Are particles made of topological singularities?
Jarek Duda
around the spin axis, the phase rotates "spin" times – in mathematics
it’s called Conley (or Morse) index of topological singularity, it’s
conservation can be also seen in argument principle in complex
analysis.
I've made a simple demonstration which shows qualitative behavior of
the phase while separation of topological singularities, like in
particle decay or spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle:
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SeparationOfTopologicalSingularities/
The other reason to imagine particles as topological singularity or a
combination of a few of them is very strong property of spin/charge
conservation.
Generally for these conservation properties it’s important that some
‘phase’ is well defined almost everywhere – for example when two atoms
are getting closer, phases of their wavefunctions should have to
synchronize before.
Looking form this perspective, phases can be imagined as a continuous
field of nonzero length vectors – there is some nonzero vector in
every point.
The problem is in the center of a singularity – the phase cannot be
continuous there. A solution is that the length of vectors decreases
to zero in such critical points. To explain it form physical point of
view we can look at Higg’s mechanism – that energy is minimal not for
zero vectors, but for vectors for example of given length.
So finally fields required to construct such topological singularities
can be field of vectors with almost the same length everywhere but
some neighborhoods of the singularities where they vanishes in
continuous way.
These necessary out of energetic minimum vectors could explain (sum up
to?) the mass of the particle.
Topological singularity for charge doesn’t have something like ‘spin
axis’ – they can be ‘pointlike’.
Spins are much more complicated – they are kind of two-dimensional –
singularity is ‘inside’ 2D plane orthogonal to the spin axis. Like the
middle of a tornado – it’s rather ‘curvelike’.
The first ‘problem’ is the construction of 1/2 spin particles – after
rotating around the singularity, the spin makes only half rotation –
vector becomes opposite one.
So if we forget about arrows of vectors – use field of directions –
spin 1/2 particles are allowed as in the demonstration – in fact they
are the simplest ‘topological excitations’ of such fields … and most
of our fundamental particles have 1/2 spin …
How directions – ‘vectors without arrows’ can be physical?
For example imagine stress tensor – symmetric matrix in each point –
we can diagonize it and imagine as an ellipsoid in each point –
longest axis (dominant eigenvector) doesn’t choose ‘arrow’ – direction
fields can be also natural in physics … and they naturally produce
fermions …
Another ‘problem’ about spins is behavior while moving the plane in
‘spin axis’ direction – like looking on tornado restricted to higher
and higher 2D horizontal planes - the field should change
continuously, so the critical point should so. We see that
conservation doesn’t allow it to just vanish – to do it, it has to
meet with opposite spin.
This problem occurs also in standard quantum mechanics – for example
there are e^(i phi) like terms in basic solutions for hydrogen atom –
what happens with them ‘outside the atom’?
It strongly suggest that against intuition, spin is not ‘pointlike’
but rather curve-like – it’s a ‘curve along it’s spin axis’
For example a couple of electrons could look like: a curve for spin up
with the charge singularity somewhere in the middle, the same for spin
down - connected in ending points, creating kind of loop.
Without the charges which somehow energetically ‘likes’ to connect
with spin, the loop would annihilate and it’s momentums should create
two photon-like excitations.
Two ‘spin curves’ could reconnect exchanging its parts, creating some
complicated, dynamical structure of spin curves.
Maybe it’s why electrons like to pair in orbits of atoms, or as a
stable Cooper pairs (reconnections should create viscosity…)
Bolzman distribution among trajectories gives something similar to QM,
but without Wick’s rotation
http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?p=47998
In some way this model corresponds better to reality – in standard QM
all energy levels of a well like made by a nucleus are stable, but in
the real physics they want to get to the ground state (producing a
photon). Without Wick’s rotation eigenfunctions are still stable, but
the smallest fluctuation make them drop to the ground state. What this
model misses is interference, but it can be added by some internal
rotation of particles.
Anyway this simple model shows that there is no problem with
connecting deterministic physics with squares appearing in QM. It
suggests that maybe a classical field theory would be sufficient …
when we understand what creation/annihilation operators really do –
what particles are … the strongest conservation principle – of spin
and charge suggests that they are just made of topological
singularities… ?
What do you think about it?
I was said that this kind of ideas are considered, but I couldn’t find
any concrete papers?
Surfer
<dud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I was said that this kind of ideas are considered, but I couldn�t find
>any concrete papers?
>
Thanks for link to your interesting demo.
I know little about this field, but the following might have something
in common with what you are doing.
Burgers Turbulence and the Continuous Spontaneous Localization Model
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9912007
"There is a striking convergence between Burgers turbulence and the
continuous spontaneous localization [CSL] model of quantum mechanics.
In this paper, we exploit this analogy showing the similarities in the
physics of these two apparently unrelated problems. It is hoped that
the kind of analogy we introduce here may lead to important
developments in both areas."
Quantum open systems and turbulence
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110173
"We show that the problem of non conservation of energy found in the
spontaneous localization model developed by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber
is very similar to the inconsistency between the stochastic models for
turbulence and the Navier-Stokes equation. This sort of analogy may be
useful in the development of both areas."
The quark-gluon plasma, turbulence, and quantum mechanics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1990
".....The possibility that quantum mechanics may be an emergent
property of a turbulent proto-fluid is tentatively explored....."
Regards,
Surfer
BURT
Mitch Raemsch
Uncle Al
Pardon the top post.
Are there any spin-0 elementary particles?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Uncle Al
>
> Infinitely dense energy.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
infinitely vacuous idiot.
Jarek Duda
topological singularities are called turbulations - I'll try to look
at them closer.
The interesting is thing that the basic 'topological exciatations' of
direction field are fermions - such field can also transfer 'usual
waves' (in the distance from a quasistable state) like photons.
If in each point there would be symmetric matrix as I've written -
imagined as ellipsoide with different radiuses in each 3+1 axises -
the smallest/largest one could show the time direction (and somehow
correspond to the gravity) and the rest of them would give many ways
to create topological singularities - one of 3 axis could make one
singularity and the other would still have enough freedom to create
additional ones - like for spin + charge in one particle - I think the
number of possibilities would be already enough
to create the whole menagerie of particles ... this looks to be
exceptionally simple and well corresponding to physics picture.
And maybe the fact that the number of flavors and spatial direction is
the same is no a coincidence ...
