Hello all,
My name is Jason D. Padgett. Currently, I'm a Physics/number theorist 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.
Hello Jason. I'd be interested in hearing more about it, however I fear I will be inundated with a very lengthy treatise that I will not be able to understand.
Please continue. I'm all ears.
Please continue. I'm all ears.
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,
. 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
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,
. 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
http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=118059762
{{Mobile Metal Atoms: New class of lithium-rich solids with unusually high lithium mobility
Mobile phones, notebook computers, iPods—the boom in portable computing and communications devices is dependent on rechargeable lithium-ion batteries to deliver power.}}
[comments: "Lithium mobility"? Following the citation at the end of the above article, and then doing a google for pentaquarks polyhedra on the conjecture that since the Roger's Connections magnetic vertices and equal length magnetic rods when joining five equal edges to a center vertice, and then joining each adjecent end vertices with five edges, forms a cap or coupla, and this is stable if laid on a table in the Earth's gravity field, but, ... is flexible, not a solid like the tetrahedron, the four sided pryamid.
That is, if Helium is a four sided tetrahedron, 4H3, three protons charges and a neutron, and a Roger's Connections stable solid tetrahedron, then in transforming to Lithium's states, from atomic weights 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the A=5 may qualify as a Roger's Connection penta-felt (flat equal laterial triangle).
So, a 5-felt being flexible may travel through a crystal faster than a stable-felt polyhedron.
The below find I am reading right now, hesitating to printout now since as a practical matter, if I read at the computer I have some domestic power to be less interrupted, not a complaint, but a strategy.
Read the introduction, it introduces many string theory terms that now make sense with respect to the Roger's Connection modeling.
For example, yesterday I sorted the low order polyhedrons into stable and flexible. Calcium is the most symmetrical as judged by it ability to sit on the dinning room table on any face, and note the pentagon cap sits stable on it's open pentagon base, but if picked up it is flexible.
So a mobile Pentagon must operate in a solid crystal to be most mobile.
With this warning about War Powers Abroad, may this year bring Peace.
Have a joyous read.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503179v1 23 Mar 2005 [47 pages]
{{"Scherk-Schwarz Breaking and Intersecting Branes"
Abstract
We study the effect of Scherk-Schwarz deformations on intersecting branes. Non-chiral fermions in any representation of the Chan-Paton gauge group generically acquire a tree- level mass dependent on the compactification radius and the brane wrapping numbers. This offers an elegant solution to one of the long standing problems in intersecting-brane-world models where the ubiquitous presence of massless non-chiral fermions is a clear embarrassment for any attempt to describe the Standard Model of Particle Physics.}}
Post script: Thanks for the above posts new member, will read carefully, join the Yellow Submarine Tour de Force, off course or knot. Best, rmuldavin
{{Mobile Metal Atoms: New class of lithium-rich solids with unusually high lithium mobility
Mobile phones, notebook computers, iPods—the boom in portable computing and communications devices is dependent on rechargeable lithium-ion batteries to deliver power.}}
[comments: "Lithium mobility"? Following the citation at the end of the above article, and then doing a google for pentaquarks polyhedra on the conjecture that since the Roger's Connections magnetic vertices and equal length magnetic rods when joining five equal edges to a center vertice, and then joining each adjecent end vertices with five edges, forms a cap or coupla, and this is stable if laid on a table in the Earth's gravity field, but, ... is flexible, not a solid like the tetrahedron, the four sided pryamid.
That is, if Helium is a four sided tetrahedron, 4H3, three protons charges and a neutron, and a Roger's Connections stable solid tetrahedron, then in transforming to Lithium's states, from atomic weights 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the A=5 may qualify as a Roger's Connection penta-felt (flat equal laterial triangle).
So, a 5-felt being flexible may travel through a crystal faster than a stable-felt polyhedron.
The below find I am reading right now, hesitating to printout now since as a practical matter, if I read at the computer I have some domestic power to be less interrupted, not a complaint, but a strategy.
