correlations with
our known reality. And it is my position that if a
reasonable number of correlations can be established,
that this in itself makes this approach of scientific
interest.
B. REALITY (on its lowest, simplest level.)
Our reality, down on the deepest level that one
can go, consists of just mass and space. Mass has
one basic property, that of inertia, and space has no
inertia. It is easy to consider mass and space to be
a simple compound of opposites: a something verse
nothing compound. Both are necessary in order to
give definition (or a boundary) to the other. Mass
(or inertia) is the main property that exists, in
that there are no properties that can be seen as
electrical charges, or gravity, or any other external
characteristics.
The mass is distributed in space in particles.
These particles have relative motions with respect to
each other, which motions are rather random. The
sizes of these particles are also rather random.
Their distributions in space (locations) are rather
random.
Because of the random motions of these particles,
then we can introduce the concept that there is
kinetic energy associated with these motions and
there is momentum. And there is, of course, some
average mass that exist. All these things can exist
in space within any one specified boundary.
At this point we state that the conservation laws
of kinetic energy (hereafter just referred to as
energy), momentum, and mass are found to exists on
this lowest level.
It is at this point that one could say that our
description of ultimate reality is now fairly
complete. And if one wants to observe, it is the
exact same physical base that is used for the kinetic
theory of gases. And thus, its simplicity cannot be
denied. Yet we all know that the kinetic theory of
gases cannot produce for us any attractive forces.
It only produces pressure forces, an outward
tendency. What are we missing?
It is at this point that we now leave the simple,
and enter into what makes our reality as complicated
as it is. In the kinetic theory of gases, we have
collisions between moving particles of mass! But
anyone who knows anything, knows that in the
collision equation for gases, we only use one of the
math solutions to the collision. In our gas kinetic
theory, we solve a quadratic equation. Normally, a
quadratic solution involves two math solutions. Yet
we only use one of these solutions. The at theory
uses the second set of solutions. How is that
physically possible?
We find that the at theory (our ultimate theory of
reality) is simply the complete kinetic theory of
gases. It requires us to understand both collision
solutions, since it uses the second set. And this
now requires us to consider what it was that we have
missed in doing physics for these many long
centuries.
C. REALITY'S COMPLICATIONS AND SIMPLICITIES (spalls!)
Because there are particles, and there are
relative motions between these particles, then
collisions can occur between particles. And a
study of these collisions is of prime importance.
The basic nature of these collisions is unique,
and causes many other problems that have to be
considered. Therefore, although things up to here
are as simple as possible, we now start to see why
our reality is so complicated:
Collisions, on the lowest level, result in spalls!
Spalls result in an exchange of mass between the
colliding particles. These exchanges of mass can
result in particles being of different mass after a
collision than before their collisions. In fact, due
to spalls, some particles can even disappear, or more
correctly, can become other types of particles.
Let us be sure that we know what we have as a
reality. Although our reality begins as being the
ultimate of simplicity, it almost immediately becomes
very chaotic. The fact that in every collision
there can be changes in the particles that exist,
potentially results in a very chaotic world. And it
is these spalls that give to us our quantum mechanic
nature of our reality.
Therefore, our reality does not consist of just a
fixed number of particle types, but it is literally
possible for there to be an infinite number of sizes
and shapes. And they are themselves constantly
changing.
There has to be, however, limits to these changes
in shapes and sizes. Some of these limits will be
required by the math assumptions. But some have to
be assumed to be due to physical properties yet to be
presented, properties that we can consider that would
allows mass to remain together as particles, and the
disruptive forces that one could be imagined being
caused by these collisions.
Now while it is obvious that spalls introduces
the possibility of an extreme degree of chaotic
results in almost all interactions (and it does), let
us also observe that spalls also introduces to us the
exact opposite possibility! If spalls were perfect
spalls, resulting in an exact duplication of the
original mass of the particle causing the spall,
there will be no change at all! In such duplication
type of interactions, there will be zero effects upon
anything!
The ether could be a system of particles that
result in perfect spalls, and thus all ether
particles could move as if there were no other ether
particles around them. Thus, the ether can have just
as much mass and energy and number of particles as
anyone might care to give it, even near an infinite
number, and yet none of this would be observable to
any observer.
The only *observability* of the ether would be
with some other particle system that interacted with
these ether particles with spalls that deviated from
being perfect spalls. Each system of particles could
independently interact with the ether, and each
system interact only to the degree that they each
experienced collisions which resulted in some degree
of deviation from a perfect spall. And the degree of
interaction would be limited to the degree of the
imperfections being experienced. Not to their actual
size or energy. All these systems would thus be
independent of all other systems, to any degree that
was desired.