BURT the concept that zero vector has zero energy and given nonzero
vectors have minimal energy which is negative is known e.g. from
inflation theory - this difference could be the energy required to
create universe ... but of course there are many ways to interpret it
- for example in ellipsoid picture two radiuses could become equal in
the critical point.
Uncle Al - personally for now I think that the basic excitations like
photons looks to doesn't have topological nature:
- they have no mass,
- spin 1 particles are far nontrivial - difficult to create,
- field theory usually has fundamental waves - nontopological
excitations.
You will say that we know well that photons have spin 1, because for
example while producing photon spin always changes by 1. But it in
fact means that for example spin up electron changes to spin down -
it
can be done by spatial rotation - no additional topological
singularity is required.
Thanks for responses,
Jarek
BURT
Energy is infinitely dense in a point particle. It is mass. C squared
energy in quantity.
Mitch Raemsch
john
> In some way this model corresponds better to reality – in standard QM
> all energy levels of a well like made by a nucleus are stable, but in
> the real physics they want to get to the ground state (producing a
> photon). Without Wick’s rotation eigenfunctions are still stable, but
> the smallest fluctuation make them drop to the ground state. What this
> model misses is interference, but it can be added by some internal
> rotation of particles.
> Anyway this simple model shows that there is no problem with
> connecting deterministic physics with squares appearing in QM. It
> suggests that maybe a classical field theory would be sufficient …
> when we understand what creation/annihilation operators really do –
> what particles are … the strongest conservation principle – of spin
> and charge suggests that they are just made of topological
> singularities… ?
>
> What do you think about it?
> I was said that this kind of ideas are considered, but I couldn’t find
> any concrete papers?
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
The galaxy model of the atom
says two linked rotations:
a rotation with frequency ONE which
is precessing with frequency TWO.
Linked rotations 1:2 complete when
a ring of 16 is reached.
Completion of concentric rings of 16
matches perfectly to the periodic table:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Galaxy3.html
john
Puppet_Sock
> Are there any spin-0 elementary particles?
Not a closed question as yet. None are observed.
There are certainly spin-0 quantum states of more than
one particle. Does that help? For example, positronium
is a pretty interesting thing.
Socks
Jarek Duda
properties. Directional field picture says that it's spatial shape is
rather an extremely small ball (like Planck's scales) - in continuous
way two directions became indistinguishable in the critical point,
what cost energy - creates ground energy of the singularity - its
mass.
Energy density probably achieve maximum in critical points, but is
always finite.
John thank for the links. Understanding nuclear physics creating
periodic table requires a good model of fundamental particles first.
About electron orbitals - determinism of physics suggest that they are
not only 'a density cloud', but in fact some real trajectories. And in
maximal entropy random walk based model I've linked, electron
trajectories would create some concrete stochastic-like orbitals,
which result probability densities known from QM.
To make orbits average to such probability density, they cannot be so
'regular' as proposed on the page, but maybe there is some analogous
regularity.
Puppet_Sock - we should focus on fundamental particles in this moment.
As I've written in the previous post, I consider the possibility that
photons could have 0 spin. The only contrargument I have a problem
with is that photons looks to be 'extremely small' and don't 'blur'
while passing through its trajectory, what is typical for wave
equations. It could be easily solved by making photons as topological
singularity. But there could be another explanation - photon connects'
two processes in the spacetime - of some concrete emission and
absorbtion - it could 'choose its shape' for given emission-absorption
process...
Y.Porat
--------------------
1
you may be partially right
2
just forget about curved space time
2
see my post in the thread
' the status quark..' or something alike
just next to this thread
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------
guskz
>
> - Show quoted text -
No they are globules of energy known as quanta. A quanta is not a
singularity.
BURT
A point particle or energy is infinitely small and dense. Mass is
defined as infinitely dense energy.
Mitch Raemsch
CarlBrannen
> In quantum mechanics spin can be described as that while rotating
> around the spin axis, the phase rotates "spin" times – in mathematics
> it’s called Conley (or Morse) index of topological singularity, it’s
> conservation can be also seen in argument principle in complex
> analysis.
> I've made a simple demonstration which shows qualitative behavior of
> the phase while separation of topological singularities, like in
> particle decay or spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle:http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SeparationOfTopologicalSingularities/
>
> The other reason to imagine particles as topological singularity or a
> combination of a few of them is very strong property of spin/charge
> conservation.
> Anyway this simple model shows that there is no problem with
> connecting deterministic physics with squares appearing in QM. It
> suggests that maybe a classical field theory would be sufficient …
> when we understand what creation/annihilation operators really do –
> what particles are … the strongest conservation principle – of spin
> and charge suggests that they are just made of topological
> singularities… ?
>
> What do you think about it?
> I was said that this kind of ideas are considered, but I couldn’t find
> any concrete papers?
It's a shame that there's an error in my latest attempt to derive
the weak charges (weak hypercharge and weak isospin) from
topological considerations. I'm reworking it to make it more
realistic,
but you might find it interesting as it is:
http://www.brannenworks.com/Gravity/weakpath.pdf
Uncle Al
Helium-4 nucleous. That's not the point. The thesis put forth is that
all elementary particles should have non-zero spin. If there are no
known spin-0 particles, that is supportive.
However, electrons and muons are spin-1/2 leptons. As they are point
particles... what's spinning? We know how fast - nonclassical.
Y.Porat
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 6:22 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > > Are there any spin-0 elementary particles?
>
> > Not a closed question as yet. None are observed.
>
> > There are certainly spin-0 quantum states of more than
> > one particle. Does that help? For example, positronium
> > is a pretty interesting thing.
> > Socks
>
> Helium-4 nucleous. That's not the point. The thesis put forth is that
> all elementary particles should have non-zero spin. If there are no
> known spin-0 particles, that is supportive.
>
> However, electrons and muons are spin-1/2 leptons. As they are point
> particles... what's spinning? We know how fast - nonclassical.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
----------------
the electron is not a point particle!!
the fucken crippled standard model
is' spinning' !!
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.Porat
----------------
what is globules of energy??
sucker parrot
do you know that
3 quarks are only 10 pecent of the proton mass ??
and that means nothing for you ??
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Edward Green
> In quantum mechanics spin can be described as that while rotating
> around the spin axis, the phase rotates "spin" times – in mathematics
> it’s called Conley (or Morse) index of topological singularity, it’s
> conservation can be also seen in argument principle in complex
> analysis.
