To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Force Fields
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Soultechs
There are numerous Types of Energy fields:

Week and Strong nucleic Energy Fields(Forces)(Binding Energy)

Electromagnetic Energy Fields(Like with `Rare Earth Magnets' interacting with Superconductors)

Gravitational Energy Fields(Gravity between Moons, Planets, Suns, Black Holes, Galaxies, Universes.

With respect to Atoms: We comfortably accept the wave/particle duality of light.
We comfortably understand that within a transformer electrons take on the wave energy aspect inducting into the secondary coil producing a current of electrons that we can pass through a resistive material(filament) thus converting the electrons into various spectrum's of light that the filament emits.

However we have a model in our minds suggesting that electrons spin around the nucleus of an atom.

I would say thats a model thats easily understood but I would speculate in all probability the electrons are perhaps in wave state where the electrons are really quantified fields of energy that wrap around the nucleus all at once like the field of force surrounding planets, moons, suns.

Do electrons really have a rest mass when orbiting a nucleus?
kaneda
Light (photons) is waves, not particles. Particles like electrons have mass so cannot travel at light speed.

The outer shell of an atom determines it's chemical properties so there is an outer shell.

The copper corral experiments uses two metals which when together form an electric current, so electrons not at rest which is why they appear as a cloud.
turin
I don't understand transformers the way you do. I undertand the operation of transformers based on entirely classical 19th century physics, namely Ampere's Law and Faraday's Law.

I suppose I basically understand light bulbs the same way that you do. Except I would point out that the electron should remain in existance even after it is converted into photons. So I would state more accurately that the electrons are converted into electron-photon pairs in the presence of other electrons' fields.

Your concern about the nature of the atom is a good one. I was also taught in highschool that the electrons orbit the nucleas in a naive planetary like way, and the electron cloud idea was only briefly mentioned. Of course, in truth, the electron cloud idea (or, more technically, the wave function idea) was introduced back in the 1920's, and enjoyed widespread acceptance by no later than the 1950's. Indeed, electrons don't orbit the nucleas, at least not in the classical sense, and quite often an electron that is electrically bound to a nucleas doesn't even have angular momentum. At any rate, these electron states are denoted (and considered to be) "stationary", and the electron can be considered at rest, in a sense. However, the mass of the electron is a little bit tricky in quantum mechanics. For one thing, it receives corrections which depend on its behavior and what interactions it is involved with. Not to mention that the value of the mass depends on how you want to define it.
Zephir
The nature of fields follows from the geometry of diffusive spreading of inertia (mass+energy) inside of field of Aether particles. This geometry has a very interesting and unstable behavior, while considering the only simple rule: the energy density is proportional the gradient of mass density and vice versa: the mass density is proportional the energy gradient (as follows from recursive wave equation solution).

At the first glance we can see, the particles will propagate through the inhomogeneous field due the density gradient. Such behavior corresponds the concentration leveling and nothing very strange or even unusual is about. It can enable us to intepret the gravitation as the process of concentration leveling of Aether density, during which the observable matter (not mass!) gradually evaporates into radiation at the same time.

user posted image user posted image

If the density gradient becomes more pronounced, the character of diffusion will change. Not the gradient center, but the gradient as such becomes the subject of concentration leveling (and the diffusion). Simply because the energy density of gradient surpass the energy density of it's environment due the rule postulated above. And the gradient will undergo the phase transition: not the gradient environment, just the gradient as such will become the predominant source of matter density and it becomes an environment for another nested gradients.

We can observe this interesting behavior in connection with black hole evaporation, for example. If the black hole is small, it evaporates faster and faster due the increased gravity field gradient by Hawking radiation and nothing very strange is about. If the black hole becomes larger, its mass is proportional the cube of radius, while the the surface is proportional just the square of radius. By another words, the mass of black hole increases much faster, then the surface of black hole. Because the mass is cumulative, this dependency leads to the further increasing of surface gradient. After exceeding of certain size, the black hole becomes to evaporate again. Simply because it's not "too small", but because it's "too big".

As we can see, the interesting behavior of gradient leads to the certain range of surface curvature, in which every object is conditionally stable. Bellow or above such limit the object disintegrates undeniably. And the mutual ratio of both these curvatures is not very dependent on the object composition. It behaves like very general constant following just from the space geometry. It's rather huge, but finite number.

Therefore, if we really want to understand the Universe behavior, we are required to understand the behavior of the only thing: the spatial gradient.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+May 12 2007, 05:38 PM)
Light (photons) is waves, not particles. Particles like electrons have mass so cannot travel at light speed.

Are you saying that any quantum object which moves at light speed is a wave and anything else is a particle or do you mean bosons are waves and fermions are particles?

It seems a little odd to make that distinction when photons and say neutrinos behave so much alike, yet one's a boson and one's a fermion, one's moving at light speed, one just slower and neither are electromagnetically charged.

Can you elaborate slightly please.
QUOTE (Zephir+)
f the black hole becomes larger, its mass is proportional the cube of radius, while the the surface is proportional just the square of radius.
The radius for a Schwarzchild black hole is r=2GM/c^2, which is clearly proportional to M. Therefore M doesn't go like r^3, it goes like r.

Charge and spin complicate matters, but you still don't get M ~ r^3. For charged and spinning black holes you get r ~ M + sqrt(M^2 - a^2 - Q^2).
QUOTE (Zephir+)
Because the mass is cumulative, this dependency leads to the further increasing of surface gradient. After exceeding of certain size, the black hole becomes to evaporate again.
Derivation?
QUOTE (Zephir+)
Therefore, if we really want to understand the Universe behavior, we are required to understand the behavior of the only thing: the spatial gradient.
Kinda hard when you don't know any vector calculus eh Zeph?
Zephir
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+May 14 2007, 03:24 AM)
The radius for a Schwarzchild black hole is r=2GM/c^2, which is clearly proportional to M.

This is the (approximate) formula for event horizon diameter, not the black hole diameter. The gravitational field of black hole doesn't start or stop by event horizon.

QUOTE (Alphanumeric+May 14 2007, 03:24 AM)
...kinda hard when you don't know any vector calculus...

The understanding of physics is not matter of some calculus. Most of my simulations here are based on vector calculus, for example this one.

user posted image
Soultechs
As like I suggested that electron shells are likely to be shelves of quantified energy: `Electrons in an non alternating wave state wrapped around the nucleus all at once' rather than particles orbiting like stellar objects in the heavens, I would speculate that the nucleus isn't a stack marbles stuck together either.

Particles like Protons, Neutrons, & Electrons etc a pieces of quanta who's Mass, Size, Charge etc can exist individually in a vacuum for certain periods of time all determined by natural laws of physics that we're still trying to understand.

The masses of Elements and there Isotopes differ to the sum total mass of their protons and neutrons, that's what makes fission/fusion possible. The nucleus emits energy in quantifiable pieces Particles/EMF etc in the same way as electron shells/shelves emit quanta to reattain a stable equilibrium when an imbalance occurred

There have been numerous particles observed/discovered capable of existing individually when experimenting with particle accelerators.

