To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Equation For Creation Of Energy
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Nanotechnology & Quantum Physics > Quantum physics

JASONQUANTUM1
Hello all,

My name is Jason D. Padgett. Currently, I'm a Physics/number theory student in Washington state. I have a topic I would like to open up for discussion. I believe that I have found a way to show where energy arises from. It appears to come from a combination of uncertainty and the Planck constant.

Please try to be somewhat kind when replying, this is a discussion of possibilites, or a thought experiment.

I would like to start by examining the structure of space time and where and how that structure arises.

When thinking of math or physics we use numbers to describe what we observe. But we must ask ourselves, "What are numbers?" It sounds like a simple enough question but when you really think about it, you find that a true explanation is hard to find. I would propose that the only pure form of numbers (or math) is goemetry. It is naturally occuring, (even 'empty' space has geometry) and anything that exists can be described by it.

Now we must think of how we can describe geometry. When we think of space/geometry and try to define a point we find that we can 'cut' pieces infinitely small. If we have a point we can cut it in half, then the half in half, etc. We must eventually reach a limit as these subdivisions approach infinity. Recall limits from calculus when thinking of this concept.

I (along with many others) propose that this limit is the Planck length. The Planck constant being the upper and lower bounds of uncertainty. The Planck constant plays one of the most important roles in defining/creating energy. But before we discuss that we must first examine how the Planck constant (therefore uncertainty) creates the structure of spacetime itself.

In this thought experiment we will assume that the limit of subdivisions of space is the Planck length. We also know that Planck lengths (or any Planck measurement, Planck time..length etc) exist only as whole multiples. There is nothing that exists that is a fraction of a Planck constant, (relative to our universe). Now since we know that there is only whole multiples of Planck lengths, Planck time etc., lets try to 'draw' the structure of space time at the Planck constant level.

We start with a 'point' of space time which I will define as one Planck length. Now, since we know that there are no fractions of Plancks then the next next points that exist must be exactly one Planck length away from that point. (If you have time, try to draw this yourself and you will see that depending upon the number of dimensions there are only specific points that are exactly one Planck length away.)
But to keep the idea to a point where we can easily understand it I suggest that we use 2 and 3 dimensions. Since we are drawing this the easiest way to visualise it is in two dimensions. Notice that (in 2-d) the only points surrounding that point that are exactly one Planck length away are at 60 degree intervals (or every Pi/3). This is the only way you can 'draw' it. Notice further that it creates an expanding hexagon comprised of smaller hexagons (a fractal by the way, smile.gif. This shape (a 2-d expanding hexagon) can also be viewed as a three dimensional cube. These geometric shapes are literally created from uncertainty, and uncertainty gives rise to the Planck constant.

So what we have at this point is a Planck lattice structure that arises from uncertainty. Or as Enstein, Hawkings and numerous others stated... the gridlike structure of spacetime. Only now we may be able to show 'why' spacetime has a gridlike structure to begin with. This gridlike structure exists because of limits, or more specifically, the limits of uncertainty.. literally.

Now we can apply another law of uncertainty. This is the law that states that you cannot know a particles position AND velocity with perfect accuraccy. What happens when we apply this law to the grid like structure of the Planck lattice?

I propose that this law give rise to vibrations of Planck constants. Since it is impossible to know position and velocity with perfect accuraccy the closest we can get is a vibrating point of space time (or the Planck constant). These Planck constants we know are forever vibrating due to uncertainty. In addition, they vibrate at the speed of light. Furthermore, we know and have calculated the value of the mass of a Planck constant. Planck mass is itself a specific value and connot be subdivded as it to is a limit.

Now we apply all of these physical laws and see what happens when we vibrate the grid like strucutre of space time...(remember, it vibrates due to uncertainty so at this quantum level it is always vibrating).

Planck constants vibrate at the speed of light due to uncertainty (remember that Planck lengths are a geometric shape, not just a numerical value...numbers are geometry). Planck constants also have a specific mass. When one Planck vibrates it vibrates the Plancks that are touching it and on and on. Notice that at specific points (relative to the center of the wave), Planck constants will collide with each other at the speed of light? (Hence c^2 in E=MC^2). Furthermore, if you take the mass of the Planck constant, you will see that the amount of 'Energy' released will be equal to the sum of the series of Planck constant (this is the total mass) times the speed of light squared as the vibrations collide with each other. Or in other words...E=MC^2. Beautiful, elegant and simple. You can also view the energy of these 'waves of uncertainy' to be equal to Energy=hbar(frequency).

From this point we can use this concept to further our understanding of energy. Since E=MC^2 and E=hbar(frequency) then we can say that, MC^2=hbar(frequency). By simple algebraic manipulation of this equation we see that mass=hbar(frequency)/c^2, hbar=MC^2/frequency, frequency=MC^2/hbar, and c=the square root of hbar(frequency)/m.

This is only the very basic concept and I have much more but I do not want to go on for too long. I hope the way I have described this is good enough to understand the basic concept.

Anyone who is interested in seeing diagrams of space time, (including how to draw a fractal of anything without using z=z^2 + c) please feel free to email me.