<...>
I had the idea a long time ago that fermions represented topological
defects... actually all conserved effects. It is a very appealing
picture. I applaud your progress in making such a picture
quantitative, which I was unable to do.
eric gisse
Prove it.
Y.Porat
ask Uncle Al
he explained it above
a point cannot have any spinn
unless you cant understand even that
only an entity that has more than
one point can define a spin
obviously you nevr studied
or never really understood
basic geometry !!
how can you understand structure of particles
while you miss basic geometry
skiils and training??
the aprticles are generally
at least two dimensional
but heavier ones -- 3D structures
a paper armchair mathematician
cannot get it
Y.P
-------------------------
iman way
>
> - عرض النص المقتبس -
Sorry for not sending anything related to this group but it might be
something new to you.
Concept of God in islam
It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are
used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not
the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God.
Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender.
This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be
made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice
that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of
Jesus and a sister language of Arabic. The One true God is a
reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a
Muslim, Allah is the Almighty, Creator and Sustainer of the universe,
Who is similar to nothing and nothing is comparable to Him. The
Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the
answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter
of the Quran, which is considered the essence of the unity or the
motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112 which reads:
"In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad)
He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten,
nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone."
Some non Muslims allege that God in Islam is a stern and cruel God who
demands to be obeyed fully. He is not loving and kind. Nothing can be
farther from truth than this allegation. It is enough to know that,
with the exception of one, each of the 114 chapters of the Quran
begins with the verse: "In the name of God, the Merciful, the
Compassionate." In one of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) we
are told that "God is more loving and kinder than a mother to her dear
child." But God is also Just. Hence evildoers and sinners must have
their share of punishment and the virtuous, His bounties and favors.
Actually God’s attribute of Mercy has full manifestation in His
attribute of Justice. People suffering throughout their lives for His
sake and people oppressing and exploiting other people all their lives
should not receive similar treatment from their Lord. Expecting
similar treatment for them will amount to negating the very belief in
the accountability of man in the Hereafter and thereby negating all
the incentives for a moral and virtuous life in this world. The
following Quranic verses are very clear and straightforward in this
respect:
"Verily, for the Righteous are gardens of Delight, in the Presence of
their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of Faith like the people of
Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?" (68:34-36)
Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as
favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power
or race. He created the human beings as equals. They may distinguish
themselves and get His favor through virtue and piety only. The
concept that God rested in the seventh day of creation, that God
wrestled with one of His soldiers, that God is an envious plotter
against mankind, or that God is incarnate in any human being are
considered blasphemy from the Islamic point of view. The unique usage
of Allah as a personal name of God is a reflection of Islam’s emphasis
on the purity of the belief in God which is the essence of the message
of all God’s messengers. Because of this, Islam considers associating
any deity or personality with God as a deadly sin which God will never
forgive, despite the fact He may forgive all other sins.
The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created
because if he is of the same nature as they are, he will be temporal
and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him.
If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is
eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing outside him causes him to
continue to exist, which means that he must be Self-Sufficient. And if
He does not depend on anything for the continuance of His own
existence, then this existence can have no end. The Creator is
therefore eternal and everlasting: ‘He is the First and the Last.’ He
is Self-Sufficient or Self-Subsistent or, to use a Quranic term, Al-
Qayyum. The Creator does not create only in the sense of bringing
things into being, He also preserves them and takes them out of
existence and is the ultimate cause of whatever happens to them.
"God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over everything.
Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth." (39:62, 63)
"No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests
on God. He knows its lodging place and its repository." (11:6)
God’s Attributes
If the Creator is Eternal and Everlasting, then His attributes must
also be eternal and everlasting. He should not lose any of His
attributes nor acquire new ones. If this is so, then His attributes
are absolute. Can there be more than one Creator with such absolute
attributes? Can there be for example, two absolutely powerful
Creators? A moment’s thought shows that this is not feasible. The
Quran summarizes this argument in the following verses:
"God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him:
For then each god would have taken of that which he created and some
of them would have risen up over others." (23:91)
And Why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than God, they
(heaven and earth) would surely go to ruin." (21:22)
The Oneness of God
The Quran reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods. To the
worshippers of man-made objects, it asks:
"Do you worship what you have carved yourself?" (37:95) "Or have you
taken unto you others beside Him to be your protectors, even such as
have no power either for good or for harm to themselves?" (13:16)
To the worshippers of heavenly bodies it cites the story of Abraham:
"When night outspread over him he say a star and said, ‘This is my
Lord.’ But when it set he said, ‘I love not the setters.’ When he saw
the moon rising, he said, ‘This is my Lord.’ But when it set he said,
‘If my Lord does not guide me I shall surely be of the people gone
astray.’ When he say the sun rising, he said, ‘This is my Lord; this
is greater.’ But when it set he said, ‘O my people, surely I quit that
which you associate, I have turned my face to Him Who originated the
heavens and the earth; a man of pure faith, I am not of the
idolaters.’" (6:76-79)
The Believer’s Attitude
In order to be a Muslim, i.e., to surrender oneself to God, it is
necessary to believe in the oneness of God, in the sense of His being
the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this belief - later
on called "Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah is not enough." Many of the idolaters
knew and believed that only the Supreme God could do all this. but
that was not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-rububiyyah one
must add tawhid al’uluhiyyah, i.e., one acknowledges the fact that is
God alone Who deserves to be worshipped, and thus abstains from
worshipping any other thing or being. Having achieved this knowledge
of the one true God, man should constantly have faith in Him, and
should allow nothing to induce him to deny truth. When faith enters a
person’s heart, it causes certain mental states which result in
certain actions. Taken together these mental states and actions are
the proof for the true faith. The Prophet said,
"Faith is that which resides firmly in the heart and which is proved
by deeds."