However most people think of an nucleus in terms of protons and neutrons arranged like marbles in the shape of a 3 spatial dimension sphere. That is an easy way to visualize/imagine the nucleus, however ProbabbleE the nucleus is an all entwined multidimensional entangled mass of energy that merely emits stable pieces of quanta like Protons/Electrons/Neutrons that we observe individually in experiments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would speculate that velocities of Neutrons emitted by unstable Isotopes of elements would vary.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrons induct from one coil to another within a transformer because that is what can propagate/move/travel. The nucleus doesn't move much. However the nucleus of matter contains most of the mass of matter. If it were possible to spin an object in a stationary container at almost relativistic velocities then the fields from the Mass of the spinning object may induct into th container causing a Mass and time dilation of the container and perhaps anything placed near it?

Zephir
QUOTE (Soultechs+May 14 2007, 06:09 AM)
...I would speculate that velocities of Neutrons emitted by unstable Isotopes of elements would vary..

Why they wouldn't vary? Don't drown your life in trivialities, our lives the less.
turin
QUOTE (Soultechs+May 14 2007, 03:09 AM)
Electrons induct from one coil to another within a transformer because that is what can propagate/move/travel.

Are you suggesting that the EM field cannot "propagate/move/travel"? I disagree that electrons can "propagate/move/travel" between the coils of a transformer, unless you mean something different than I do when you use the term "electron". In that case, this is going to get really confusing. huh.gif
LearmSceince
QUOTE (Soultechs+May 12 2007, 04:53 AM)

However we have a model in our minds suggesting that electrons spin around the nucleus of an atom.


We do? That's so 19th century. My personal model is that of a cotton ball and a thumb tack.

QUOTE (Soultechs+May 12 2007, 04:53 AM)

I would say thats a model thats easily understood but I would speculate in all probability the electrons are perhaps in wave state where the electrons are really quantified fields of energy that wrap around the nucleus all at once like the field of force surrounding planets, moons, suns.


That is right. But you lost me at "field of force surrounding planets...".

QUOTE (Soultechs+May 12 2007, 04:53 AM)

Do electrons really have a rest mass when orbiting a nucleus?


"rest mass", or invariant mass, is what the object would have if other kinetic energy were removed. In a moving object, it is that portion that is not caused by the movement. It doesn't change, no matter what you do with it. Do you see that the answer to this question must be "yes"?
Soultechs
The energy Fields wrapped around Moons, planets, Suns that i was referring to: I was giving an analogy to the way quantified electron shells/shelves are wrapped around the nucleus of an atom.

We do now understand that the gravitational field pertaining to a 3D object is just another dimensional aspect of that object that has always been there, It's an non alternating field thus doesn't ever (propagate away)/(dissipate)

Electrons when propagating through whatever medium do in an alternating wave pattern. When they are stationary in quantified shells/shelves around an nucleus they are in an non alternating state wrapped around the nucleus and thus don't propagate away/dissipate.

The electromagnetic field pertaining to an object is a spatial dimension that pertains to the (electron states)/{stationary,moving} of that object. Whereas the gravitation of objects is a spatial dimension pertaining to the mass of the object: Most of what is the `positive nucleus in terrestrial mater' and is the `negative nucleus in anti-matter'.
LearmSceince
QUOTE (Soultechs+May 16 2007, 03:59 AM)
We do now understand that the gravitational field pertaining to a 3D object is just another dimensional aspect of that object that has always been there, It's an non alternating field thus doesn't ever (propagate away)/(dissipate)

Electrons when propagating through whatever medium do in an alternating wave pattern. When they are stationary in quantified shells/shelves around an nucleus they are in an non alternating state wrapped around the nucleus and thus don't propagate away/dissipate.


Your comparison is mismatched. The gravitational field doesn't drain away from a mass just as the electric charge doesn't drain away from an electron.

An electron itself can move, taking the surrounding electric field with it, just as a mass can move taking the gravitational field with it.

You said gravity doesn't drain away but electrons can move. So?
Soultechs
I understand precisely what i meant however misunderstanding.

`What's a butt got to do with an windmill' to use a European figure of speech.
Your argument is that Atoms have Electrons! Atoms can move! Hence Electrons move! loll

I was saying that within the contexts of an atomic nucleus the electrons are in their non alternating wave state in quantified shells/shelves and are not orbiting the nucleus in stellar like angular momentum ways. Motion of the atom doesn't matter to the subject explained.
Soultechs
The more I think about dimensions pertaining to objects/particles I increasingly obtain the impression that of Time-like dimensions the time dimension that most people understand and adjust their mobiles/computers to (simply/only/just/loll) applies to `alternating waves' meaning `propagation/vibration/motion' within 3D spatial distances of movement. There could be `other higher forms of time-like' dimensions. I'll keep you posted as soon as I figure them out.
Soultechs
The Universe is ProbabbleE an Multi-verse of partially overlapping Universes along all it's edges perhaps to infinite proportions.

All 3D stellar objects/particles within an given Universe/Multi-verse have always been connected as one entity by the other dimensions above 3D pertaining to all mass. These two dimensions I'm referring to are an `Multiversal Sea' that has always been there. It doesn't propagate because it's simply another dimension of an object (Like the electromagnetic field of an magnet is always there and doesn't propagate away like light/radio-waves/microwaves which are alternating waves as is motion of whatever.)

The greater the Mass the greater the gravitation of the object. Gravitation of an abject directly relates to mass of the object and is just another dimension of the 3D object meaning it is part of the object. To ask what is the speed of an gravitational or electromagnetic field is like asking what is the speed of the 3rd dimension of a cube? It's always been there. It's a part of the object.

Gravitation is the most powerful of the two other spatial dimensions because whilst there isn't any real `specific area in the Universe' where there is no `aspect of it': from some object/particle. It's intensity can be greater/smaller in different regions of the `Universe/Multi-verse'

The intensity o of that all encompassing Sea of Gravitation determines the `Inertial Mass' of objects in an given region of the Universe furthermore it determines the `Speed at which Time Travels' in that region compared/relative to other regions of differing intensities. Furthermore its intensity determines the `Wavelength/Frequency/`Speed of light' in that region (Don't RQ)' as-well/likewise with the propagation of 3D objects within that dimension/sea
Good Elf
Hi Soultechs,

QUOTE (Soultechs+)
However we have a model in our minds suggesting that electrons spin around the nucleus of an atom.

I would say thats a model thats easily understood but I would speculate in all probability the electrons are perhaps in wave state where the electrons are really quantified fields of energy that wrap around the nucleus all at once like the field of force surrounding planets, moons, suns.

Do electrons really have a rest mass when orbiting a nucleus?
Intriguing question! I believe that the interpretation that the electron is a "wave" is the only interpretation that has any validity. It cannot be a "charged particle" simply spinning around a nucleus bound only by "charge". I have been belaboring a point elsewhere that all hat really exists are bosons and fermions but even fermions like electrons are not what they seem since even numbers of them have very special boson properties contrary to "common sense". For most of all time the electron is totally "unobserved" and this is also a problem since observations in quantum mechanics holds such a prominent place in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum phenomena. I believe that there is excellent reason to think that the true state of everything is not "matter" but that of waves. It is just so culturally unacceptable to say otherwise.