Read the introduction, it introduces many string theory terms that now make sense with respect to the Roger's Connection modeling.
For example, yesterday I sorted the low order polyhedrons into stable and flexible. Calcium is the most symmetrical as judged by it ability to sit on the dinning room table on any face, and note the pentagon cap sits stable on it's open pentagon base, but if picked up it is flexible.
So a mobile Pentagon must operate in a solid crystal to be most mobile.
With this warning about War Powers Abroad, may this year bring Peace.
Have a joyous read.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503179v1 23 Mar 2005 [47 pages]
{{"Scherk-Schwarz Breaking and Intersecting Branes"
Abstract
We study the effect of Scherk-Schwarz deformations on intersecting branes. Non-chiral fermions in any representation of the Chan-Paton gauge group generically acquire a tree- level mass dependent on the compactification radius and the brane wrapping numbers. This offers an elegant solution to one of the long standing problems in intersecting-brane-world models where the ubiquitous presence of massless non-chiral fermions is a clear embarrassment for any attempt to describe the Standard Model of Particle Physics.}}
Post script: Thanks for the above posts new member, will read carefully, join the Yellow Submarine Tour de Force, off course or knot. Best, rmuldavin
QUOTE (JASONQUANTUM1+Dec 31 2007, 02:35 PM)
Hello all,
My name is Jason D. Padgett. Currently, I'm a Physics/number theorist 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.
Now skip down two messages from here to see the complete explanation of where energy arises from.
Please go to third post to see explanation of where energy arises from.
My name is Jason D. Padgett. Currently, I'm a Physics/number theorist 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.
Now skip down two messages from here to see the complete explanation of where energy arises from.
Please go to third post to see explanation of where energy arises from.
Thank you Jason. I'll need some more time but my first thoughts are:
I wonder by how much do the hexagons vibrate? And in which directions?
Spherical and or elliptically orbiting vertices?
Simutaneously expanding and contracting elliptical S curves, converging and diverging... appearing like the coupling of Galactic Spirals.
PI/4 - 1/PHI
PJ Parent
I wonder by how much do the hexagons vibrate? And in which directions?
Spherical and or elliptically orbiting vertices?
Simutaneously expanding and contracting elliptical S curves, converging and diverging... appearing like the coupling of Galactic Spirals.
PI/4 - 1/PHI
PJ Parent
Jason D. Padgett: Yes, your linking the inherent uncertainty of two variables was clear, and I have noticed that the solid Roger's Connection low edge or face numbered polyhedra, these solid ones, if one edge is unlinked becomes flexible. Some polyhedra while I am constructing them, an edge 'pops" out of place a short or sometimes larger distance.
This has led me to conjecture several times, and now with your leading the connection between uncertainty and two variables (can we say the equal sized vertices and equal sized edges establish such a connection, but such would exist on flat 2-D and 3-D spaces, and then add 4-D if the connections between vertices and edges vibrate,
Now hang on to your chair or mind for this one: Ok, if Hawking and B...? propose that a Black Hole observed temperature, T(bh) is proportional to the BH mass, then cannot we link the looseness of each edge/vertex, the sum of the vibrations in a similar fashion?
I think we are on to some thing here. Thanks again, may this make uncertain distributed equally among all things, and by asserting this, humble the top down bunglers.
Have a nice physics New Year Lack of Fear, best, rmuldavin
This has led me to conjecture several times, and now with your leading the connection between uncertainty and two variables (can we say the equal sized vertices and equal sized edges establish such a connection, but such would exist on flat 2-D and 3-D spaces, and then add 4-D if the connections between vertices and edges vibrate,
Now hang on to your chair or mind for this one: Ok, if Hawking and B...? propose that a Black Hole observed temperature, T(bh) is proportional to the BH mass, then cannot we link the looseness of each edge/vertex, the sum of the vibrations in a similar fashion?
I think we are on to some thing here. Thanks again, may this make uncertain distributed equally among all things, and by asserting this, humble the top down bunglers.
Have a nice physics New Year Lack of Fear, best, rmuldavin
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.