Foremost among those mental states is the feeling of gratitude towards
God, which could be said to be the essence of ‘ibada’ (worship). The
feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called
‘kafir,’ which means ‘one who denies a truth’ and also ‘one who is
ungrateful.’ A believer loves, and is grateful to God for the bounties
He bestowed upon him, but being aware of the fact that his good deeds,
whether mental or physical, are far from being commensurate with
Divine favors, he is always anxious lest God should punish him, here
or in the Hereafter. He, therefore, fears Him, surrenders himself to
Him and serves Him with great humility. One cannot be in such a mental
state without being almost all the time mindful of God. Remembering
God is thus the life force of faith, without which it fades and
withers away. The Quran tries to promote this feeling of gratitude by
repeating the attributes of God very frequently. We find most of these
attributes mentioned together in the following verses of the Quran:
"He is God; there is no god but He, He is the Knower of the unseen and
the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God,
there is no God but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace,
the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-
Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they
associate! He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong
the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth
magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (59:22-24)
"There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes
Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and
the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His
leave? He knows what lies before them and what is after them, and they
comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His
throne comprises the heavens and earth; the preserving of them
oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious." (2:255)
"People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and
say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was
only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and
a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not,
‘Three.’ Refrain; better is it for you. God is only one God. Glory be
to Him - (He is) above having a son." (4:171)
—————————————
For more information about Islam
http://www.islambasics.com/index.php
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/MainPage/indexe.php
Contact Us At
Jarek Duda
Special relativity is the result of constant light speed.
General relativity is practically equivalent with changing locally
direction and shape of these fundamental solutions - of the light
cones. But probably all experiments which are used to confirm GR can
be explained by only rotating light cones...
Anyway to choose direction of local light cone, we take 45deg cone
from the 'local time dimension'. This 'time dimension' rotates toward
mass to create gravity - making that passing time is in fact also
accelerating in spatial dimensions.
The picture with ellipsoid field also describes these gravity/GR
effects - its emphasized axis (maybe for negative eigenvalue) has
energetically the strongest tendency to align in the same direction -
creating this required 'time dimension' field, which chooses light
cones. It somehow rotates toward e.g. energy gradient, creating
gravity. Gravitational waves would be vibrations of this axis. For
example inside black hole's horizon it's rotated more than 45deg.
About quarks ...
In fact spin 1/3 and so can be obtained similarly - instead of
direction field take a 'field of equilateral triangle' or something
with similar symmetry, what also can be found in physics.
But I think that we don't need that - the confinement of quarks
suggest that maybe there really are 3 separate 1/2 spin-type
singularities inside a nucleon ... and only one charge-type
singularity.
guskz - we know that while making a rotation of coordinates, the phase
makes 'spin' rotations - so particles are at least topological
singularities. My point is that maybe it's already enough - that there
are underestimated consequences of topological nature of this
fact ...
BURT - I want to believe that infinity is nonphysical ... and for now
everything starts to fit perfectly without infinities.
Carl - thanks for the paper. I'm trying to read it but it looks a bit
too complicated to explain the most common stable solutions in our
physics ... especially when fundamental excitations of direction field
are just fermions...
Uncle Al - please explain why You are completely sure that photons are
spin 1 particles?
Edward - it's only a simple way to draw such singularities -
qualitative not quantitative picture of phase behavior.
Best Regards,
Jarek
eric gisse
[...]
>> > ----------------
>> > the electron is not a point particle!!
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>> > the fucken crippled standard model
>> > is' spinning' !!
>> > Y.Porat
>> > -------------------------
>
> ask Uncle Al
> he explained it above
> a point cannot have any spinn
> unless you cant understand even that
> only an entity that has more than
> one point can define a spin
The term "spin" does not mean the object is rotating. What have you been
doing all these years if not learning?
Y.Porat
but you disnt ask me waht is spin
according to my understanding !!
th eorriginal spin was discovered bt
Stern and Gerlach (spelling?)
so if you folow the orriginal experiment
you ealize that no one including you !!
really know what is spin
at the orrigial experiment with an asymetric
magnetic field
a silver Atom passing the magnet
was split into two sides
THATS ALL !!
the rest is guessing
but even so ahd you some geometric traib\ning
you would understand immediately that it has to do with some
two GEOMETRIC STRUCTURES !
ie two dirrerent geometric structures
and if so
*a loint does not have a geometric structure !!
GOT IT ??
---
now sinc we touched that point
my model can have an exlpanation to it
therefore dont you ever dare to mock or doubt my model
got it??
before entring my model
take of yur shoes and your hat
and only if youdo that
i will explain you how my model explain it nicely!!
btw
i have in my model the geometric structure
ofthe Silver nuc and Atom
and a hint:
it is ASYMMETRIC!! 3D GEOMETRICALLY !!
and i am sure that even now
you dont get my hint !!....
because geometry and 3D geometry
is out of your education and your skills
and your diet
is
a flat paper with letters on it ...
and you try always teaching me physics ..
sory my blantness
i was a bit drifted (:-)
(you asked kindly a question thas ok ...)
but i think that this is the only way
tostick something new into your head ...
especially i am angree about
your 'verdict' about my model;
while you understnd nothing (nothing !! about it
it is really irritating (i am very sensitive to
injustice .... ...)
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> What do you think about it?
> any concrete papers?
You might start with a review by Friedman in the book _Conceptual
Problems in Quantum Gravity_, edited by Ashtekar and Stachel (but
not online, as far as I know, though you can look at some of it through
Google books). The major initial paper is by Friedman and Sorkin, Gen.
Rel. Grav. 14 (1982) 615; see also Dowker and Sorkin, gr-qc/9609064,
Giulini, arxiv.org/abs/0902.3923, and a bunch of papers by Balachandran
(e.g., hep-th/9906174). I also have a paper with a slightly different
approach, but which also obtains spin 1/2 from topology -- see
Phys. Rev. D33 (1986) 1638.
Steve Carlip
G=EMC^2 Glazier
space. I think I did a good job posting this here an hour ago (what if).
read it and tell me what you think Bert
eric gisse
[...]
> but you disnt ask me waht is spin
> according to my understanding !!
That's because your understanding is irrelevant, as your understanding is
weighted in your years of structural engineering and complete ignorance of
modern physics.
[...]
Jarek Duda
much more complicated physics. About a year age I've get some analytic
result, which made me realize that probably physics could be much
simpler... I'll start again:
Some time ago I've considered some simple model - take a graph and
consider a space of all paths on it. Assumption that all of them are
equally probable, leads to some new random walk on graph, which
maximize entropy globally (MERW). It can be also defined that for
given two vertices, all paths of given length between them are equally
probable.
Standard random walk - for all vertices, all edges are equally
probable - maximize uncertainty only locally - usually gives smaller
entropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_principle
This model can be generalized that paths are not equally probable, but
there is Bolzman distribution among them for some given potential.