A great simplification can be had (provided I am not forced to completely explain everything) if we say that all phenomena are electromagnetic in origin. That "gravity" and "mass" are also electromagnetic phenomena as seen from frames of reference a step away from the primal waves of light spreading in free flat space. This step away sees these "particles" (electrons) as impenetrable light cone walls separating our Universe of near global "flatness" from a highly curved spatial environment of the fermion particle. Think of all sub-atomic fermionic particles as propagating bosons trapped on the "inside" of a very small "bubble" floating within our empty bosonic "flatspace". If our space and time is considered as a largely "flat" three spatial dimensions and time a temporal dimension, then this "shiny mirror bubble" as a tiny cavity in our spatial dimensional flatspace appears to be a "particle".... A fermion... Primarily caused by the separate frame of accelerated reference of the bubble space of "particles". Because these "shiny impenetrable walls" represent something executing movement at the speed of light and actually is light itself traveling at the speed of light as an unobserved photon. That photon is inside that bubble is a dimensionally reciprocal space and a reciprocal time (frequency). What I am saying here is there is nowhere in our Universe that you can go where there are any real matter particles and what we have called matter is this "surface" which stands between universes just like the that shiny shimmering surface in the Stargate Television Series stands between our flatspace and other flatspaces via a curved connection .... in our case an electromagnetic wormhole. To pass through this wormhole is a quantum leap by tunneling exactly like photons and electrons control "states" within an atom which represent "shells". So the statement above is "true" in that electrons are something wrapping themselves around the nucleus in atoms as "unobserved waves". Like an ever spreading wave confined on the inside of a space that includes other spaces such as the space of the nucleus. But do not stop there folks... it is much much more than this. Here is a simulation of an electron confined within a "shell"... read "Anti-deSitter Space"...
user posted image
Of course this simulation is an S1 shell and all electron processes are reduced to a phasor represented by color. A "real" electron would be at least three dimensional and "fill a reciprocal shell". Check out the way the phase velocity of the internal wave components of the electrons "circulate".

Humans (apes) evolved to see our Universe in a particular way... a particle way. It is almost burned in our brains by millions of years of evolution. This has been a very successful view of the Universe but it is wrong. It knows nothing of the nature of quanta. Traditionally it has been pigeonholed in a "too hard" basket by most scientists. Quantum Phenomena has been given a "dual nature" of a particle and a wave . From some authorities it seems as if these two entities are schizophrenically linked at the same time. Like all schizophrenia... It leads to madness. I could dissect this concept but I have said this all before and I do not want to repeat it too often... On the inside of that dimensional "bubble" phenomena "like us" would experience a flatspace in just the same way as we experience our flatspace. This is like two sides of a fairground trick mirror. The reflection and its source are conformally and topologically related to each other. This "transformation" is known in the Literature as the Anti-deSitter Conformal Field Theory.... AdS/CFT. The additional essential ingredient that "Good Elf" brings to it is the knowledge that these represent two separate "reciprocal environments"... From our point of view "we" live in a big "bosonic bubble flatspace" and all particles "appear" to be tiny reciprocal bubble environments which are spinning in a six dimensional additional space relative to the three dimensions our bosonic bubble Universe seems to be "inside". These two objects share the same three spatial dimensions but where in our "empty space Universe" everything is embedded into a flatspace the truth is it is a curved space and depending on how this is perceived from an external environment is a very small highly curved reciprocal environment spinning at frequency where the frequency is a periodic function. In our perception of the Universe as space and time ... time is non-periodic but this ignores the inherent spin of our Universe in that reciprocal space.

In our eventspace of the entire Universe a single solution of the eigen state of the Universe incorporates everything that has ever happen over maybe hundreds of billions of years and reciprocally relates this to a frequency which by its very nature is cyclic and repeating.

In actual fact everything including "us" are composed of sub-atomic bubble particles with shiny walls which are opposing simple dimensional movement across the boundaries. The bubbles and the big bosionic flatspace are kept apart by single simple law called CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. This is a law of "solitons" and stability. The surface of this bubble as a region in which we can resolve standing waves identical to these solutions...
User posted image
... Click to enlarge... see more here...
Wolfram Mathworld: Spherical Harmonics
From this analysis we obtain all the primary quantum numbers as solutions on the surface of a two dimensional sphere. This can be generalized to more dimensions and they are individually the same as Fourier components of simple reciprocal functions which are harmonic on the boundaries through the notion of reciprocal space and reciprocal time ... frequency.

In this concept Charge and Mass as well as the fields such as electric and magnetic fields link to each other leading to stationary states. We can see the exact same principle with sound waves and the way in which a resonant chamber can have a number of stable states all being excited at the one time and all occupying the one volume... Playing a note on a musical instrument... You will need to scroll the image to the bottom to see the fundamental frequency and above that all the related 'acoustic" frequencies we usually think of as part of the "packet". Only this is simply the natural process in which sound "mimics" quantum processes. Sound (at least in this example) is not a quantum process it is a mechanical one of solutions of eigenvalues of a resonant cavity system.
User posted image
... Click to enlarge...
Here we see in this Wikipedia Article all the attributes of quantum theory without quantum theory.
Wikipedia: Spectrogram
This "begs the question" as to what quantum theory really is. I would say a reluctance to accept that we are not observing particles but we are observing waves and waves only.

Therefore it is not that surprising to see that light and the geometry of the space define the resonant physics of systems. It also follows that since quantum cavities defined by light cone walls make near perfect walls for all electromagnetic phenomena , it is conceivable that like the violin above these cavity "bubble" Universes define resonant systems. That resonance is the way in which a cavity can accept and release "quanta" as propagating solitons (more particles) or engage in the emission of waves (dipole radiation). This is all of wave and particle physics but it is missing a full description of the geometry of our Universe. These reciprocal spaces lead to singularities on the mathematics (division by zero). To get any sense out of this a completely unjustified process called renormalization is used to "unify" flatspaces and reciprocal bubble spaces. To continue with a wholly particle interpretation leads to attempts to quantize the manifold and as Schizophrenic usually do keep "banging their heads on the padded walls of their cells" endlessly as they try to force round pegs into square holes.

I have spent a lot of my time on other threads trying to convince others this is indeed the case.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6587&st=0
That three dimensional bundle which are cavities (the cavity of a violin as shown above with some "apertures"... F-holes and traditional 'round" holes) are defined by the walls (boundary conditions) energetically. Our universe by analogy is a similar system for the propagation and resonance of photons... packets of energy... in a three dimensional spatial continuum with in a quantum defined interval of time. This means that from our way of calculation, these three dimensional objects such as assemblies of sub-atomic particles (we call atoms) and the assemblies of atoms (walls and boundaries in space that we think of as isolated systems and "physical objects") are the entire explanation for physics. This links to the system of least action succinctly defined by the laws of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation in Classical Physics. Remember though ... do not forget the "resonances" that lead to quanta.