On a side note, this structure also gives rise to Pi and e. I have not yet had the time to derive the equation for how e arises but I do have the function equation for Pi (which has been confirmed by number theorists at microsoft). This equation is also simple and beautiful. It is f(x)=xsin(180/x). As x approaches infinity f(x) approaches Pi. Graph it and see the function of Pi as it arises naturally from uncertainty and the Planck constant. If your in the mood, calculate its first and second derivative and see what you think. Lastly, try graphing f(x)=xsin(180/x) and f(x)= -xsin(180/x) on the same screen. Looks alot like a mandlebrot doesn't it?

I hope you enjoyed this thought experiment and I hope to start testing this thoery in the lab soon. Let me know what you think.....and most of all keep learning and observing.

Sincerely,

Jason D. Padgett
email- jasonquantum1@yahoo.com


JASONQUANTUM1
It would be interesting to ask a question that naturally arises from this idea.............What does this idea show when asking the question of whether the universe exists because of pure geometry? or religion? I would be interested in your opinions.....
PJParent001
QUOTE (JASONQUANTUM1+Dec 31 2007, 10:12 AM)
It would be interesting to ask a question that naturally arises from this idea.............What does this idea show when asking the question of whether the universe exists because of pure geometry? or religion? I would be interested in your opinions.....

Okay here are just some thoughts concerning Man, Geometry, and the Universe...

When we draw a random series of dots and mirror them along any arbitary line, we immediately see interesting patterns arise. Voila! Hence the ''symmetric couplings''. I see symmetry everywhere on every trajectory at every angle.

Many ancient civilizations made use of the ellipse. Now some dude in Egypt wants to patent the design on Pyramids. I would think the best they can do is protect the use of the word, 'Egyptian' if the use of the name ''Champagne'' from Champagne, France has anything to do with it. Plus it's been well over 100 years...

Geometry is beautiful and belongs to everyone. I believe the geometry of the ancient Egyptian pyramids are the use of the many arithmetical discoveries of circles, squares, triangles, prime numbers, the constellations, etc... I also find it fascinating to note the Mayan/Aztec pyramids were built around the same time. I suppose if I was looking to build a cave for the protection of many people against the elements like the hurricanes of the Yucatan Penninsula, I'd probably build one too. Sort of conjures up a ''Great Hall'' for all.

Geometry is well understood to weavers of cloth, tapestries and baskets, and to folders of paper, origami'ists.

I currently believe the ''vibratory hexagons'' are athropogenic due to a very limited ''one-way'' view of things, which is great and works very well, but it begs the question, why do we plot a point, draw a circle, then cut it into 4 quadrants?
How can we expect things to line up using an even number of 4 quadrants? Or 6 or 8 triangles for that matter? Symmetry is everywhere. Factorially and multi dimensionally.

As to the nature of atoms... we have couplings, triplings and so forth, the interactions of subatomic particles. Why is it gold look so much like mercury on the atomic scale? Are they really alike subatomically or not? Structure, composition, frequency, wavelength... yet they have such different properties.

DNA I am sure has properties similiar to the Fibonacci Sequence, as do we our own human selves. The growth rates of human populations too.

So geometry is a way of understanding what we see in the Universe, but the Universe does not originate from geometry.

Likewise for religion. Religion stems from mans ways of understanding, describing and passing on wise ways of doing things. I suppose one could write many books on the subject of geometry and religion. As a Catholic, I continue to believe the Universe was created by God. God revealed himself as Jesus and Jesus revealed to us His Father.

PJ Parent
1/tau - Pi/4 keeps coming up...

P.S. I doubt any equation would help prove or disprove the existence of God.

Simply put, does discovering the diagonal of a square to be a multiple of the square root of 2 prove anything?

laugh.gif


Cecil P Abstract
JASONQUANTUM1 is spamming the whole forum with this nonsense, he's most certainly a plank.

[Quote]

"(a 2-d expanding hexagon) can also be viewed as a three dimensional cube" blink.gif


Where's Princess Bluebell when you need her?
JASONQUANTUM1
Hi Cecil,

You have to understand geometry and relativity to be able to conceptualize how one shape can be viewed as another depending on ones size and position relative to what you are observing. Again, test the equation and see for yourself. If you would like I can show you how input it into a graphing calculator. I am curious if you know what these Planck constants are? If not I can explain it in more basic terms.
Cecil P Abstract
QUOTE (JASONQUANTUM1+Dec 31 2007, 09:12 PM)
Hi Cecil,

You have to understand geometry and relativity to be able to conceptualize how one shape can be viewed as another depending on ones size and position relative to what you are observing. Again, test the equation and see for yourself. If you would like I can show you how input it into a graphing calculator. I am curious if you know what these Planck constants are? If not I can explain it in more basic terms.

laugh.gif you obviously meant this:

www.akasha.de/~aton/TetraCubeSoloman.jpg

Unfortunately "(a 2-d expanding hexagon) can also be viewed as a three dimensional cube" don't really cut it.

Spam elsewhere Bozo.
roam

no mater how many equations you pull out of your...... never mind, but there is a god.

-Roan ph34r.gif
Sapo
QUOTE (JASONQUANTUM1+Dec 31 2007, 04:12 PM)
Hi Cecil,

You have to understand geometry and relativity to be able to conceptualize how one shape can be viewed as another depending on ones size and position relative to what you are observing. Again, test the equation and see for yourself. If you would like I can show you how input it into a graphing calculator. I am curious if you know what these Planck constants are? If not I can explain it in more basic terms.

Troll!

marsel
great info!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.