Now if we cover R^3 with lattice and take continuous limit, we get
that Bolzman distribution among paths gives near QM behavior - more
precisely we get something like Schrodinger equation, but without Wick
rotation - stationary state probability density is the square of the
dominant eigenfunction of Hamiltonian - like in QM. Derivations are in
the second section of
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3861
In some way this model is better than QM - for example in physics
excited electrons aren't stable like in Schrodinger's equations, but
should drop to the ground state producing photon, like wihout Wick's
rotation.
Anyway in this MERW based model, electron would make some concrete
trajectory around nucleus, which would average to probability
distribution as in QM.
This simple model shows that there is no problem with 'squares', which
are believed to lead to contradictions for deterministic physics
(Bell's inequalities) - they are result of 4D nature of our world -
the square is because there have to meet trajectories from past and
future.
This simple model - Bolzman's distribution among paths is near real
physics, but misses a few things:
- there is no interference,
- there is no energy conservation,
- is stochastic not deterministic,
- there is single particle in potential.
But it can be expanded - in some classical field theory, in which
particles are some special solutions (like topological singularities
suggested by e.g. strong spin/charge conservation).
To add interference they have to make some rotation of its internal
degree of freedom. If it's based on some Hamiltonian, we get energy
conservation, determinism and potentials (used for Bolzman
distribution in the previous model).
To handle with many particles, there are some creation/annihilation
operators which creates particle path between some two points in
spacetime and interacts somehow (like in Feynman's diagrams) - and so
creates behavior known from quantum field theories, but this time
everything is happening not in some abstract and clearly nonphysical
Fock space, but these operator really makes something in the classical
field.
The basic particles creating our world are spin 1/2 - while making a
loop, phase makes 1/2 rotation - changes vector to the opposite one.
So if we identify vectors with opposite ones - use field of directions
instead, fermions can naturally appear - as in the demonstration - in
fact they are the simplest and so the most probable topological
excitations for such field - and so in our world.
A simple and physical way to create directional field is a field of
symmetric matrices - which after diagonalisation can be imagined as
ellipsoids. To create topological singularities they should have
distinguishable axises (different eigenvalues) - it should be
energetically optimal. In critical points (like the middle of
tornado), they have to make some axises indistinguishable at cost of
energy - creating ground energy of topological singularity -
particle's mass.
Now one (of 3+1) axis has the strongest energetic tendency to align in
one direction - creating local time arrows, which somehow rotates
toward energy gradient to create gravity/GR like behaviors.
The other three axises creates singularities - one of them creates one
singularity, the other has enough degrees of freedom to create
additional one - to connect spin+charge in one particle - giving
family of solution similar to known from physics - with characteristic
3 for the number of generations of leptons/quarks. With time
everything rotates, but not exactly around some eigenvector, giving
neutrino oscillations.
Y.Porat
so its now your turn to explain what is a spin of
A POINT PARTICLE ??
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ALL THOSE YEARS INSTEAD OF LEARNING ??!!!
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Nomen Publicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
--
Evolution is a mathematically based theory. If you don't understand
statistics you will never properly understand evolution.
Jarek Duda
First of all singularity for spin requires making 2 dimensions
indistinguishable, for charge requires 3 - it should explain why
'charges are heavier than spins'. So spins (like neutrinos) should be
somehow more fundamental.
As I've written in the first post - two spins 'likes' to pair and
normally would annihilate, but is usually stabilized by additional
property which has to be conserved - charge.
And so electron (muon,tau) would be a simple pair charge+spin -
imagine a sphere such that one axis of ellipsoids is always aiming the
center (charge singularity). Now the other two axises can make spin
type singularity on this sphere. And similarly for other spheres with
the same center and finally in the middle all three axises have to be
indistinguishable. The choice of axis chooses lepton.
Now mesons - for now I think that it's simple spin loop (up+down
spin)... but while making the loop phases made half rotation - it
tries to annihilate itself but it cannot - and so creates some
complicated and not too stable singularity in the middle. Zero charge
pions are extremely unstable (like 10^-18 s), but charge can stabilize
them for a bit longer.
The hardest ones are baryons - three spins creating some complicated
pattern and so have to be difficult to decay - the solution could be
that two of them makes spin loop and the third goes through its middle
preventing from collapse and creating large and 'heavy' singularity.
Spin curves are directed, so there are two possibilities (neutron
isn't antineutron). If there is no charge to stabilize, there is some
very small probability that spin curve would 'tunnel' from the loop -
neutron decay. We believe we see up and down quarks because two
creating the loop are different form the third one.
Y.Porat
-----------------
just let me lough (:-)
i alway s say that advance in science
AT THAT SITUATION OF DEAD LOCK!!
(DID YOU NOTICED THAT DEAD LOCK SITUATION??
or may be you are one of the crooks plus suckers ??
methematics amnipolations wereleading to that dead stupid dead lock
like the W or Z +
force makers ""
that are 9listen carefully dumb mathematician-
that are hunderds of times bigger thantheir mother!
got it dumbo ststistic mathematician
again:
**hundreds of times bigger than **their mother*
got it dumbno ??
and found by your imbecilic statistics
withtheprobability of
one to **a few billions*
got it Mr statistics ??
again
one to a few billions!!
and a dumb mathematicain like you
wants to teach me physics ???
---
i alwaysd say that a new breakthriugh wu\ill be done
only by trial and error thinking-
PHYSICS THINKING!
not stupid mathematical redigestions of all the old
*false paradigm*
new physics thinking !!
got it zero physics thinker ???
and a pompous mathematics demagogue !!
that makes his false income form this dead end situation!!
so from now on
jsut start to learn more about the basic of physics
like
momentum conservation
MASS CONSERVATION!!
enery conservation
the basic mechanism of force making
3D geometry knowledge and skills !!!
etc etc etc
and only than you will be able to teach me physics !!
because as for now
you can teach me useless statistics
ststistics is a tool of poeple
WHO DO NOT KNOW GOOD ENOUGH!
but we want to know a bit more than that
'not enough '
*and you can never do it byu jsut statistic manipolations
because sttistic is a machine in which
*you get out only what you imput in !!
and if you input in garbage
YOU GET OUT GARBAGE AS WELL !!
got it ??
no chance !!
got it ??
probably no chance !!!
keep well
Y.Porat
------------------------
eric gisse
[...]