The only problem with this "picture" is the ignorance of the global "bubble" (we call our Universe) leading to a principle of least action with few but important exceptions. These exceptions are quantum events in which energy can transfer spontaneously from one isolated system to another through the process of dimensional tunneling. Otherwise it is very difficult to see any effect at all from quantum mechanics. The only way in which we can notice this phenomena is through an old idea we have formerly called Mach's Principle. This states that the most distant parts of the Universe have an influence on our immediate environment. This is a theory of non-local action at a distance. The effect is the residual spacial curvature called "mass". It also leads to a principle in which mass is not a force but only a pseudo-force as stated by Einstein. From that point of view Soultechs assertion about the nature of phenomena is correct...
QUOTE (Soultechs+)
Electrons induct from one coil to another within a transformer because that is what can propagate/move/travel. The nucleus doesn't move much. However the nucleus of matter contains most of the mass of matter. If it were possible to spin an object in a stationary container at almost relativistic velocities then the fields from the Mass of the spinning object may induct into the container causing a Mass and time dilation of the container and perhaps anything placed near it?
This is correct and this is what particles do with their intrinsic spin. This time dilation leads to an inability to compare the inertial frame of freely falling photons inside of relativistically spinning six dimensional bubbles and the the flatspace we are finding ourselves apparently falling freely in right now. Our Universe has an intrinsic spin and so do particles in which the mass is a correction between the two apparently inertial frames. That internal spreading photon "on the inside" of a sub-atomic particle, is as though in a freely falling space there are no apparent forces of attraction. Haven't you always wondered why photons follow the same geodesics in spacetime as particles of mass, the difference being only the relative velocity?

Photons have no mass yet spread on the surface of a geodesic as if they had mass. It is axiomatic that photons can be trapped (with the possible exception of Black Holes) ... not with gravity ... but by a particular "symmetric" form of electromagnetism, a bubble. Seen from an external frame of reference this geodesic motion of spreading is perceived as an acceleration since the photon is now confined to a "stationary state" or in actual fact it is not stationary but a standing wave which is not exactly the same thing. What is internally spreading into a very large almost flatspace externally this is a tiny mirrored bubble whose interior is unable to be observed except through the residual spatial curvature we call mass. A quantum may emerge and this can also be a solition observing CPT-Lorentz Symmetry or it may simply conform to the force carrier of our Universe... The Photon and this "object spreads on the surface of our flatspace once again with its global curvature we are completely ignoring since it is so very small.

This complex reciprocal properties of space and time and the embedding of space and time within itself as particles and other wave phenomena such as the spreading photons embedding in what initially appears to be a flatspace but is actually globally a curved spacetime as well. The other aspect of all this is the Holographic nature of the "reflections" and imaging of all these phenomena as "virtual particles and virtual photons" as more optics in our spacetime to explain these relativistic spatial mirrors.

To show what this is like in a concrete 'simple" demonstration of a working "model" of our Universe look at this...
User posted image
... Click to enlarge...
Here are simple optical elements working in two dimensions, performing Fourier transforms of an initial image plane to produce the reciprocal space and frequency domain from a spatial and temporal one... They are Dual. This process in a closed domain is lossless and errorless. Look Ma no moving parts! This is a mechanism that is used to create and re-create our Universe in domains where things that are small are large and things that are large are small.

I tell you no lie... this is the secret of your Universe right there.

Cheers
Zephir
QUOTE (Soultechs+May 18 2007, 09:52 AM)
However we have a model in our minds suggesting that electrons spin around the nucleus of an atom.

The electron orbitals can be interpreted by Kepler's motion of many particles around atom nuclei.

user posted image User posted image
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Zephir+May 20 2007, 02:16 AM)
The electron orbitals can be interpreted by Kepler's motion of many particles around atom nuclei.

Classically that's not true and quantum mechanically that's not true. And this is another thing I know you and I have been over before.

Classically the electrons should radiate energy due to being in an accelerated motion and so should spiral into the nucleus. Hence considering them as Newtonian objects which just form a 'mini-solar system' doesn't work.

If you claim otherwise, you're going to have to give some results which demonstrate experimental results can be obtained using your proposed method. Just claiming it's possible isn't sufficent.
Good Elf
Hi AlphaNumeric, Zephir, Soultechs et al,

QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
QUOTE (Zephir @ May 20 2007+ 02:16 AM)
The electron orbitals can be interpreted by Kepler's motion of many particles around atom nuclei.

Classically that's not true and quantum mechanically that's not true. And this is another thing I know you and I have been over before.

Classically the electrons should radiate energy due to being in an accelerated motion and so should spiral into the nucleus. Hence considering them as Newtonian objects which just form a 'mini-solar system' doesn't work.

If you claim otherwise, you're going to have to give some results which demonstrate experimental results can be obtained using your proposed method. Just claiming it's possible isn't sufficient.
Recently correlated electron pairs in "motion" around atomic nuclei have shown semi-classical Keplerian (Bohr) Orbits. I have seen this recently in a scientific article. I have not found the exact article but I have substituted a slightly older paper that illustrates this phenomenon. There is an article here that is a precursor theoretically to this position and supports the case that electron pairs can execute semi-classical "planar" Bohr orbits around the nuclei of atoms. So in this point Zephir is not too wide of facts other than he did not mention "paired electrons". It is a kind of "Cooper Pair".

Above you can see what otherwise happens in the animation above in my previous submission where the circulating individual valence electrons undergo Fourier "smearing" over 30 Keplerian periods...
Pas de Deux for Atomic Electrons: C. R. Stroud, Jr.
This was published in Science in 2004.

The phenomenon is tied to the boson state (integer spin) of paired correlated fermions (X2 half integer spins). Two fermions in the one quantum state have opposite spin-states and they can occupy a single virtual boson state where they are apparently collapsed into a propagating "soliton"... Or at least that is my interpretation of it. This is not "classical" but it is very "semi-classical". Think of two "orthogonal sinusoidal oscillations" at right angles to each other and out of phase by spatial pi/2 radians and temporally by pi radians. The Lissajous Figure is a circle.
Wikipedia: Lissajous curve
Not shown in this set of curves is where delta = pi/2 and a = b. You will have the "circle". Of course it is a bit more complex than this (there is literally "a twist" to it) but this example illustrates a good point. This is a standing wave but the "energy" precesses around the curve ... like a particle... A very stable "bright matter soliton". Of course this is the exact relationship between the electric and magnetic field in EM standing waves. To see why I think there is a relation between the EM standing waves and circulating energy look at this paper...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? : J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
User posted image
User posted image
...Click to enlarge...
This is an interesting read... not the whole story but a better story as to the origin of charge through "topology" and the Hubrius Helix...
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu

Cheers
LearmSceince
Good Elf: How does your photon-bubble idea recreate electroweak theory? You seem to be making the photon a privileged item, rather than unifying it with other bosons.

Does your idea offer any insight into the (exactly) three generations of fermions? And why are the eigenstates for quarks' weak force coupling ever so slightly mis-aligned compared to the strong force coupling?