I am not sure if anyone really understood what
was exactly said above. What is being said, is that
these interactions are not a direct function of the
total mass or size or energy of the interacting
particles, but are mainly affected by the size of the
errors that are involved. The science is in the
*error* mass being exchanged, not in the prime mass
of the object. This seems so hard for many to
understand. And yet it really is so simple.
To repeat again: We now have, by the use of
spalls, a means of having several systems all
operating in the same space, using the same space,
colliding together at times in the same space, yet
each system being entirely independent of each other.
At the same time, any of these systems can interact
with each other. It all depends on the nature of the
spalls being produced. If the spalls are perfect
spalls, there are no interactions. The degree of
interactions depend on the level of the imperfections
of the spalls, not too much on the basic size of the
original particles. At least these are the first
order effects. Anyone can do the math to see what
all these effects might actually be, for any one
assumed level of spalls one might want to assume.
We now have an undetectable ether. We now have
means to create forces within this ether. We can now
build any kind of a world we would want to make. In
fact, we could take this base of an ether, and make a
better ether, a ether that might do for us anything
that we find to be necessary or of benefit. Lorentz
envisioned electrons (charges) being distributed in
his ether. Such a distribution of charges can now be
considered. Anything can now be considered!
Back to our reality:
D. DISTRIBUTION OF SIZES.
There are a large number of particles that are
the smallest, and they make up our background. We
have named this background of particles the ether.
Within this ether, there exist at least two other
large groups of particles.
Figure 1 indicates in the roughest possible
manner the nature of their distribution. As can be
seen in this figure, there could be said to be three
ranges of sizes, and they are often said to be A, B
and C sizes. The actual designations I have made of
these three groups have varied over the years. But
as long as we have three different sizes or groups,
the origin of forces can be considered, where there
is a background, and at least two different particles
existing in this background.
(It is suggested, that for the figure below, using a
fixed width type of font will make the figure more
readable. One example of this kind of font is the
Courier New font.)
***************************************************
Figure 1: Distribution of fundamental particles
on the lowest level of our reality.
Vertical: Number of particles per interval of size.
| _
| \
| \
| \
| \ _ _
| C \ / \ / \
| \ / B \ / A \
|_________________________________________
Horizontal: Interval Size (mass) of particles,
arranged in order of size or mass.
(No scale for either axis is to be inferred.)
************************************************
As we consider this reality, why would we have
groupings of sizes? If the spalls were a function of
an internal natural standing compression wave, having
a fixed wave length, internally established in a
collision, then we might have a very large number of
stable sizes, where their different diameters might
be a function of the wave length of these standing
waves.
But this can only be an assumption. On this basic
level, we are dealing with matter that is solid
matter, not like atoms that have more space than
matter. And when solid matter hits solid matter, we
have no science to direct our thinking. At this
point, let us just assume that we end up with at
least two sizes that are larger than the general
background and are more stable than sizes immediately
around them.
It is here that we will bring an end of talking
about our ultimate reality. There is much to be said
about this reality. The actual nature of the shapes
of these distributions, and what it might mean as to
whether the ether includes particles that approach
zero mass, etc. But, as a minimum, this is our
reality.
E. THE MODEL (of the above reality.)
To show how this reality can result in forces, and
how particles can assemble themselves together into
units, is the purpose of the model that will now be
presented.
We will assume that the ether will be C particles,
the smallest particles. The medium size particles to
be B particles. And the largest particles to be A
particles. Since there is all these chaotic events,
with this dispersion of sizes, we will need to
represent this dispersion by using a mass d. Thus,
we have C +/- d, B +/- d, and A +/- d.
The use of this d is not really a real particle.
But math wise, it could be considered to be a
particle. If we did consider it to be a real
particle, then we enter into a QM type of an
approach. It then presents to us a total of 4
particles: A, B, C and d. And d is a very funny mass
particle, being that it has value here of plus d,
minus d, or zero. The minus d could be considered to
be an anti mass particle, equal but opposite to the
plus d. We see that in this model, the plus d must
be exact equal and opposite to the minus d, due to
the fact that these values are based upon the
deviations from an average, etc.
These four particle can be combined together to
produce nine particle sizes: A + d, A, A - d, B + d,
B, B - d, C + d, C, C - d. These are listed in order
of size, from largest to smallest. And it will be
found that the control of these d's in these
collisions, by type or size of particle, is
sufficient to obtain forces.
Now in the presenting of a new theory, I know that
many details might go unnoticed. Let us repeat some
of the important details. Yes, we must have the
chaotic nature of our reality, and it must be
introduced early. The chaotic nature is introduced
by spalls, and the differences or changes in mass is
represented by d as caused by these spalls.
But while we have all this variability in sizes,
we must at the same time have certain limits. In
order to have stable particles, the size of d must be
limited, and its algebraic average for any one
particle must approach zero over any long term set of
interactions.