>>
>> The term "spin" does not mean the object is rotating. What have you been
>> doing all these years if not learning?
[...]
> so its now your turn to explain what is a spin of
> > A POINT PARTICLE ??
Look up. I already explained it to you.
An object does not have to spin in order to have angular momentum, and spin
does not mean the object is spinning. Please advance your knowledge past
what I learned 5 years ago.
>
> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ALL THOSE YEARS INSTEAD OF LEARNING ??!!!
That's an excellent question. I've managed a degree in applied physics, and
a significant gain in knowledge of computer systems.
Have you learned how to compose a sentence in English yet?
>
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------------
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> The term "spin" does not mean the object is rotating. What have you been
> >> doing all these years if not learning?
>
> [...]
>
> > so its now your turn to explain what is a spin of
> > > A POINT PARTICLE ??
>
> Look up. I already explained it to you.
>
> An object does not have to spin in order to have angular momentum, and spin
> does not mean the object is spinning.
not spinning imbecil crook
but what males a** point** particle
tohave TWO REPEAT TWO
different detectable properties ??
got it imbecile ??
2
what makes an imbecil
mathematician like you to think that that
a point will have*** any**!!! physical property !!????
got it imbecile that want to be my and others
physics teacher
while you are all together a
pompous Napoleon boy pisser !!??
you are a walking damage at this
physics ng
not to menssion some advance making
beside idiotic parroting !!
Y.P
----------------------------
Jarek Duda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_defect
thanks of potential, going from 1 to -1 contains some energy - these
nontrivial and localized solutions are called (anti)solitons and this
energy is their mass. Such pair can annihilate and this energy is
released as 'waves' (photons/nontopological excitations).
My point is that in analogous way in 3D, starting from what spin is,
our physics appears naturally.
Edward Green
It may be a nice animation, but the author is obfuscating. A
topological defect can be described in terms that never mention
homology groups, though perhaps that deepens one's understanding.
Maybe the problem is that I'm fixated on lattice defects? I had your
idea while studying material science. Please continue pressing
forward.
Jarek Duda
prefers to have given set of configurations (usually a group):
- in 1D model in the link - it prefers to be +-1, what is made by
(phi^2-1)^2 potential,
- in 3+1 D model I'm trying to convince to - in each point we have
symmetric matrix(M) which energetically prefers to have given
eigenvalues, what can be made for example by
(Tr(M)-v1)^2+(Tr(M^2)-v2)^2+(Tr(M^3)-v3)^2+(Tr(M^4)-v4)^2
potential (v1,v2,v3,v4 are sums of powers of expected eigenvalues -
some fixed parameters)
Now sometimes for some topological reasons it cannot be in these
configurations fulfilling energy minimum:
- in 1D model when the potential changes from 1 to -1,
- in 3+1 D model inside critical points two (or three) eigenvalues has
to equalize to make two (three) axises indistinguishable.
So in these 'topological defects' the field has to store some
potential energy - some minimal energy required to fulfill given
topological constrain - its mass.
Now when such defect meets its antidefect, the field can locally
return to its energetically preferred state, releasing storied
potential energy as nontopological excitation (photon) as on the
picture or in physics - wave-like excitations characteristic for field
theories.
About solid state, the ideal of preferring to align corresponding
axises (eigenvectors) together I've took from ferromagnetics. In
Hamiltonian it can be made in the kinetic term - some norm of gradient
of M like Tr(dM dM^+).
What mainly remain to do is understanding the rotation along spin with
passing time, what have to be somehow connected with storied energy.
Is it better now?
Jarek Duda
practically
everything looks clear ... the only problem is that I don't see how
Omega baryon could have 3/2 spin ...
The simplest nontrivial topological excitations of two spins
particles
(mesons) is that while making spin loop, its internal phase makes
half
rotation (like in Mobius strip) - this excitation is expected in
physics with spins and it suits well to pions.
Kaons are to be similar but are heavier and decay for example into
two
pions - it looks that they make full not half rotation. Now because
of
internal rotation they have tendency to twist to 'eight like shape'
and
reconnect to decay into two pions.
Nucleons would be some simplest topological excitations for three
spins - the best way I can think of is that two of them makes spin
loop and the third one goes through it.
Hyperions are similar but heavier - by analogy to mesons, the
strangeness looks to be the number of internal half-rotations the
spin loop makes - hyperion Lambda would be spin curve going through
'Mobius strip' and etc.
There are also many very similar particles - they should be a result
of some local energy minimums - they quickly drops to the global
minimum like Sigma -> Lambda particle.
Now all decays look just natural - loop in a hyperon twist into
'eight
like shape' because of internal stress and reconnects to release part
of internal rotation in a meson.
The only problem with this model is that Omega (and Delta) particle is
believed to
have not 1/2 spin, but 3/2 spin. I think that spin 3/2 particle
should
decay into three repelling spin 1/2 particles. But ... photons are
clearly nontopological excitation ... and spin 1 particles would be
far nontrivial ...
About the charge - there seems to be a problem with its sign in
direction field (vectors without arrows) - topological singularities
of both signs are in this case in fact equivalent ... but the spin of
particle changes it - makes signs distinguishable - one changes
direction near spin, the other not.
Jarek Duda
(electrons, nucleons). As I've written, topological properties of spin
- that its conservation doesn't allow it to just vanish ('in vacuum'),
makes that it has to create curve along spin axis. It suggests that
this coupling is made because both their spin curves connects -
creating (spin) loop.
Such coupling(loop) should be quite stable for example on atom orbits.
The simplest (low energy) way to break it looks to be 'twist' to
'eight like shape' an reconnect (as in the previous post). For example
when there is an excited electron in some atom, it's usually coupled -
to drop to a lower energy orbit is should 'twist' to break the loop.
Now it automatically connect its spin with its new couple.
The point is that this 'twist' rotates spin to the opposite one -
changing it by 1 - explaining selection rules and why it is believed
that photons have to be spin 1 particles. Similarly for other
interaction bosons.
About what holds nucleus together...
Let's assume that nucleon is spin loop + spin curve going through as
previously (maybe this loop has internal half rotation?).