Hmm, it might be easier to start with K-meson oscillations. Why does that happen, and why are there separate Long and Short forms?
Good Elf
Hi LearmSceince,

QUOTE (LearmSceince+)
Good Elf: How does your photon-bubble idea recreate electroweak theory? You seem to be making the photon a privileged item, rather than unifying it with other bosons.
Not strictly a photon bubble but a spacetime bubble with "walls" that are terminating on the edge of a light cone. Photons do not strictly create the conditions in space they are dependent on them. Once in place they are "sticky" through CPT-Lorentz Symmetry. Electroweak Theory is an extension of Quantum Electrodynamics. Learn Quantum Electrodynamics and you have an Electroweak Theory.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9065021/Abdus-Salam
Of course this association has already been shown. Here is another theory that Creates and Unifies all particles through taking simple photons and making them undergo "boosts" and "spins" to create all orders of sub-atomic particles. Once you have them then it is a simple step to create all particles (a String Theory).
User posted image
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
... Click to enlarge...
This is a string theory but String Theories have a lot in common with a certain group of symmetries ... electroweak being one of them. My ideas have much in common with string theory but they differ from most in the way dimensions are naturally embedded. This is not the way the universe makes particles but maybe it could if it was tried.

Cheers
Zarabtul
Force field technology is only owned by the United States and China....


It is advanced laser array technology at certain frequencies...
stringboy
It"s all one big ball of string.
LearmSceince
QUOTE (Good Elf+May 20 2007, 11:24 AM)
Electroweak Theory is an extension of Quantum Electrodynamics. Learn Quantum Electrodynamics and you have an Electroweak Theory.

I know the accepted Electroweak Theory works very well. What does that have to do with the stuff you posted earlier, to wit:

QUOTE
all phenomena are electromagnetic in origin. That "gravity" and "mass" are also electromagnetic phenomena as seen from frames of reference a step away from the primal waves of light spreading in free flat space. This step away sees these "particles" (electrons) as impenetrable light cone walls separating our Universe of near global "flatness" from a highly curved spatial environment of the fermion particle. Think of all sub-atomic fermionic particles as propagating bosons trapped on the "inside" of a very small "bubble" floating within our empty bosonic "flatspace". If our space and time is considered as a largely "flat" three spatial dimensions and time a temporal dimension, then this "shiny mirror bubble" as a tiny cavity in our spatial dimensional flatspace appears to be a "particle".... A fermion...


That does not describe any orthodox or mainstream theory.
Zephir
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 20 2007, 04:59 AM)
Classically the electrons should radiate energy due to being in an accelerated motion and so should spiral into the nucleus.

I'm not talking about charged particles, the electrons the less. Every single electron in electron orbital would correspond to many particles in this model.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (LearmSceince+May 16 2007, 04:30 PM)
Your comparison is mismatched. The gravitational field doesn't drain away from a mass just as the electric charge doesn't drain away from an electron.

An electron itself can move, taking the surrounding electric field with it, just as a mass can move taking the gravitational field with it.

You said gravity doesn't drain away but electrons can move. So?

massive objects orbiting each other emit gravity waves that slowly drain energy away from the system until the objects spiral into each other. It takes hundredds of millions of years unless the objects are supermassive such as neutron stars.
Good Elf
Hi LearmSceince, Soultechs, Neil Farbstein et al,

QUOTE (LearmSceince+)
I know the accepted Electroweak Theory works very well. What does that have to do with the stuff you posted earlier
Everything and nothing I suppose. It is my proposal that all particle theories relate to an underlying continuum theory. It is not in disagreement with the current quantum theory, it is just "not popular" at the moment. This is the best way to "unify" the forces. Standard particle theories relate to standard string theories through a divergence between a description based on point source vs a distributed source arising from additional "compact" dimensions. In that way particle theories are converted into continuum theories on a scale of the Planck Length. I disagree with that theory on several grounds not the least of which is the lack of experimental justification. These additional dimensions are "linearly" related to existing dimensions ... more or less added ad hoc as extensions to our existing linear dimensions of space and a linear dimension of time. I propose an experimentally testable theory which provides the same outcomes but based on resonantly coupled reciprocally linked compact dimensions which relate through the Fourier Transform as dual wave-particle descriptions of reality based on the frequency and time domain respectively. The compact set of six reciprocal spatial dimensions share three additional linear dimensions with our bosonic vacuum space. Ten dimensions in all. Time in the reciprocal space being replaced by frequency (reciprocal time). Eleven if you like to count separately... Of course it does not just stop there.

This is an exact correlation of the AdS-CFT conjecture with the way in which the Universe embeds additional dimensions Holographically. A quantum process is one in which a suitable photon wave-particle can move between these two realms by tunneling through the four dimensional Lagrangian of energy into the dual reciprocal environment. As I have indicated the photon can exhibit any and all particle properties depending on how "observers" interpret the nature of the space in which the photon is propagating. Either the photon is "spreading" or it is "confined" and time is apparently "linear" or "harmonically folded" depending on your reference frame. It is entirely dependent on where the observer is placed. In this total Optical Theory of Everything there are no divergences since the reciprocal domains are well understood and are mathematically wholly translatible and invertible. This is unlike the linear theories which lead to the need to renormalize. There is a strong affinity with standard electromagnetic theory and a strong "interpretation" of the near field. To see more about this I suggest you look at this thread.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6587
What I would like to say is this idea does not undercut particle theories but does emphasize their shortcomings and attempts to replace it with an underlying continuum theory more akin to conventional electromagnetic field theory than quantum theory. I have tried to indicate through existing experiments why this is the way to proceed and is "natural" unlike the current batch of "String Theories".

One of the more interesting consequences of the theory is that Special Relativity and de Broglie Matter waves are complementary phenomena... the former deals with behavior in reference frames in high relative velocity and the latter deals with reference frames around the region in which there is zero relative velocity... Wrapping according to the Lorentz Symmetry through a rotation of arcsin(V/C) into the reciprocal space. Thus the de Broglie Matter wave for particles is the evanescent field of a "reciprocal space" photon wave "leaking" from higher dimensions through tunneling in the near field and likewise electromagnetic waves translate into particle fields when they undergo a half twist in as they move into the Anti-de Sitter Space of the complementary domain. Wave particle duality...
User posted image
... Click to enlarge...
The Particle, an impulse, on the left and the simplest wave complementary domain representation on the right, the sync function.

Feel free to read what you need of the reference above, it is a bit of a long story and this is probably not the place to fully deal with it. The electroweak theory and all particle theories are then "subsets" and their treatments lead to correct results but they are right for the wrong reason. They are "Ptolemaic" rather than real Physics. This method preserves the results and extends the physics into testable, almost familiar domains.

Cheers
Farsight
QUOTE
What I would like to say is this idea does not undercut particle theories but does emphasize their shortcomings and attempts to replace it with an underlying continuum theory more akin to conventional electromagnetic field theory than quantum theory.


I'm broadly in agreement with what you're saying Good Elf. Though I don't see any need for any extra dimensions. See this RELATIVITY+ essay and follow the links to MASS EXPLAINED and GRAVITY EXPLAINED:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=13479&st=0
bukh
hej Good Elf

QUOTE: -" I believe that there is excellent reason to think that the true state of everything is not "matter" but that of waves."