And one last point: The rules that control d must
result in there being different production of d's
produced by any one particle (such as the A
particles) than for the other particles (the B
particles.) If these two classes of particles do
produce some kind of a difference in the type or
number of d's produced, then there will be forces,
and these forces will end up being equal and opposite
forces. And all of this occurs naturally.
The reason why this all happens is because the
background ends up being an average of the d's from
both sets of particles, and their differences become
in terms of their combined effect. I have not made a
computer program to check all possible relationships,
but for what has been checked, such a relationship of
opposite and equal forces do appears to occur.
Much of the above will become more clear as the
model is more specifically developed below:
F. PHYSICAL GRADIENTS (as modeled in the math.)
Let us assume that size A particles, the largest
particles, will cause all C particles that hit it to
become C +/- d. That is, if a C particle hits A,
either a C + d or a C- d is going to spall. If a C +
d hits an A, no change in size occurs, a C + d
leaves. If a C - d hits an A, a C - d leaves. As
long as A spalls an equal number of C + d and C - d
when C's hits it, then the mass of A will be stable.
And thus, in the ether space around all A's, there
will be leaving A an abundance of C + d and C - d,
compared to any average point in space.
Around B particles we are going to assume an
opposite situation, that B particles only spall
spalls with a mass of C. If a C + d hits a B
particle, only a C spalls. If a C - d hits it, only
a C spalls. And if a C hits it, then a C spalls. In
the space around a B particle, then there is an
abundance of C particles leaving B. And as long as a
B particle is in a space where there are equal
numbers of C + d's and C - D's, then C will be stable
with time. Thus, there will be gradients in the
ether being modeled, based upon the mix of d's or no
d's.
This model accomplishes all this while still
allowing both particles to be stable in size. Thus
all the parameters mentioned are being met.
G. FORCES.
The surprise is, that with these gradients of
d's, there will be found to be a force existing for
these very same particles that are creating the
gradients. And thus, our model sustains the position
presented at the start of this article. We now have
forces.
In actual reality, particles do not have to be so
absolute as given here. With the model, every
particle makes every interaction exactly the same
every time the same things occur. This was to make
the computer programming easier.
In reality, the only thing that really has to
occur is that only a tendency has to be established.
All that has to occur is that one type of particle
tends to make the dispersion less, and one type of
particle tends to make the dispersions more. The
dispersion does not have to actually be the same in
every collision, either in terms of the actual size
of d, or even the direction of d. All that has to
occur, to have equal and opposite forces, is that
there is an equal number of these two types of
particles, with at least one difference between them,
and enough time must exists so that this one
difference becomes present (averaged out) within the
space immediately around them.
Thus, with time, the average space will end up
being the average of their differences, and
immediately around any one of them will their one (or
more) differences be accentuated. No one can stop
any of this from happening. It is a natural result,
and its end result is exactly what we would want to
happen, if we were to have a model that reflected
what is actually seen in our reality.
H. CONCLUSIONS.
Yes, just saying all this does not make it true.
But anyone who has a computer, and places in it a gas
model that is symmetrical, and where you have the
particles spall in their collisions to produce the
kind of spalls as they have been described in this
article, you will be able to see, for the very first
time, real forces being established between objects
placed within such a model.
If you want to demonstrate an attractive force
like gravity, it can be done by picking the right
pair of A or B particles. One pair will attract each
other, the other pair will repel each other, as long
as you are allowing the right mix of particles to
continue to symmetrically enter into the test area.
If you want to show that these forces are equal and
opposite, this can be done, by measuring the effects
seen above.
Please consider this approach. It is important.
It works. And from what I know, it is a correct
approach to our reality.
Might I make one warning? As you start to test
this approach, please be aware that the model will be
simulating actual reality, and it will have an area
where uncertainty effects will be present and
observed. There really is never, at any time,
anything that is really uncertain, in the model, but
what I mean is that these particles can have a
multitude of directions and motions that might seem
to be very random. But on a larger scale, a drift
will eventually be observed, and it is this drifting
that will be able to be seen to be what we would call
the effects of the actual forces involved.
If you model a region on your computer that is
smaller than these uncertainty parameters for the
model involved, you will get what might appear to be
very funny results. What I am saying, is that you
must initially take note of all parameters, collision
by collision, until you are able to find a repeatable
pattern, and then make your scale large enough to be
beyond this scale, both in the dimensions of your
space shown on your screen, and in time.
If you start with a simple one-dimensional
program, with non-random inputs, I will be able to
help you define these various limits.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove ... for e-mail.
Several of your statements are contradicted by reality.
.
- References:
- REALITY and a model to represent it.
- From: globarr
- REALITY and a model to represent it.
- Prev by Date: Re: lagrangian in relativity
- Next by Date: Dreidel, dreidel, dreidel. I made it out of clay!
- Previous by thread: REALITY and a model to represent it.
- Next by thread: Re: REALITY and a model to represent it.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