First of all - imagining this picture we see that both spins
(topological singularities) cannot be made by the same axis - for
example that the loop is 'muon-like' (what suggests pion decay) and
the curve is 'electron-like' (interacts well with close electrons).
These axises could rotate, but it would require some large distance -
anyway in nuclear scale they cannot reconnect: curves can reconnect
only with curves, loops only with loops.
Imagine couple of nucleons - they have opposite spins. So when they
gets its loop parts together, they can reconnect into 'eight like
shape' around both spin curves - holding both nucleons together.
The curve part of different nucleons can also reconnect (making that
there is many spin loops on one curve) - and finally it should be able
to create some stable three dimensional interlaced 'knot-like' object
- the nucleus.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
necessarily requires, that the zero should be a definitely divided, as a
simply, can comes along the fact, as along that matter, as the following
operators are a definitely as the following:
x----->axb
and
x----->bxa
However, which are a definitely not a compact matter even when the a and the
b are along the k...
Therefore, a simply because the a is a definitely along a finite range along
the A as has had been along the following application, which would be as
follows :
A -----> A
x axa
However, which is a definitely an out along any injunction as it is along a
finite range, all along...
Therefore, along that matter, would a definitely exist that an, x =/= 0, as
a simply the axa = 0, as a finally and a definitely, the a would a
definitely divide the zero, and the music would go on, as this is what is
all about along that matter, a definitely as a matter a fact...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Jarek Duda" <dud...@gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:761cbab4-b920-46b6...@j39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
john
> Steve thank You the papers, I'm trying to read them. But they shows
> much more complicated physics. About a year age I've get some analytic
> result, which made me realize that probably physics could be much
> simpler... I'll start again:
>
> Some time ago I've considered some simple model - take a graph and
> consider a space of all paths on it. Assumption that all of them are
> equally probable, leads to some new random walk on graph, which
> maximize entropy globally (MERW). It can be also defined that for
> given two vertices, all paths of given length between them are equally
> probable.
> Standard random walk - for all vertices, all edges are equally
> probable - maximize uncertainty only locally - usually gives smaller
> This model can be generalized that paths are not equally probable, but
> there is Bolzman distribution among them for some given potential.
> Now if we cover R^3 with lattice and take continuous limit, we get
> that Bolzman distribution among paths gives near QM behavior - more
> precisely we get something like Schrodinger equation, but without Wick
> rotation - stationary state probability density is the square of the
> dominant eigenfunction of Hamiltonian - like in QM. Derivations are in
Which is why the Galaxy Model
proposes *linked rotations* where photons are a 1:1 linked rotation
while particles are a 1:2 linked rotation.
john
galaxy model for the atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
Jarek Duda
generally You are referring to gauge theories and to the problem of
zero field in the middle of singularity. The model I've presented is
not based on gauge invariance - it was to be the simplest model
natural for our 4D spacetime and in which fermions appears naturally,
basing on what spin is ... and it occurred that in natural way it can
produce exactly our physics - for example natural topological
excitations precisely correspond to our particles. The problem with
zero vector is solved in different way - that in singularity given two/
three axises are no longer distinguishable.
John, about atom orbits, I think that pairs of corresponding electrons
are physically coupled by spin and they are making some concrete
trajectories which average to probability distribution density seen in
QM. But the model You are presenting looks to be too regular.
I was thinking about the nucleus. As in physics (like Pauli
principle), to get near each other, nucleons should have opposite
spins - in presented model it would allow them to connect their loop
parts as in my previous post, creating 'eight like shape' and more
complicated - binding many nucleons using pattern of interlacing
topological singularities.
... but the problem starts with deuteron - proton and neutron are
believed to have spin directed in the same way ... but look at neutron
- it has negative gyromagnetic ratio! If we would choose its spin
oppositely, everything would be fine, spin and magnetic moment would
have the same direction, deuteron would have 0 spin as intuition
suggests ...
What is the reason that neutron's spin and magnetic moment was chosen
oppositely?
Jarek Duda
a few years ago...
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28970
"While the quantum mechanics of spin-1 particles has been known for
decades, the behaviour of spin-1 deuterons undergoing spin-
manipulation has apparently never been studied experimentally. The
upper part of the figure above shows that the deuterons' vector
polarization behaviour can be fit to the classical Froissart-Stora
equation, as can the polarization of spin-1/2 protons"
So it well fit to the model I present (with current neutron spin) -
reconnection is made on the spin curve - deuteron would be two spin
loops on one spin curve, one loop makes additional charge singularity
what creates the asymmetry.
Jarek Duda
in nuclear physics models, there are needed 3 body interactions (and
more). In presented model they appears naturally - spin loops
reconnect and interlaces three or more nucleons binding them
together.
Deuteron's spin suggests that this binding can be only made for
nucleons of the same type (charge).
Deuteron also suggests that neutron and proton can reconnect on their
spin curve part - two (probably attracting) loops on one curve.
The other lecturer was talking about large nucleons - its interesting
that they can have very different shapes - not only ellipsoidal, but
also e.g. 'pear-like'. Some can even have a few very stable shapes.
Interlacing spin loops could be used to 'build' such extremely
complicated stable structures.
I've also asked prof. Praszalowicz about Omega baryon's 3/2 spin, and
he said that it hasn't been experimentally confirmed. But he said that
3/2 spin of Delta baryon was confirmed - I have a problem with that,
but these particles are extremely unstable (10^-24s). Maybe these
metastable states could be explained by some folding of spin curve ...
Jarek Duda
Standard interactions like electromagnetism are made by local
rotations of ellipsoids using some generalization of divergence and
curl operators.
But look at its radiuses (eigenvalues) - in critical points they are
changed, but generally they prefer some fixed values - they can
vibrate around them storing some energy in these degrees of freedom.
They intuitively should have some very small influence on standard
(rotational) interactions, but can have some small influence on
particle creation/annihilation.
We know that temperature of EM noise is about 2.7K and while billions
of years of universe history these degrees of freedom should
thermalize, giving some extremely weakly interacting 'temperature of
vacuum', which could sum up to expected cosmological constant.
john
Jared, my page is based on 1:2 paths.
Lately I've been looking at 2:1 paths, which,
while being cooler, don't seem
to yield the 120 degree angles necessary
to do , say , Benzene.
But 3:2, 5:2, 7:2- all the odd-to-two
rotations have unique paths shared by
the two electrons opposite on the ring
(or protons).