What makes the waves - from what is the wave composed of?

Zephir
QUOTE (bukh+May 21 2007, 09:39 PM)
...true state of everything is not "matter" but that of waves." ... from what is the wave composed of?

This is why, the AWT is named the Aether Wave theory. But the harmonic wave phase is not the most widespread phase of the Universe apparently, because of highly chaotic nature of the vacuum, which can be described as a mixture of many waves. The Universe is appears to be formed by duality of inertial diffusion and wave equations, instead. Both these equations are requiring the inertia to be working, though. But the amount of initial inertia required appears to be finite, if not negligible with compare to the apparent inertia of Aether. We can observe some trend in understanding of Universe: the more facts we consider about Universe at the same time, the less ad-hoc assumptions is required for it's reasoning.

This situation looks quite well with respect of our understanding of the Universe: we maybe never will be able to understand it totally, but the number of ad-hoc assumptions required for such assumption will tend to zero, gradually. After all, if the Aether Wave theory is correct, it will cover our understanding for many years in advance. Because it enables us to predict both the history, both the future of Universe pretty well outside of our ability to prove such evolution by experiments and/or observations.

In general, the material of waves are the Aether particles. But these particles can be created mostly by these waves itself - the particle fluctuations are serving as a bumpy glass, which multiplies the image of the whole Universe.
czeslaw
We know that Vacuum with virtual particles exists.
It is something appearing in time shorter tham Planck time and interacts in distance shorter than Planck distance.

What can we know about this space structure ?
Perhaps only that it exists and nothing more. It is uncertainty principle.

The wavy approximation could be good enough in this case I think.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (czeslaw+May 22 2007, 08:43 AM)
It is something appearing in time shorter tham Planck time and interacts in distance shorter than Planck distance.

No, the existence of virtual particles is governed by the uncertainty principle, which says the larger the mass the less time it exists for. While planck mass particles will exist for less than a planck time, they are unimaginably more massive than 'normal particles'. The Planck mass is about 10^19 GeV. An electron is 0.0005 GeV, about 23 orders of magnitude difference. As such, the electron can live for 10^23 times longer than a Planck mass particle.

Virtual particles are responsible for quantum loop corrections and the difference between classical predictions and quantum predictions. As such they exist for short periods of time in a measurable way.
mick hunt
AEthe, Gayther, Is rAElians, Israel, Xyvvei, JAyson, AMy,,,,isRAEil? That fukin sopd is dYEin head, hes got AEds, Thats a VIA ARSE VIRUS DED dedju what to GM modify food? yes the Yes the mijvet revolutiond. SEX war chem eng style funE! Upsidedone to logical animal husabadry. The brit paiainted circular bulseyes on their plains lol gass what was behind the fart the planes pertrol tank lol, spitfire ow ye spit if the plane cathes fire would YOu like a quick PARA SHOOT? loll the planeEs are mightTIER than YOu lol spin a star of david the YOOL see the sign of rAElian loll UY! u! U1 make everyone spew(u'omit)!!!! lolll
czeslaw
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 22 2007, 08:34 AM)
No, the existence of virtual particles is governed by the uncertainty principle, which says the larger the mass the less time it exists for. While planck mass particles will exist for less than a planck time, they are unimaginably more massive than 'normal particles'. The Planck mass is about 10^19 GeV. An electron is 0.0005 GeV, about 23 orders of magnitude difference. As such, the electron can live for 10^23 times longer than a Planck mass particle.

Virtual particles are responsible for quantum loop corrections and the difference between classical predictions and quantum predictions. As such they exist for short periods of time in a measurable way.

It is probably a wrong interpretation of the Planck mass.
The virtual particles appeare in Planck time but it does not mean their frequency is like c/Planck distance.
I understand it as a space Background and it interacts with rest mass.

Have you seen my calculation for the relation of the Gravitational interaction F(g) to EM interaction F(e)

F(g)/F(e)=r^2/alfa*R(1)*R(2)

It shows that relativistic mass interacts gravitationally as well as the rest mass.
Even the gravitational field has its energy and relativistic mass and it fits to Dark Matter effect.

I develope the idea of Rueda, Haish from CIPA institute. They introduced the Zero Point Energy as you know.
Zephir
QUOTE (czeslaw+May 22 2007, 10:43 AM)
What can we know about this space structure ? Perhaps only that it exists and nothing more. It is uncertainty principle.

Only the AWT supplies some ideas about geometric structure of vacuum. Just because we are formed by these structure too, we are calling it "virtual" - it's just a result of perspective, what we'll consider "virtual" or not. For example, for sound waves these fluctuations in condensing supercritical vapor are virtual particles by the same way, like the virtual particles for light wave in vacuum.

user posted image
czeslaw
QUOTE (Zephir+May 22 2007, 03:58 PM)
Only the AWT supplies some ideas about geometric structure of vacuum. Just because we are formed by these structure too, we are calling it "virtual" - it's just a result of perspective, what we'll consider "virtual" or not. For example, for sound waves these fluctuations in condensing supercritical vapor are virtual particles by the same way, like the virtual particles for light wave in vacuum.

user posted image

I like the AWT idea and I would like to calculate it.
I think that my calculation are a good step.
I would like to discuss it.
http://www.blackholes.int.pl/
Good Elf
Hi All,

Human civilization will never understand anything about entities shorter than (or equal to) the Planck Length. This is for the simple reason that we would need to harness the energy of thousands of dying stars to approach energies equivalent to those limits. It is pure "philosophy".

The other point is have any of you considered why these energies are necessarily to "approach" the "smallest" thing in the Universe? The answer is it is enigmatically the largest object in our Universe.... the ubersurface of our own universe. Consider how the Universe would appear to an individual who has "pushed" his vehicle using the converted mass of a billion solar systems to the velocity of a particle accelerator that could push you as fast as the LHC... You would undergo the most extreme case of "length contraction" and "time dilation" possible. Translated into "plain speak"... the Universe would appear to shrink to a single forward source of very hard radiation and in relationship to everything on Earth and the rest of our Universe, his time would be at a practical standstill... just like the photons of light themselves.

This is the geometry...
Seeing Relativity
This is all the drive to higher energies produces. It is the geometry "reciprocal space"... Specifically a tangential CFT space to our Universe.... on the light cone wall between our Universe and the next.

Cheers
Soultechs
Hi Good Elf, et all.

Thank you Good Elf for your input, It's most appreciated.
However it's been my decision in an attempt to salvage the topic from some others non squirter thought derailing influences to repost the `Hard Gist' of my thread/topic I posted:

There are numerous Types of Energy fields:

Week and Strong nucleic Energy Fields(Forces)(Binding Energy)

Electromagnetic Energy Fields(Like with `Rare Earth Magnets' interacting with Superconductors)

Gravitational Energy Fields(Gravity between Moons, Planets, Suns, Black Holes, Galaxies, Universes.

With respect to Atoms: We comfortably accept the wave/particle duality of light.
We comfortably understand that within a transformer electrons take on the wave energy aspect inducting into the secondary coil producing a current of electrons that we can pass through a resistive material(filament) thus converting the electrons into various spectrum's of light that the filament emits.

However we have a model in our minds suggesting that electrons spin around the nucleus of an atom.

I would say thatís a model thatís easily understood but I would speculate in all probability the electrons are perhaps in wave state where the electrons are really quantified fields of energy that wrap around the nucleus all at once like the field of force surrounding planets, moons, suns.
As like I suggested that electron shells are likely to be shelves of quantified energy: `Electrons in an non alternating wave state wrapped around the nucleus all at once' rather than particles orbiting like stellar objects in the heavens, I would speculate that the nucleus isn't a stack marbles stuck together either.

Particles like Protons, Neutrons, & Electrons etc a pieces of quanta who's Mass, Size, Charge etc can exist individually in a vacuum for certain periods of time all determined by natural laws of physics that we're still trying to understand.

The masses of Elements and there Isotopes differ to the sum total mass of their protons and neutrons, that's what makes fission/fusion possible. The nucleus emits energy in quantifiable pieces Particles/EMF etc in the same way as electron shells/shelves emit quanta to reattain a stable equilibrium when an imbalance occurred

There have been numerous particles observed/discovered capable of existing individually when experimenting with particle accelerators.

However most people think of an nucleus in terms of protons and neutrons arranged like marbles in the shape of a 3 spatial dimension sphere. That is an easy way to visualize/imagine the nucleus, however ProbabbleE the nucleus is an all entwined multidimensional entangled mass of energy that merely emits stable pieces of quanta like Protons/Electrons/Neutrons that we observe individually in experiments.
We do now understand that the gravitational field pertaining to a 3D object is just another dimensional aspect of that object that has always been there, It's an non alternating field thus doesn't ever (propagate away)/(dissipate)

Electrons when propagating through whatever medium do in an alternating wave pattern. When they are stationary in quantified shells/shelves around an nucleus they are in an non alternating state wrapped around the nucleus and thus don't propagate away/dissipate.

The electromagnetic field pertaining to an object is a spatial dimension that pertains to the (electron states)/{stationary,moving} of that object. Whereas the `Gravitationí of objects is a spatial dimension pertaining to the mass of the object: Most of what is the `positive nucleus in terrestrial mater' and is the `negative nucleus in anti-matter'.
The Universe is ProbabbleE an Multi-verse of partially overlapping Universes along all it's edges perhaps to infinite proportions.

All 3D stellar objects/particles within an given Universe/Multi-verse have always been connected as one entity by the other dimensions above 3D pertaining to all mass. These two dimensions I'm referring to are an `Multiversal Sea' that has always been there. It doesn't propagate because it's simply another dimension of an object (Like the electromagnetic field of an magnet is always there and doesn't propagate away like light/radio-waves/microwaves which are alternating waves as is motion of whatever.)

The greater the Mass the greater the gravitation of the object. Gravitation of an abject directly relates to mass of the object and is just another dimension of the 3D object meaning it is part of the object. To ask what is the speed of an gravitational or electromagnetic field is like asking what is the speed of the 3rd dimension of a cube? It's always been there. It's a part of the object.

Gravitation is the most powerful of the two other spatial dimensions because whilst there isn't any real `specific area in the Universe' where there is no `aspect of it': from some object/particle. It's intensity can be greater/smaller in different regions of the `Universe/Multi-verse'

The intensity of that all encompassing Sea of Gravitation determines the `Inertial Mass' of objects in an given region of the Universe furthermore it determines the `Speed at which Time Travels' in that region compared/relative to other regions of differing intensities. Furthermore its intensity determines the `Wavelength/Frequency/`Speed of light' in that region (Don't RQ)' as-well/likewise with the propagation of 3D objects within that dimension/sea
Soultechs
Our eyes can only see 3 spatial dimensions: width, breadth, length however there is more than the eye can see.

What is commonly regarded as electro magnetic and gravitational field are really dimensions pertaining to objects.

The contours of an electro magnetic field can be felt using a superconductor that reflects electro magnetic fields thus pushing away from the object.

Many people here can't figure out how energy fields can attract instantaneously in-spite of being light years in diameter apart.

It's because the energy field is just another dimension pertaining to the object. It's an non alternating field wrapped around the object and thus doesn't propagate away.

Essentially it's like another side/dimension to a cube `that has always been there.'

`To ask whats the speed of gravity is like asking what's the speed of the third dimension of a cube? What? It's always been there.'



Loll, We have physicists here that think that the atomic nucleus is a `STACK' of Black/Red and Blue Marbles `STUCK' together with BluTak: p'oops I meant Gluon's - that makes better sense loll. The physicists think that the electrons or-bit around the nucleus like stellar objects in the heavens loll(?Inspite of the obvious kinetic drag/deception that such mass[electrons] propagation would cause loll)
Protons:Electrons:Neutrons What! loll The English PEN is mightier that the sword? What! loll: Yes as long as what it writes is right:::
Zarabtul
current forcefield technology is used by using large radio transmitters to send very high energy at certain frequency signals through mass broadcast.....
Soultechs
Yes: However your saying `Transmitters': That's an Alternating-Wave that propagates: EVERYTHING that propagates is an `Alternating Wave'( Alternating waves are an aspect of the simultaneous mutual superpositions of energy: Wave-Particle duality. I'm talking about `Non Alternating' Energy-Fields(Dimensions `Pertaining to to subject under observation' Is-Energy that doesn't propagate away): Just as the 3rd dimension of Your (P)Cube doesn't propagate away. Your moving it in and out of tWhatever isn't going to blow the head of it(meaning the 3rd dimension of it) It's sort of attached - part of it - the object. The third dimension is vissionable length. There are numerous dimensions to 3d objects(Mass) that are invissionable but are essential dimensions to everything in the Multi-verse contained at a certain points in time.
Soultechs
It's becoming my belief that photons are realy electrons essentially the both are the same but have had the had their constitutional quantifiable parameters rearanged into another STATE(There could be numerous other states possible aswell) Pls consider the Question posed in the following previous post:

We See `When we Look' that when a `Piece Of Quanta' (Electron) from an Higher Energy shelf/shelve goes down to an Lower Energy shelf/shelve `As in Laser Emissions' an Photon(s) are Ejacted when the(F=from whence it came) Lower Energy shelf/shelve attempts to stitch back that highflying football like electron to it's Lower ranked position.

My Physics Question is in relation to the Periodic table of Elements,
as well as for that matter molecules:

How we can resolve/calculate:
Voltage, Current, AC/DC/BC, Phase Angle, Wavelength,Frequency to the proportional volumes of photons{wavelength,frequency}

To put it simply howmany Photons of {X:wavelength, Yfrequency} from an electron with given potential?