You mentioned 3:2 as being of interest:
If you look at the
3:2 path on my page;
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/3-2orbit.GIF
shows a single orbital (two members), and
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/3-2-8.jpg
shows a ring of eight, or four of
the above orbitals.
Ans you can see, there are
lots of 60s and 120s in
there- should be easy to do Benzene.
I might do it.
john
Autymn D. C.
it's -> its
it's -> its
length -> width
Higg's -> Higgs
spin -> trend
momentums -> momenta
There are no singularities, anywhere. Free motes are a shell (two
shells), not a spick. The latter has infinite potential. Half-planck-
trend motes are half-elèctric and half-magnetic, and need a mate to
yield whole-planck fotòns, which are waves not motes. The degenerate
(or inner) size of motes are some alfa-1D-normalifactor of their de
Broglie wavarm, or merely their Coulomb wavarm in the dull limit. A
hydrogen pit's (and pith's) inner size (A size is two spans.) is 2
(2kQq/U)/3 ~ 70 pm—that's both the elèctròn and protòn, without
flicker and wobbel corrections—and its outter size is 2cγt/3 ~ 31 Gly,
whereupon it meets the scatter background.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> On Aug 28, 6:22 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > Are there any spin-0 elementary particles?
>
> Not a closed question as yet. None are observed.
>
> There are certainly spin-0 quantum states of more than
> one particle. Does that help? For example, positronium
> is a pretty interesting thing.
> Socks
http://google.com/search?q=radion+spin+-radio+-Radeon
http://google.com/search?q=dilaton+spin
Autymn D. C.
> On Aug 29, 5:46 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > you may be partially right
> > 2
> > just forget about curved space time
>
> > 2
> > see my post in the thread
> > ' the status quark..' or something alike
> > just next to this thread
>
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> No they are globules of energy known as quanta. A quanta is not a
> singularity
which they? quarks? No. And it's a quantum.
Jarek Duda
probability density. Even looking at these densities, intuition
suggests that they could be made by trajectories which are influenced
by some stochastic perturbations.
I've checked that energy density
sum_i d_i M * d_i M^t + V(M)
leads to Maxwell's equations for flat spacetime.
For time axis we get second set of Maxwell's equations - this time
with mass density instead of charge density - gravitation. In this
model EM and gravity waves has always the same speed and there is
additionally some kind of Lorenz law for gravity.
Interesting is that it also leads to time dilatation/gravitational
redshift: curvature of time axis makes that singularities creates
smaller charges/magnetic momentums, making that atoms and finally the
whole matter is smaller (rescaled). Interaction carrying EM waves has
constant speed, so this rescaling makes that everything happens
faster.
From observed GR effects there remain gravitational lensing. But space
this light goes through isn't completely empty - there is some matter
with own charges/spins accelerated with gravitational field -
interacting with EM waves it could give it acceleration toward the
mass.
These effect are usually explained by intrinsic curvature of spacetime
- suggesting that it's some infinitely flat 4D surface ... embedded in
some higher dimensional space and not interacting with it ... and
allowing e.g. for wormholes ... I don't like this picture, especially
that presented model should give the same observed effects without
intrinsic curvature.
About the potential ... intuition suggest that it should be something
like
sum_i (lambda_i-lambda_i^0)^2 (*c_i ?)
where lambda_i are eigenvalues of M, lambda_i^0 are some constants of
the model.
The problem is that this potential doesn't give gravitational mass,
which should be equal to the inertial mass.
To get it, while deforming two eigenvalues for singularity, the time
one should be increased.
It can be achieved for example by (quite physical) assumption that
ellipsoid's volume is constant:
product_i lambda_i = constant
hanson
>
"Jarek Duda" <dud...@gmail.com> wrote:
John, I think that electrons makes some trajectory which average
to QM probability density. Even looking at these densities, intuition
suggests that they could be made by trajectories which are influenced
by some stochastic perturbations.
>
leads to Maxwell's equations for flat spacetime.
For time axis we get second set of Maxwell's equations - this time
with mass density instead of charge density - gravitation. In this
model EM and gravity waves has always the same speed and there is
additionally some kind of Lorenz law for gravity.
Interesting is that it also leads to time dilatation/gravitational redshift:
curvature of time axis makes that singularities creates smaller
charges/magnetic momentums, making that atoms and finally the
whole matter is smaller (rescaled). Interaction carrying EM waves has
constant speed, so this rescaling makes that everything happens
faster.
From observed GR effects there remain gravitational lensing. But space
this light goes through isn't completely empty - there is some matter
with own charges/spins accelerated with gravitational field -
interacting with EM waves it could give it acceleration toward the
mass.
These effect are usually explained by intrinsic curvature of spacetime
- suggesting that it's some infinitely flat 4D surface ... embedded in
some higher dimensional space and not interacting with it ... and
allowing e.g. for wormholes ... I don't like this picture, especially
that presented model should give the same observed effects without
intrinsic curvature.
About the potential ... intuition suggest that it should be something
like .... sum_i (lambda_i-lambda_i^0)^2 (*c_i ?)
where lambda_i are eigenvalues of M, lambda_i^0 are some
constants of the model. The problem is that this potential doesn't
give gravitational mass, which should be equal to the inertial mass.
To get it, while deforming two eigenvalues for singularity, the time
one should be increased.
It can be achieved for example by (quite physical) assumption that
ellipsoid's volume is constant: ... product_i lambda_i = constant
>
hanson wrote:
Dude, your intuition aside which is sneered upon by the current
establishment anyways and quasi embraced and/or loathed by
the hordes of Einstein Dingleberries, you ought to be more specific
about "deforming two eigenvalues for singularity" with/thru & by
"some kind of Lorenz law for gravity" thru the "rescaling which
makes that everything happens faster" "for probability density
when intuition suggests that trajectories are influenced by some
stochastic perturbations" which of course are all nothing more
than some stoic masturbations of the mental kind in your own mind.
Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Jonah Thomas
That sounds interesting. Do you have your calculations available online
somewhere so that others can look at them?
Jarek Duda
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724
in a day or two. Till then I've placed it on
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B7ppK4IyMhisMWYxNDUzODAtMTRmMS00NWU5LWE2NWMtMmJmYTI5ZGU4OTdm&hl=en
There are plenty of figures and all promised calculations there.
I'm waiting for comments/questions.