Soultechs
It has been my decision to add the following earlier posts to this topic to converge and crystallize my thoughts into the beginnings of an theory of dimensions(non alternating), mass propagation particles/objects(Alternating wave) multi-verse entanglement of our universe

That's an very interesting post Metamars. It's just reminded me of some of my posts from a month ago that seem to have similarities. I have cut and pasted them from the Phys Orgs record of my posts. I have enlarged and emboldened the similar parts:

Some people last year ago may recall when my member name was chrisrivos i posted a formulae relating to the pace at what time was occurring to what we see in our telescopes as the beginnings of the big bang. As the Universe expands the graviton flux is less intense and thus meaning the density of space is less meaning what we see in our telescopes on earth of the big bang happening was a long time ago and a million years in then time is what we see now in one second through the telescope of the mythical center of origin. Furthermore it occurred to me just a short while ago and got gagged again. Is this! There were wild suggestions that the speed of light is slowing down compared to what it used to be! How figure? If gravitation can bend light there is a strong probability that when in the early universe it impeded it and as the Universe expands time will travel faster on Earth relative to the big bang and proportionately the speed of light will travel faster than in the gravitationally denser beginnings of the Universe.

Furthermore in relation to my above post the Doppler red shift seen in telescopes could possibly be a consequence of the fact that we are seeing light from galaxies that was emitted 13 billion years ago. At hat point in time the density of space (graviton flux) was greater and thus time and light traveled slower> meaning old galaxies look red because the spectral emissions were redder in those days and today we look in the telescope at petered out light The photons from 13billion years ago had a specific energy level and wont suddenly gain energy for our sake to see blue heavens. If scientists seen galaxies with a blue light Doppler shift the would think they are traveling inward and the Universe is collapsing, panic! Good god loll! The ends of universe loll rolleyes.gif

We understand that `The Duration of a second' today is a lot faster than it would have been a billion years. `In spite of the fact that living within either time point would seem the same to that person.'
However the Universe has been expanding from a Billion years ago and longer than that! And as the Universe expands the density of space lessens and the `Density of Space' defines the rate at `which time flyís' in relation of region(1) compared to region(2) which may be a Billion years apart in terms of era within the expanding enclosed Universe.
The density of space gets bigger the closer you get to a black hole.
So if we think of region(2) in the parameters of (c,t,s)(region1) what are the corresponding parameters of (c,S,T,)(region2)

I have seen information on the Internet that E=mc^2 is wrong because the speed of light has been slowing down proportionately to expanding universe

Any thoughts?

March 26 2006 Thank you for your opinion Zephir however Iím not con-vincent!

I went and got a piece of paper and it took me less than 3 minutes to fiddle with the relativistic time and
Mass dilation's to arrive at a level of proportionality where the Lorenz bit cancels out. In five steps you have:

m/M=T/t where Uppercase letters are at relativistic velocity and lowercase are relative to rest on Earth.

And now would postulate that t on Earth today compared to a billion years ago T would relate to the ratio of `density of Space' {D,d} of the two periods thus

T/t = d/D where uppercase relates to the past and lowercase to the present!

I just hope I didnít accidentally get something upside-down, it tricky assigning upper and lower cases from one formula to another.
And now I would postulate that t on Earth today compared to a billion years ago T would relate to the ratio of `density of Space' {D,d} of the two periods thus

T/t = d/D where uppercase relates to the past and lowercase to the present!

I understand your confusion as to what is what and when and the confusion stems from our natural instinctive perception that a lowercase character must be of a lesser value than an uppercase version of itself! This would be the effect if you looked at T/t along that perceptional line of thought.

Let me qualify both T and t are equal to the `duration of a second' and would be experienced/perceived in EXACTLY the same way by humans living in either era. However in the realm of an Expanding Universe I am trying to show how much faster time is flying denoted by T compared to a distant bygone era where the `Duration of a second is denoted t.

As the universe expands from start to finish the density of space lessens. So density of a region has gone from Denser: D{In the past} too a Less Dense d {In the present.

Now in the topic post I said I would resort to my own algebraic notation if I had to and I will in an attempt to make it simpler:



Let's tumble around the inverse proportionality a little bit and consider a different style of visual depiction: Everything above the lines is being divided by everything below the lines

t t t t t t t t t[Present] D{The Density of Space in a bygone era}
_________________ Is an equal ratio of _________________________________

T T T T T T [Past] d{The the less dense space of [Present]

Now look I have depicted [Present] time with 9 tee's and past with 6 Tee's this is analogous to the time dilation effects that would be perceived by an astronaut in a rocket traveling at relativistic velocities:

What velocity? well lets not get the next formulae confused but if a rocket basted of with our clocks ticking like tee's at some velocity his cock in the rocket would be ticking like the Tee's meaning that 9 second would have elapsed when he has only experienced 6 seconds and see that as right on his clock as well.

thus 6 = 9(1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

then 6/9 =(1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

then (6/9)^2 = (1 - v^2/c^)

then {1 - (6/9)^2} must = v^2/c^2

then (c^2){1 - (6/9)^2} = v^2

then [(c^2){1 - (6/9)^2}^(1/2) = v

then [c]{1 - (6/9)^2}^(1/2) = v

then [c]{(9-6)(9+6)/81}^(1/2) = v

then [c]{45/81}^(1/2) = v

then [c]{(45)^(1/2)}/9 = v

where (sqrt of 45 divided by 9) times c times 100% means 74.53% of c

Let c = 186282mps thus a relativistic velocity that would cause a time dilation on his rocket of 6/9 which is the same as 2/3 would be 74.53% of the speed of light!
v = 138846.4 miles per second.

Re- entering into well know equation T = t{1 - v^2/c^}^(1/2)
gives the answer 0.666666666 which is what 6/9 and 2/3 are!

His rocket would also have a mass 3/2 larger than when not moving

Thatís what time dilation is all about.

What my theory is that a similar dilation also happens with the passage of time from the beginning (not as a result of velocity) but as a result of the Expanding Universe causing space to become less dense which means that 1 second at the dawn of time elapsing would be like an eternity for us now.

And any physicist wanting to plug hole into this from some angle remember what the universe could have been like in the beginning - and even along the lines of a mere black hole well even that has an event horizon where a whilst anyone a second near it would experience a second meanwhile we here on Earth would have near experienced an eternity before that above mentioned second elapsed.


Here's the quote from the start:
And now I would postulate that t on Earth today compared to a billion years ago T would relate to the ratio of `density of Space' {D, d} of the two periods thus

T/t = d/D where uppercase relates to the past and lowercase to the present!

I hope this was a better explanation of the theory I tried to express in yesterdays
post.

When I joined PhysOrg I expressed my theory that thing at points in time are often gravitationally/multidimentionally-trans-time less random that other points in time.

Furthermore In other posts I expressed that Iím 20 years plus familiar with seeing trans-time entangled phenomena that the conspicuous astronomical probabilities of unlikelihood donít make me battet an eyelid of surprise.

Thus I would like to draw your cumulative insights of the following and the probability of that sequence:

In the above derivation I involved the measurement of Pie 6/9 meaning 2/3 in the above experimental equations.

An figure of 74.53 was obtained.

Interesting sideline when the digetís are reversed and added they then equal 100. Look: 74 53 => 47 + 53 = 100! Explain that `You Míother Smucker's' loll. At point in time from beginning to end some tings were/are less random that other points in time. tongue.gif
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 youíll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.